c. Other visual identification procedures

c. Other visual identification procedures

When it is not feasible to perform an identification parade before trial, or if the defendant declines to take part in such a parade, alternative methods of visual identification can be employed instead. The evidence obtained through these alternative procedures may be considered admissible.

Confrontation

Confrontation, as a method of identification, is considered even less reliable compared to an informal identification parade. It may be regarded as the least satisfactory form of visual identification. In a confrontation, the eyewitness is directly brought face-to-face with the suspect to determine if they can identify them. This approach carries a significant risk of bias and incorrect identification.

Confrontation method, as a last resort, should be utilised only where the accused has exercised his right to refuse participation in a parade or where for some reason the holding of a parade is impossible. The prosecution, in these circumstances, has to introduce evidence to explain why the holding of a parade was impossible. Such approach is generally discouraged.

Informal Identification parade

An informal identification parade is also known as group confrontation as the eyewitness is asked to identify the defendant among a particular group of people in a public place. Such a method is less ideal than an identification parade because the other people present might not resemble the suspect physically. The exclusion of identification evidence in an informal identification parade would depend on whether there are irregularities which might have occasioned a wrong identification.

Photographic and video identification

New methods of visual identification are possible with technological advancements. Here, we discuss two forms of visual identification: photographic and video identification.

Photographic identification

Regarding photographic identification, this is conducted before an arrest, where the police show the eyewitnesses photographs to see whether the eyewitness could recognise the suspect among them. Photographic identification is less preferable than an identification parade and only permitted where similar persons are shown at the same time. The danger of having such identification evidence adduced in trial is that the jury minds might be prejudiced into thinking that the defendant had been convicted before. The jury should be warned of the danger that the identification came from photo recollection rather than the actual incident.

Video identification

Concerning video identification, it is nowadays permissible for a video recording device to record the commission of a crime with such resolution and clarity for the tribunal to conduct identification themselves. In HKSAR v Lee Chi Fai [2003] 3 HKLRD 751, the judge must ask, first, whether the evidence is of relevance. Second, if so, whether it was prima facie authentic, made out by evidence which defined and described the provenance and history of the recordings up to the moment of production in court. If it was prima facie authentic, then it was admissible. Any attack thereafter could only go to weight, which might embrace further inquiries into its authenticity, its provenance and history, whether it was an original, and if not, how it came to be copied. It was then for the jury to decide whether its authenticity was beyond doubt and if its contents proved or added to the proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In HKSAR v Wong Cho Shing [2019] 4 HKC 401, the Court of Appeal pronounced the test for admission and ruled that those “open sources” videos were admissible.

Facial mapping

Facial Mapping is a way to compare the facial features of the person appearing in two or more sources to see if they belong to the same person concerned. Facial mapping is admissible when the defendant was in disguise or modified his appearance.