R v Turnbull [1977] | Landmark Case on Identification Evidence
The definitive guide on challenging unreliable eyewitness testimony.
1. Case Overview
Court: Court of Appeal (England and Wales)
Key Legal Principle: Reliability of eyewitness identification evidence.
The Legal Weapon: The “Turnbull Warning” and the ADVOKATE test.
2. The Facts of the R v Turnbull Case
The case involved the appeals of several individuals, most notably Raymond Turnbull and Camberwell Whitby.
Historically, the police relied heavily on eyewitnesses who claimed they “saw the face” of the suspects during a crime.
Specifically, in these instances, the prosecution based its entire case on identification without any supporting forensic evidence.
However, the defense challenged these convictions. They argued that even honest witnesses could be mistaken, especially in stressful situations.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal had to decide how to handle “thin” identification evidence to prevent miscarriages of justice. In summary, the court recognized that a confident witness is not always a reliable one.
3. The Legal Significance of R v Turnbull Today
First of all, R v Turnbull remains the primary shield against wrongful convictions based on mistaken identity.
Historically, many innocent people went to prison because of “honest but mistaken” witnesses.
However, thanks to this landmark ruling, every modern jury receives a specific “Turnbull warning.” This warning forces them to examine the quality of the identification under the ADVOKATE criteria.
Moreover, the impact of R v Turnbull extends beyond English courts.
Consequently, many international jurisdictions have adopted similar safeguards to ensure a fair trial.
In summary, the case ensures that identification evidence is never accepted blindly.
Therefore, it remains a cornerstone of criminal defense strategy today.
4. The Decision (The Ratio)
The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions, but more importantly, it established a mandatory procedure for all future identification cases.
First of all, the court ruled that whenever the prosecution’s case relies substantially on disputed identification, the judge must give the jury a specific “Turnbull warning.”
Specifically, this warning instructs the jury to exercise extreme caution when evaluating such evidence.
Consequently, the court introduced the ADVOKATE test to assess the quality of the identification.
For example, the judge must examine factors such as
the Amount of time the witness had the suspect under observation and
the Distance between them.
Moreover, if the quality of the identification is “thin” or poor, the judge has the power to withdraw the case from the jury entirely.
In summary, the ratio of R v Turnbull ensures that identification evidence undergoes a rigorous “surgical” audit before it can lead to a conviction.