LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By M.
IK
TOPIC 2: IDENTIFICATION PARADE
Ivan. K. Mugabi (Module facilitator) 0703310581 or
0778249808
ivan_mugabik@[Link] or ikmugabi@[Link]
Table of Contents
TOPIC 2: IDENTIFICATION PARADE ................................................................................... 1
2.1. Introduction and definition to identification parade: ..................................................... 2
2.2. Legal history or background of identification parade. ................................................... 3
2.2.1. The Turnbull Guidelines as legal history to identification parades ........................ 3
2.3. Purpose and Evidentiary Value of identification parade Core-Principles Common
Law ............................................................................................................................................. 4
2.4. Identification parade in the context of Ugandan law ...................................................... 9
2.5. Procedural safeguards in the course of conducting identification parades .................. 9
2.5.1. Key Ugandan Cases on identification parades........................................................ 11
2.6. Identification by a single witness .................................................................................... 15
2.7. Materials for further reading on identification parade:............................................... 18
1
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
2.1. Introduction and definition to identification parade:
An identification parade (also known as a police lineup) is a formal investigative procedure where
a suspect is placed in a group of several other people of similar appearance so that a witness or
victim can attempt to identify them as the perpetrator of a crime.
According to the Merrian Webster Dictionary an identification parade is a line of people who stand
next to each other while someone tries to identify one of them as the person who has committed a
crime.
The Community legal Information Centre at University of Hong Kong has defined an identification
parade to mean an identification parade is a process used to collect visual identification evidence
in which the suspect stands among actors and the eyewitness attempts to identify the perpetrator
from this lineup. Consequently, the entire identification parade procedure, including the
defendant's identification or non-identification and the specific circumstances surrounding it, may
be introduced as evidence during the trial.
The Research Society of International Law (RSIL) has also defined an identification Parade is an
investigation tool used by the police to help identify the culprit, given there is a witness. It involves
lining the suspect of a crime with individuals (dummies) that match their description. A witness is
then required to identify the suspect out of the individuals. The identification test is normally
conducted when an accused is not previously known to the witnesses and they have his momentary
glimpse. It becomes imperative to hold such a test if the witnesses claim that they can identify the
accused, if brought before them.
Various courts across different common law jurisdictions have also defined identification parades
in a number of court decisions and among others some of those decisions include;
Ramanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1978 SC 1204): The court defined the parade as a
long-standing practice with the object of placing a suspect in a "line-up with other persons for
identification." It serves to help investigating officers ascertain if a witness actually saw the
perpetrator and to test their capacity to identify them.
Kinyanjui & 2 Others v. Republic (1989 KLR 60): As cited in recent 2025 judgments, this case
explains that the purpose is "to give an opportunity to a witness under controlled and fair
conditions to pick out the people he is able to identify, and for a proper record to be made of that
event to remove possible later confusion."
Regina v. Forbes [2001] AC 473, [2001] All 686, [2001] WLR 1: Defined the parade as a method
in which the witness takes the initiative in picking out the accused among others. It is considered
a necessary precursor to identifying a suspect in court unless it is impractical such as where the
suspect refuses to line-up in the parade or unnecessary like in cases where a suspect is already
well-known to the witness.
2
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
2.2. Legal history or background of identification parade.
Evidence-based practices such as:
• Sequential Lineups: Showing suspects one at a time, rather than all at once, which
reduces the rate of mistaken identification. Accordingly, cases such as R v Hristov R
v Hristov (1985) 8 CRNZ 158 (CA) and R v Tamihere [1991] 1 NZLR 195 emphasize
the quality of identification by scrutinizing unfair practices like street identifications
over mere procedure.
• Double-Blind Procedures: The officer administering the lineup does not know who
the actual suspect is, which prevents inadvertent cues. Video Identification (VID):
Widely adopted countries such as the UK. This move is aimed towards better fairness
by allowing multiple viewings, reducing witness-to-witness contamination, and
enabling better record-keeping, aligning with double-blind goals. Perry v. UK (ECHR
2003) While about a video ID breach, it shows the ECHR's focus on substantive
fairness, where procedural failures (like lack of proper legal advice/fair video) can
affect admissibility. See also R. v Perry (Stephen Arthur) Times, April 28, 2000,
[2000] 4 WLUK 14
2.2.1. The Turnbull Guidelines as legal history to identification parades
The most influential common law case setting the standard for handling identification evidence
is R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224. While not strictly about the parade procedure itself, these
guidelines dictate how a judge must direct a jury when the case depends wholly or substantially
on disputed visual identification evidence:
1. Judicial Warning: The judge must warn the jury of the special need for caution before
convicting on identification evidence due to the risk of a honest but mistaken witness.
2. Assess Quality of Evidence: The judge must direct the jury to examine the "quality" of the
identification evidence, considering factors such as:
• The length of time the suspect was observed.
• The distance and lighting conditions.
• Any obstruction to the view.
• Whether the witness knew the suspect previously.
• The time lapse between the crime and the identification.
3
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
3. Search for Corroboration: If the quality of the identification evidence is poor, the judge
must look for other supporting evidence that links the accused to the crime (corroboration)
before a conviction can be safely sustained.
Failure to hold an identification parade when it is reasonable and practicable to do so can weaken
the prosecution's case and attract a strong judicial warning.
Turnbull Guidelines have led to the ADVOKATE Framework
To aid in the practical application of the Turnbull guidelines, the ADVOKATE acronym was
developed. It provides a structured approach for evaluating the reliability of eyewitness testimony
and it is good practice to include in witness statements:
A – Amount of Time: How long was the suspect observed?
D – Distance: How far away was the witness?
V – Visibility: What were the lighting and visibility conditions?
O – Obstructions: Were there any obstructions to the view?
K – Known or Seen Before: Was the suspect previously known to the witness?
A – Any Reason to Remember: Was there something distinctive about the suspect?
T – Time Lapsed: How much time passed between the initial observation and subsequent
identification?
E – Errors or Discrepancies: Were there inconsistencies in the witness’s description?
This framework ensures a systematic and thorough assessment of identification evidence.
The above precedents manifest a legal history which demonstrates a trajectory from unregulated
identifications that caused wrongful convictions to more stringent rule. These evolving scientific
practices are aimed at safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice process. In most Common
law jurisdictions, the identification parade (or lining-up) is recognized as one of the most reliable
pre-trial mechanisms for testing a witness's ability to identify a suspect.
2.3. Purpose and Evidentiary Value of identification parade Core-Principles Common Law
The primary purpose of an identification parade is not to obtain substantive evidence of guilt itself,
but rather to:
4
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
• Test the witness's credibility and their capacity to recognize the person they saw during
the crime. See R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224, [1976]3 All ER 549
• Corroborate the witness's evidence through-court identification. The identification
made at the parade is generally considered the "best evidence" of the initial identification,
which is then formally confirmed when the witness identifies the accused in court. R v
Finley [1993] Crim LR
Core Common Law Principles for identification Parades
While specific procedures are now codified in Acts and Police regulations, the underlying common
law principles emphasize fairness, impartiality, and the avoidance of suggestion.
i Fairness is Mandatory: The procedure must be conducted scrupulously fairly. Any
unfairness or suggestive practice can lead to the evidence being excluded or its value
diminished significantly. The European Court of Human Rights in the Laska and Lika v.
Albania Court’s case-law No. 129 April 2010 found a violation of fair trial rights where
suspects were unfairly presented to witnesses.
ii No Suggestion: The witness must not be prompted or influenced in any way before or
during the parade. Showing a witness a single photograph of the suspect before the parade
renders the subsequent identification largely valueless. Some of the key cases and legal
principles emphasizing this rule include:
S v Mehlape (1963) (2) SA 29 This South African case established that for identification
evidence to be reliable, the witness must have had a "proper opportunity" to observe the
accused, a standard that is compromised by prompting.
Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay (1955) AIR 104: in this case the
Supreme Court of India emphasized that the value of corroborating evidence from an
identification parade depends on the precautions exercised by the magistrate, including
ensuring no police officer is present to prompt the witnesses.
Sheikh Hasib v. State of Bihar (1972) 4 SCC. 773 The bench of 3 judges in India highlights
procedural flaws, such as belated identification parades or the accused being seen by
witnesses before the parade, which can raise doubts about investigative integrity and render
the identification unreliable.
5
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
Uganda v Abelle Asuman (2010) (HCT-04-CR-SC-0052-2010): This judgment emphasized
that witnesses should not see the accused before the parade and should not communicate
with each other after the parade.
iii Presence of Others: The suspect is placed among a number of individuals (typically at
least eight individuals of similar age, height, general appearance, and social status. This
ensures the suspect does not stand out. Some of the key cases and legal principles
emphasizing this rule include:
S v Langa and Others (C 40/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 303, in this South African case, the
court explicitly stated that "Common sense dictates that the non-suspects participating in an
identification parade should be similar to the suspect in general appearance". The judgment
notes that police practice requires non-suspects to be "of about the same height, build age and
appearance" as the suspect. The court held that if the non-suspects (fillers) in the parade are
too few or markedly different from the suspect, the probative value of the identification is
"greatly reduced". This case affirmed the necessity of the physical similarity principle for a
fair identification.
Thompson (David) v R [1998] UKPC 31 (Privy Council handling an appeal from Jamaica
dealt with an identification parade where four men were significantly taller than the appellant
(Lewis, referenced within the judgment) and one considerably shorter; only one man was of
the same height. The court held that while the regulations were procedural and a breach did
not automatically invalidate the parade or make the identification a nullity, such a failure would
have the effect of "weakening the weight to be given to an identification made at such a
parade". The case is an important example of how a breach of the "same appearance" rule
affects the weight and credibility of the evidence rather than its admissibility.
Rex v Samuel (Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 1948) [1948] EACA 82: While an older case, it
sets an early precedent in the East African Court of Appeal regarding the conditions of
identification parades. The court emphasized the importance of a responsible police officer
testifying to the conditions under which the parade was held to "exclude any possibility that
the identification made in it was an unfair one". The principles established in this era, which
underpin modern practice (such as those found in the Ugandan Supreme Court's restatement
of rules), demand that the accused is placed among "at least eight persons, as far as possible of
similar age, height, general appearance and class of life". These early judgments highlight the
6
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
long-standing judicial recognition that a fair comparison group is crucial to the fairness of the
identification process
iv Suspect's Rights: The accused has the right to have a legal representative or friend present
during the parade and can choose their position in the line-up. Their objections to the
fairness of the parade must be recorded. See R v. Forbes [2001].[Link].473, HL. See also
cases that have emphasized that suspects generally have a right to have a lawyer or friend
present during the parade to ensure fairness, as highlighted in R v Bradley Graham and
Randy Lewis (1986) 23 JLR 230
v Multiple Witnesses: Each witness views the parade separately and must not communicate
with other witnesses before or after their viewing. S v Tshuma [2022] ZAGPJHC 543
(South Africa): In this case, the court considered the procedures followed during an
identification parade. The judgment noted procedural doubts, including whether the witness
who brought the complainant to the identification room ought to have discussed the
procedure with the complainant, reinforcing the importance of separating witnesses and
preventing communication.
• Malkhan Singh v State of M.P., AIR 2003 SC 2669 (India): The Indian Supreme Court has
consistently held that the objective of a test identification parade is to test the memory of the
witnesses without any external aid. The necessity for holding a parade arises only when the accused
is not previously known to the witnesses, and the process must be conducted fairly, which
inherently requires the isolation of witnesses from each other.
The Research Society for International Law (RSIL) has also developed a useful checklist that
appears helpful in guiding tool to both lawyers and law students in establishing whether the correct
procedure of an identification parade was followed and fully complied with. This is presented in
the figure below.
7
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
8
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
2.4. Identification parade in the context of Ugandan law
Ugandan law, identification parades are crucial investigative tools governed largely by judicial
precedent and Police Force Standing Orders, rather than specific sections within the Evidence Act
itself. The primary goal is to test the reliability of a witness's identification and minimize the risk
of a wrongful conviction based on mistaken identity.
The following are the key legal principles
• Rule of Prudence, Not Mandatory Law: Holding an identification parade is not a
mandatory legal requirement in every case. The court can convict based on visual
identification without a parade, provided the judge is satisfied there is no danger of
mistaken identity and the evidence is reliable.
• Necessity: A parade is necessary primarily when the witness did not previously know
the suspect and the circumstances for observation during the crime were difficult or
fleeting.
• Irrelevance in Recognition Cases: If the witness and accused were familiar with
each other before the incident (a case of "recognition," not mere "identification"), a
parade is generally considered unnecessary and of little value because the witness is
simply confirming someone they already know.
• Admissibility vs. Weight: A properly conducted parade provides
strong corroborative evidence of a witness's in-court identification. An improperly
conducted parade, or the failure to hold one when necessary, significantly depreciates
the weight (value) of the identification evidence, although it may still be admissible.
2.5. Procedural safeguards in the course of conducting identification parades
Ugandan courts have adopted and emphasized a set of rules for conducting parades, derived from
case law such as R v Mwango s/o Manaa (1936) 3 EACA 29 and Sentale v Uganda (1968) EA
365, to ensure fairness and prevent suggestion.
Key requirements for a valid identification parade include:
1. The accused must be informed of their right to have a lawyer or friend present.
2. The officer in charge of the case should not conduct the parade.
3. Witnesses must not see the accused before the parade.
4. The accused must be placed among at least eight persons of similar age, height,
appearance, and social class.
9
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
5. The accused can choose their position in the line and change it after each witness
leaves.
6. Witnesses must view the parade separately and not communicate with each other.
7. The witness should be told they will see a group of people that may or may
not contain the suspect, to avoid suggestion.
8. A detailed note must be made of the entire process, including any comments or
objections from the accused.
Case law such as Abdalla Nabulere & Another v Uganda Court of Appeal Cr. App. No. 12 of
1981; [1979] HCB 77
In the case of Abdalla Nabulere v Uganda (1979) HCB 77: three appellants were convicted of
murder of the deceased who was a former wife of the 3rd accused. It was alleged that the appellants
entered the deceaseds hut at night. They hit her on the head and shoulders killing her instantly. At
the trial the principal witness who lived with the deceased in the same room and was present at the
time testified that she saw the appellant cutting the deceased and running out the verandah. That
upon the witness making an alarm, the appellants immediately followed her. The 1st appellant hit
her on the left upper arm which was later amputated and the 2nd appellant hit her on the other side.
The appellants then ran away. It was admitted that the hut was dark but the prosecution witness
N0. 1 knew all the accused before the attack and also saw them outside the verandah under bright
moonlight. The alarm was answered by Prosecution witness 3 and 4 who were neighbors of the
deceased. Upon arrival, PW1 told them what had taken place which they repeated at the trial
although they gave different versions of it. The other witness who went to the scene also gave
contradictory evidence. The issue was whether PW1s identification evidence was admissible.
Court held that a conviction based on visual identification evidence of a single witness invariably
causes a degree of uneasiness because such evidence can give rise to a miscarriage of justice. There
is always a possibility that a witness though honest maybe mistaken. For this reason, courts have
over the years developed rules of practice to minimize the dangers of wrongful conviction thus;
1. Testimony of a single witness regarding identification must be taken with great care.
2. The need for caution is must be taken when it is known that conditions favouring correct
identification were difficult.
3. Where conditions were difficult, other evidence pointing to guilt is needed before a
conviction can be upheld. Otherwise, subject to well-known exceptions, it is lawful to convict on
10
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
the identification of a single witness so long as a judge addresses him or herself to the danger of
basing a conviction on such evidence.
In Abdallas case where a case against the accused depends wholly or substantially on the
correctness of one or more identifications of the accused, the Judge should warn him or herself
before convicting the accused because there is a possibility that the witness was could have been
mistaken. The Judge should examine the circumstances in which the identification was made
particularly the length of time the accused was under observation, the distance between the witness
and the accused, the light available and the familiarity of the witness with the accused and that all
factors got the authority of identification evidence.
When the quality of identification is poor, i.e. when it depends on the fleeting glance all a long
observation made in difficult conditions or if for instance witness did not know the accused before
and saw him for the first time in a dark or badly lit room, the situation is very different. That in
such case, court should look for other evidence which goes to support the correctness of
identification before convicting on that evidence alone.
Although as a general rule testimony of a single witness regarding identification must be tested
with great care, where the quality of identification is good, a court can safely convict even though
there is no other evidence to support the identification provided that the court
The case established that where identification evidence is of poor quality or the parade was flawed,
the court must look for other independent evidence (corroboration) to link the accused to the crime.
Without such corroboration, a conviction is generally unsafe.
2.5.1. Key Ugandan Cases on identification parades
The leading authorities outlining the rules and the court's approach to identification parades
include:
• R v Mwango s/o Manaa (1936) 3 EACA 29: This early East African Court of
Appeal case is foundational. It established the strict procedural rules that police
must follow when conducting a parade to ensure fairness. The case held that the
officer in charge of the investigation should not conduct the parade, the suspect
should be placed among persons of similar appearance, and precautions must
be taken to prevent witnesses from seeing the suspect beforehand or
communicating with each other.
11
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
• Sentale v Uganda (1968) EA 365, this case reaffirmed the Mwango rules and
emphasized that a judge must caution themselves about the steps followed during
the parade procedure. Failure to follow these rules depreciates the value of the
identification evidence significantly.
• Abdalla Nabulere & Another v Uganda (1979) HCB 77: This is the locus
classicus case regarding disputed identification evidence in Uganda. Abdallah bin
Wendo & Another v R 20 EACA 166 the appellants were convicted of murder of
a plantation watchman on a very dark night. Held: The trial judge convicted the
appellants feeling it safe to accept evidence of one man as to their identity. It was
articulated the test for correct identification, stating that courts must examine such
evidence carefully, caution themselves about the dangers of mistaken identity,
and be satisfied that the circumstances of identification were favorable and free
from error.
• Sgt Baluku Samuel & Another v Uganda (2018) UGSC 26: In this recent
Supreme Court case, the court reiterated the detailed Mwango rules for
conducting identification parades. The court specifically held that where other
cogent evidence sufficiently connects the accused to the crime (corroboration),
the failure to conduct an identification parade is not fatal to the conviction. The
judgment also stressed that officers must act with scrupulous fairness, otherwise
the value of the identification evidence will depreciate considerably.
Note that the purpose of identification parade is to avoid wrong conviction. In the case of Moses
Kasana v Uganda [1988-90] HCB 3, court noted that evidence of identification parade is of no
value if the witness has known the accused before. The parade should only be to enable a witness
who did not know the suspect before or who ever saw him after the offence to confirm his
identification.
In the case of Kurong Stanley v Uganda (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 314 of 2003) [2008]
UGCA 11 court noted
“We now turn to the merits of the appeal. We find it convenient to begin with the evidence
of the identification parade. The learned trial judge considered the evidence at length and
came to the conclusion that the parade was conducted in accordance with the rules laid
12
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
down in Republic vs Mwango s/o Manaa (1936) EACA 29. It is this conclusion that was
challenged by the appellants’ counsel at the trial of the appeal. We begin with his
submission that the appellant was never informed of his right to request that a lawyer be
present at the parade and that this omission was fatal to the whole parade. Counsel relied
on the case of Ssesanga Stephen vs Uganda Civil Appeal No.85 of 2000 (CA) in which
this Court held that the right of the accused to be informed that he could have his lawyer
present was mandatory and failure to inform him would be fatal to the parade. In the instant
case, the appellant was asked whether he had an advocate whom he wished to attend and
he answered in the negative. In our view, the fact that the appellant was asked whether he
had lawyer should have alerted him to the possibility that he could have a lawyer present
if he wished to have one present. He could have asked there and then whether, if he had
one, he would be allowed to attend. Instead, he simply answered that he had no lawyer and
never complained thereafter about the absence of one at the identification parade. We think
that this case is distinguishable from the Ssesanga case where the appellant was never
alerted to the possibility that he could require that an advocate or a friend attends the
parade.
The second objection to the parade is that witnesses at the parade were shown the appellant before
the exercise was conducted. We have read the evidence of PW7, the officer who carried out the
parade, and the appellant’s own evidence on the matter. We do not find any evidence to support
that claim. The learned trial judge can be forgiven for rejecting the appellant’s evidence on the
matter because, on the whole, she found that he was an “inveterate liar”. As the trial judge who
had the opportunity to see all the witnesses, including the appellant, in the witness box, she was
entitled to make that finding.
The third objection was that at the parade, the appellant was lined up with people of dissimilar
appearance in size and height which made it easy to be identified.
The rules in Mwango case (supra) require that the accused should be placed as far as possible
with persons of similar age, general appearance and class of life of himself or herself. According
to PW7 Ojok Bona who conducted the parade, most of the volunteers who participated in the
13
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
parade were “almost of same size” with the suspect. We also note that most of the volunteers were
aged between 18 and 31 years except one who was aged 37 which was also the age of the appellant.
It is not always an easy matter to assemble eight volunteers of similar age, height and size, but all
effort should be made towards that direction so that the suspect does not stand out as manifestly
distinct from all other participants. We accept the evidence of the police officer (PW7) that he
lined up eight people of similar appearances of the appellant save that only one of them was of his
age. However, since the witnesses did not know the age of the appellant, this could not have
occasioned a miscarriage of justice or prejudice the judgment of the witnesses. Moreover, this was
not one of the reasons that the appellant advanced against the fairness of the whole exercise when
he was asked whether he was satisfied with the conduct of the parade. We hold that the irregularity
on age differential is minor and did not prejudice the fairness of the whole exercise.
Finally, counsel challenged the fairness of the conduct of the parade on the ground that it was
suggested to the witnesses that the man whom they saw in Gulu at the scene of crime was definitely
one of the nine men paraded. According to DW7, he was instructing the identifying witness to
walk along the parade and to touch the person he/she saw in Gulu if he/she recognised one. Four
witnesses were told the same thing and they picked out the appellant. The appellant himself agrees
that this was the procedure used. Counsel for the appellant did not tell us the words PW7 used that
suggested that the suspect would be in the parade. We do not agree that the instructions PW 7 gave
the witnesses suggested what counsel for the appellant is complaining of. All he said was that if
you recognise among these people the man you saw in Gulu, then touch him. The use of the word
IF clearly left the possibility that the suspect may be there and you don’t recognise him or he may
not be there at all. This objection to the fairness of the parade is unfounded and we reject it.
On the whole, we find that there were a few minor irregularities in the exercise but on the whole
they did not prejudice the fairness of the identification parade. Both PW7 (the police witness) and
the appellant himself agree that four witnesses picked out the appellant from the line. We agree
with the trial court that there was no credible evidence that three Gulu lodge witnesses who picked
the appellant from the line were shown the appellant before the exercise began. It is unfortunate
that two of them did not testify in court but the appellant himself testified that they picked him out
14
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
of the parade of eight volunteers. We hold that the identification parade was conducted properly
and fairly.”
The leading authority is the case of: Abudala Nabulere & 2 Others v Uganda, Court of Appeal
Cr. App. No. 12 of 1981; [1979] HCB 77
Held: The court observed the following:
“Where the case against the accused depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of
one or more identifications of the accused, which the defence disputes, the judge should
warn himself and the assessors of the special need for caution before convicting the
accused in reliance on the correct identification or identifications. The reason for the
special caution is that there is a possibility that a mistaken witness can be a convincing
one, that even a number of such witnesses can all be mistaken. The judge should then
examine closely the circumstances the identification came to be made, particularly the
length of time, the distance, the light, the familiarity of the witness with the accused. All
these factors go to the quality of the identification evidence. If the quality is good the
danger of mistaken identity is reduced, but the poorer the quality the greater the danger.”
2.6. Identification by a single witness
Under s. 133 of the Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is required to prove any
fact. Accordingly, even a single witness can be called to prove a fact. However, because of the
dangers associated with such testimony, the courts have set out certain rules in this regard.
In the case of Areet Sam v Uganda Supreme Court Criminal Appeal 20/2005, court believed that
there was ample evidence to show conclusively that both the appellant and his co-accused were at
the scene of the murder during that fatal shooting of the deceased. The findings of the learned trial
judge on this matter are vividly accurate.
In its decision the supreme court cited the detailed judgment of the trial judge who observed;
“ As regards the crucial question whether it was the accused persons who caused the death
of the deceased the prosecution contended that it was the accused persons in concert with
others not before court, who caused the death of the deceased. In order to prove this
15
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
contention, the prosecution relied on the evidence of two identifying witnesses, namely
Demetria Akiteng, wife of the deceased (PW1) and Opado John Charles, the son of the
deceased (PW2). The prosecution also relied on the evidence of Ochom John, an LDU
(PW3) and Ilakut Steven, an LC Official (PW4) […] “
Amooti Immaculate v Uganda High Court Criminal Appeal 27 of 2007, the court of appeal
noted that the learned trial Magistrate reviewed the evidence of Ms. Kiconco concerning the time
she saw the appellant and the conversation she had with her about custody of PW2's keys and
whereabouts of her children. She further reviewed Ms. Mbabazi's evidence on identification before
proceeding to analyze evidence of the two witnesses. At the end of her analyses, she concluded
that appellant was properly identified and that there was no need to hold identification parade for
identification of the appellant by PW1. The trial court added that PW1 did not identify appellant
by co-incidence because on the one hand, there was evidence that PW2 who was a friend of one
Gloria Mukasa told Gloria about keeping the stolen money in her house. There was also evidence
on the other hand showing that Gloria and the appellant were close friends.
Uganda v George Wilson Simbwa Sct. Cr. App No. 37 of 1995 the respondent was tried and
acquitted of murder. The DPP appealed against the acquittal arguing that the appeal involves a
point of law of public importance. It was alleged that one night while the deceased and his son
guarded their banana plantation against thieves who used to steal their bananas, the respondent,
armed with a spear and a panga went to the plantation to steal. The deceased’s son saw him and
the deceased went forward to confront him but was speared by the respondent. The son raised an
alarm which many villagers answered. When they arrived at the scene the deceased was still alive
and told them that he had been stabbed by the respondent. The respondent lived on the same village
as the deceased and was well-known to the deceased’s family. The trial judge found the conditions
in the banana plantation unfavourable for easy identification. That it was in a valley, no evidence
was given to show that the two-cell torch held by the deceased’s son gave out light of sufficient
intensity, no evidence was led to show how the clusters in the plantation were spaced, interalia.
Supreme Court Held:: The law regarding identification by a single witness is now well settled
and quoted a number of cases,
16
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
“Briefly, the law is that although identification of an accused person can be proved by the
testimony of a single witness this does not lessen the need for testing it with the greatest care
especially when the conditions favouring correct identification are difficult. Circumstances to take
into account include the presence and nature of light, whether the accused person is known to the
witness before the incident or not, the length of time and the opportunity the witness had to see the
accused and the distance between them. Where conditions are unfavourable for correct
identification, what is needed is other evidence pointing to guilt from which it can be reasonably
concluded that the evidence of identification can safely be accepted as free from possibility of
error. The true test is not whether the evidence of such a witness is reliable. A witness may be
truthful and his evidence apparently reliable and yet there is still a risk of an honest mistake
particularly in identification. The true test is...whether the evidence can be accepted as free from
the possibility of error.”
The Supreme Court further observed that the deceased’s son was carrying a torch containing two
dry battery cells (two weeks old), had flashed the torch at the respondent who was only six meters
away from the witness, the witness had known him for seven years and lived in the same village
and was even able to describe the clothes the accused was wearing which evidence was
unchallenged. That although the trial judge had properly directed himself on the law applicable to
evidence of identification by single witness but misapplied the law thereby reaching a wrong
conclusion. The evidence of identification was also corroborated by the dying declaration which
ruled out any mistaken identity.
Summary of the Ugandan Position
Ugandan courts treat a properly conducted identification parade as strong corroboration of a
witness's in-court testimony. However:
• A parade is only necessary where the witness did not know the accused
beforehand.
• If the parade is flawed or omitted, when necessary, the court will look for strong,
independent corroborative evidence (e.g., circumstantial evidence, medical
evidence, confessions) to ensure there is no risk of mistaken identity before
convicting.
17
LLB-KAB-LAW-Evidence-Two Topic 2-Year-2-Semester2 By [Link]
2.7. Materials for further reading on identification parade:
Francis J Ayume, ‘Criminal Procedure in Uganda’, (Longman, 1986).
Douglas Brown, ‘Criminal Procedure in Uganda and Kenya’, (Sweet and Maxwell, 1970) ·
Home Office of Great Britian, ‘Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (s.60(1)(a), S.60A(1)’,
(Publisher TS, 2002).
Colin Tredoux, ‘Psychology and Law’, (Juta Publishers, 2014).
Nicola Padfield, ‘Blackstone's Statutes on Criminal Justice and Sentencing’, (Oxford Universality
Press, 2014).
Vishnu Mitter, ‘Law of Identification and Discovery: Being a Lucid Treatment’, Law Book
Company, the University of Virginia, 1966).
John Shepherd, Hadyn Ellis and Graham Davies, ‘Identification Evidence: A Psychological
Evaluation’, (Aberdeen University Press, 1982).
Moḥ Ānachārauddina Sikadāra, ‘Law of Evidence (Act I of 1872) Bangladesh’, (M. Tanveer
Foysal, 1991).
Ram Lal Gupta, ‘Law of Identification’, (Eastern Book Company, 1963)
John Frederick Archbold, ‘Pleading, Evidence, and Practice in Criminal Cases’, (Sweet &
Maxwell, 2005).
Yvette Tinsley, ‘Identification procedures and options for reform’, (2000) 31 Victoria University
of Wellington
Jerry E. Norton, ‘Recent Appellate Court Decisions on Eyewitness Identification’, 11 Pub. Interest
L. Rptr. 1 (2006). Available at: [Link]
Annabelle James, ‘Dive into the research topics of 'Judicial attitudes prior to the implementation
of the Human Rights Act 1998: R v Perry (Stephen Arthur) (2000) The Times, 28 April'.
18