Identification Evidence Practice Questions

Free NPPF Step 2 Identification Evidence questions with full answers, for Sergeant and Inspector candidates.

20+ questions in the full bankType A format

About this topic

Identification evidence questions cover the procedures in Code D for eye-witness identification and the safeguards the courts apply to disputed identification.

Know when an identification procedure must be held, which procedure is used first, and what a Turnbull direction requires.

Key legislation and cases

PACE Code D
R v Turnbull [1977]

Worked examples

Try each question before opening the answer. Every option is explained, because the exam usually turns on why the near-miss answers are wrong.

Worked question 1 of 2Complex

DC Marsh is investigating a robbery. The victim says she would recognise the attacker. There is one suspect in custody. DC Marsh considers the identification procedure. Which of the following correctly states the procedure that must normally be used?

AA video identification procedure should be held as the first choice - a parade or group identification is only used where video identification is not practicable
BThe officer in charge of the investigation decides which identification procedure to use based on the circumstances - there is no order of preference
CA formal identification parade using live suspects must always be held first where a suspect is in custody - video identification is a secondary option
DWhere only one suspect is in custody a dock identification at trial is the only lawful procedure as a proper parade cannot be constituted

Show answer and explanation

Answer: A

Code D PACE 1984 sets out the procedures for identifying suspects. Where an eyewitness states they could identify the offender an identification procedure must normally be held. Video identification is the first choice under Code D para 3.14 - it is the default procedure. A parade or group identification is used where the suspect refuses video identification or where it is not practicable. Dock identifications are generally discouraged and carry significant weight warnings at trial.

Code D PACE 1984 para 3.14

Code D 3.14: whenever a witness has expressed an ability to identify the suspect and the suspect disputes being the person the witness claims to have seen an identification procedure shall be held unless it is not practicable or it would serve no useful purpose. Video identification is the procedure of first choice.

B: Code D does establish an order of preference - it is not left to the officer's discretion. Video identification is the first choice and the other procedures are alternatives in defined circumstances.
C: This reverses the current position. Prior to the 2002 revision of Code D live parades were the default but video identification replaced them as the first choice. A live parade is now a secondary option.
D: A dock identification is not required or preferred where only one suspect is in custody. The video identification procedure is designed to work with a single suspect shown among similar-looking individuals.

Worked question 2 of 2Complex

At trial the prosecution relies on a single eyewitness identification made in difficult conditions - the witness saw the defendant briefly at night from 20 metres away. The defence submits that the judge must give a Turnbull direction. Which of the following correctly states the position?

AA Turnbull direction is only required where the defendant disputes the identification - if no challenge is made the judge has no duty to direct the jury
BA Turnbull direction requires the judge to withdraw the case from the jury where identification is the sole evidence - a conviction cannot rest on eyewitness identification alone
CWhere identification is disputed the judge must warn the jury of the special need for caution and identify the specific weaknesses in the identification evidence before them
DThe Turnbull direction applies only to dock identifications and formal parade evidence - informal recognition evidence does not attract the warning

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C

Following R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 where the case against a defendant depends wholly or substantially on disputed identification evidence the judge must warn the jury of the special need for caution before acting on such evidence. The judge must direct the jury to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification was made and identify the specific weaknesses in the evidence. Poor conditions - night, distance, brief observation - are exactly the kind of factors the direction must address.

R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224

Where a case depends wholly or substantially on disputed identification evidence the judge must warn the jury of the special need for caution and direct attention to the specific weaknesses in the identification evidence in the particular case.

A: The duty to give a Turnbull direction arises where the identification is disputed and where the conditions were poor the judge should consider a direction even where the defence has not specifically requested one.
B: A Turnbull direction does not automatically require withdrawal of the case. The judge assesses whether the identification evidence is so weak that withdrawal is appropriate - but this is not the automatic consequence.
D: The Turnbull direction applies to all disputed identification evidence whether from a formal parade, video procedure, informal recognition or any other form. The warning is not limited by the type of identification procedure used.

Practise every Identification Evidence question

The full bank has 20+ questions on Identification Evidence and over 1,100 across the whole syllabus, each with the statute and an explanation for every option. £29 for 6 months.

Get full access Try 5 free questions