Key Facts
- •Joel Wilkie was convicted of unlawful wounding under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
- •The conviction relied heavily on the identification of Wilkie by the victim, Paige Turner.
- •Turner identified Wilkie shortly after the assault, having seen his picture on social media beforehand.
- •Wilkie's defense was mistaken identity.
- •Wilkie lied to police about his whereabouts on the night of the assault.
- •Turner mistakenly identified a juror during her testimony.
Legal Principles
Turnbull direction: A judge must give a warning about the special need for caution before convicting based solely on identification evidence, highlighting specific weaknesses in the identification evidence and explaining why those weaknesses exist.
R v Turnbull [1976] 63 Cr.App.R 132
Lucas direction: A direction to the jury on the significance of a defendant's lie in interview.
R v Lucas
The sufficiency of a Turnbull direction is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering factors such as the complexity of the case, strength of identification evidence, and the nature of supporting or undermining factors.
R v Sabir (Imran ) [2023] EWCA Crim 804
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found the judge's directions, while not explicitly detailing every potential weakness, were adequate in the context of a simple case with limited evidence. The judge's direction sufficiently addressed the risk of Turner's identification being influenced by the prior viewing of Wilkie's social media photo. The court found the juror identification issue to be a collateral matter and not a central component requiring specific direction.