HC Deb 25 October 1956 vol 558 cc803-4
11. Mr. Collins

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that in many cases prisoners are convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment when the only evidence against them is that of identification by a single person ; and if he will introduce legislation to provide that in such cases corroboration should be required before a person may lawfully be convicted.

Major Lloyd-George

Such cases no doubt occur from time to time, but I have no reason to think that they are numerous. The weight to be attached to identification by a single person must vary with the circumstances of the case, and I do not think that it would be right to lay it down as a general principle that in no circumstances should a jury convict merely on the identification of an accused by a single witness.

Mr. Collins

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the evidence of identification is invariably believed, though the evidence of reputable defence witnesses to an alibi is not believed, and that in the event of these men being convicted, it is impossible, without a confession or fresh evidence, to get them released, which means that it is conviction by identification and that a man is assumed guilty unless he can prove his innocence? Will he look further into the matter?

Major Lloyd-George

It is very difficult to pursue what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I can give one example of how difficult it would be, in the case of an assault on a woman. In most cases there is only one possible person who could have seen the assailant, and that is the woman. It would be a terrible thing if the man could never be convicted unless there was corroborative evidence. I think that would be quite impossible.

12. Mr. Collins

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that it is a common practice, when a crime has been committed, for the Metropolitan police to put up for identification criminals, presently at liberty, who have previous convictions for the same type of crime ; and if he will review this practice with the object of preventing the grave injustices which have arisen in recent cases.

Major Lloyd-George

There is no foundation for the suggestion that it is the practice of the Metropolitan police to put up individuals for identification by eye witnesses simply because they have previous convictions for the same type of crime. A person is put up for identification only if he answers the description of a person suspected of the crime under investigation, and there is some evidence or other good reason to connect him with the crime. I see no reason for reviewing these arrangements.

Mr. Collins

While I do not accept the reply given by the Home Secretary, which does not appear to be in accordance with the facts in many cases of which hon. Members are aware, may I ask whether he will review the methods used for identifying suspects with the object of drawing up rules governing methods of identification?

Major Lloyd-George

The hon. Gentleman says that he does not agree with my answer. That does not surprise me. I know the case he has in mind, and what I have stated in my answer is completely in accordance with it. I spent many hours on the case.