§ Mr. Douglas-Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether, in considering whether or not to exercise his power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 in cases where the rules relating to identification evidence laid down in Regina v. Turnbull and Others, [1976] 3 WLR 445, had not been complied with at the original trial, he is prepared to take account of information in his possession casting doubt on the guilt of the convicted person, even if such information is not admissible in evidence; and, if not, why not;
(2) in what circumstances he is prepared to refer cases to the Court of Appeal 140W under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 when it appears that the criteria for assessing identification evidence at the original trial did not comply with the rules laid down in the case of Regina v. Turnbull and Others, [1976] 3 WLR 445; and whether he is prepared to refer cases decided before the decision in that case; and, if not, why not.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesThe basis for a reference to the Court of Appeal is that there is some new consideration of substance which has not previously been considered by a court and which may raise such doubt about the rightness of a conviction or sentence that the Court of Appeal might find grounds for varying the decisions previously reached. Since, however, the case is then treated as if it were an ordinary appeal, such a consideration must constitute evidence of a kind that would be admissible in normal appeal proceedings. My decision whether or not to refer a particular case is related to these criteria and to the nature of all the new information available to me. A new consideration relating to evidence of identification might, irrespective of the judgment in R.v. Turnbull and Others, be a ground for referring the case