The effect of Code D:2.3 Code of Practice in circumstances where identification parades were to be held was clear: if (a) the police had sufficient information to justify the arrest of a particular person for suspected involvement in an offence and (b) an eye-witness had identified or might be able to identify that person, and (c) the suspect disputed his identification, an identification parade must be held if (d) the suspect consented and (e) paras 2.4, 2.7 and 2.10 of Code D did not apply. The decision in R v Popat (1998) 2 Cr. App. R. 208 could not be accepted.
Evidence of the name of an accused person’s companion was not identification evidence, but was in fact circumstantial evidence from which the jury was invited to infer that the attacker was, in truth, the accused.
The trial judge’s ruling that the prosecution might lead evidence about the accused’s character was unimpeachable and did not result in unfairness. Code D of the statutory Code of Practice was mandatory and D:2.3 only exempted the duty to hold a parade in those circumstances expressly provided for by the Code. * Leave to appeal to the House of Lords granted.