View source for Eyewitness Identification

[[fr:Identification_par_t%C3%A9moin_oculaire]]
{{Currency2|August|2022}}
{{LevelZero}}
{{HeaderIdentity}}
==General Principles==
Eyewitness evidence refers to testimony of a witness concerning their direct observations of a person whose identity is at issue.

The ability to testify as to identity is specifically permitted under the Canada Evidence Act:
{{quotation2|
; Identification of accused
6.1 For greater certainty, a witness may give evidence as to the identity of an accused whom the witness is able to identify visually or in any other sensory manner.

{{LegHistory90s|1998, c. 9}}, s. 1
|{{CEASec2|6.1}}
|{{NoteUpCEA|6.1}}
}}

What is generally considered "eyewitness" evidence comes in two forms. There is basic "eyewitness identification evidence" given by a person who has no personal acquaintance with the person being identified and then there is "recognition evidence" in which the witness has some prior familiarity with the person.

; Unreliability of All Eyewitness Evidence
Courts are very cautious and  "weary" of eyewitness identification evidence as it is considered "inherently" and "notoriously" unreliable.<ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|Goran|1w6gw|2008 ONCA 195 (CanLII)|[2008] OJ No 1069 (ONCA)}}{{perONCA|Blair JA}}{{atL|1w6gw|19}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Miaponoose|6hz0|1996 CanLII 1268|(1996), 30 OR (3d) 419}}{{perONCA|Charron JA}}{{atp|421}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Provo|1fc29|2001 NSSC 94 (CanLII)|[2001] NSJ No 247}}{{perNSSC|MacDonald ACJ}}{{atL|1fc29|21}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Bullock| (1999), O.J. 3106}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}{{ats-|49 to 54}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Gough|fwdpz|2013 ONCA 137 (CanLII)|OJ No 973}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atsL|fwdpz|35| to 37}} ("Being notoriously unreliable, eyewitness identification evidence calls for considerable caution by a trier of fact…It is generally the reliability, not the credibility, of the eyewitness’ identification that must be established.  The danger is an honest but inaccurate identification...")
</ref>
The trier of fact must take the frailties into consideration when looking at whether the accused was known to the witness, the circumstances of the identification, and the level of detail of the identification.<ref>
{{supra1|Gough}}{{atsL|fwdpz|36| to 37}} ("The trier of fact must take into account the frailties of eyewitness identification in considering such issues as whether the suspect was known to the witness, the circumstances of the contact during the commission of the crime (including whether the opportunity to see the suspect was lengthy or fleeting) and whether the circumstances surrounding the opportunity to observe the suspect were stressful… As well, the judge must carefully scrutinize the witnesses’ description of the assailant.  Generic descriptions have been considered to be of little assistance. ")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Olliffe|gh5kx|2015 ONCA 242 (CanLII)|322 CCC (3d) 501}}{{perONCA|Hourigan JA}}{{atL|gh5kx|36}} ("The inherent frailties in identification evidence are well known and have been the subject of considerable judicial comment and review in social science literature.")
</ref>

; Honest but Mistaken  ID
The focus of the concern is not on credibility, rather is on reliability and risk of assigning undue weight to the evidence.<Ref>
{{supra1|Olliffe}}{{atL|gh5kx|37}} ("The focus of the concern is not the credibility of the witness providing the identification evidence; rather, it is the reliability of the evidence and the potential for it to be given undue weight. Identification evidence is often deceptively reliable because it comes from credible and convincing witnesses. Triers of fact place undue reliance on such testimony in comparison to other types of evidence.")
</ref>
It is essential that courts recognize the risk of honest but mistaken beliefs of an eyewitness.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Alphonso|1wdw4|2008 ONCA 238 (CanLII)|[2008] OJ No 1248}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|1wdw4|5}}<br> 
{{supra1|Goran}}{{atsL|1w6gw|26| to 27, and 33}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Burke|1frb7|1996 CanLII 229|[1996] SCJ No 27}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}{{atL|1frb7|52}} <br>
{{CanLIIRP|Quercia|1npnc|1990 CanLII 2595 (ON CA)|60 CCC (3d) 380}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}} at 465 (OR)
</ref>
It is “well-established” that the frailties of eyewitness identification has “lead to wrongful convictions, even in cases where multiple witnesses have identified the same accused”<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|FA|1grgd|2004 CanLII 10491 (ON CA)|183 CCC (3d) 518}}{{perONCA|Cronk JA}}{{atL|1grgd|39}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|MB|h5mj6|2017 ONCA 653 (CanLII)|356 CCC (3d) 234}}{{perONCA|Juriansz JA}}{{AtL|h5mj6|29}}
</ref>
Even honest and convincing witnesses may misidentify individuals.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Quercia|1npnc|1990 CanLII 2595 (ON CA)|60 CCC (3d) 380}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}} at 389 (CCC)
{{CanLIIRP|Shermetta|1mpx1|1995 CanLII 4193 (NS CA)|[1995] NSJ No 195 (CA)}}{{perNSCA|Roscoe JA}}{{atL|1mpx1|46}}
</ref>  
A viewing of only a single image can have the effect of stamping the face of the accused on the memory of the true perpetrator. It is highly suggestable and contaminates identification.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bao|j0srb|2019 ONCA 458 (CanLII)|146 OR (3d) 225}}{{perONCA|Trotter JA}}{{atL|j0srb|27}}("The danger is that the witness may have the photo image stamped on his or her mind, rather than the face of the true perpetrator ... Presenting a single photograph is highly suggestible and contaminates the identification process in a manner that prejudices the accused person")
see {{CanLIIRPC|Rex v Goldhar; Rex v Smokler|gwb8t|1941 CanLII 311 (ON CA)|76 CCC 270}}{{perONCA|Robertson CJ}}{{atp|271}}<br>
</ref>

Consequently, identification evidence is treated differently than other evidence. Special care and caution should be taken. <ref>
e.g., {{CanLIIRP|Trochym|1qbvh|2007 SCC 6 (CanLII)|[2007] SCJ No 6}}{{perSCC|Deschamps J}}{{atL|1qbvh|46}}<br>
{{supra1|Burke}}{{atL|1frb7|52}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Spatola|g1bgt|1970 CanLII 390 (ON CA)|[1970] 3 OR 74 (CA)}}{{perONCA|Laskin JA}} at 82 <br>
{{supra1|Miaponoose}}{{atps|450-1}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Tat and Long|6hgr|1997 CanLII 2234 (ON CA)|117 CCC (3d) 481}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}{{atp|516}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|FA|1grgd|2004 CanLII 10491|[2004] OJ No 1119}}{{perONCA|Cronk JA}}{{atL|1grgd|39}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Nikolovski|1fr59|1996 CanLII 158 (SCC)|[1996] 3 SCR 1197}}{{perSCC|Cory J}} (7:2){{atps|1209-10}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bardales|1fr8k|1996 CanLII 213 (SCC)|[1996] 2 SCR 461}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}} (5:0){{atps|461-62}}<br>
{{supra1|Shermetta}}{{atL|1mpx1|46}} - judges must use caution, appreciate possibility of mistake and examine circumstances closely 
</ref> 

; Special Caution Required
Judges are required to given special cautions when considering identification evidence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Hersi|1fbdr|2000 CanLII 16911|[2000] OJ No 3995 (CA)}}{{perONCA|Sharpe JA}}{{atL|1fbdr|14}}<br> 
{{supra1|Tat}}{{atps|515-16}}</ref> 
This includes instructing himself and bearing in mind the guidelines when considering evidence of identification.<ref>
{{UKCase|R v Turnbull et al| (1976), 63 Cr. App. R. 132}} <br>
see also:<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Sophonov (No.2)|1npjz|1996 CanLII 104|25 CCC (3d) 415}}{{perMBCA|Twaddle JA}}<br>
{{supra1|Shermetta}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Atwell| (1983), 25 Alta LR (2d) 97 (Alta. C.A.)}} <br>
{{supra1|Nikolovski}}<br>
</ref>

There is a particular need for caution in cases "that involve fleeting glimpses of unfamiliar persons in stressful circumstances."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Pelletier|fsjc2|2012 ONCA 566 (CanLII)|291 CCC (3d) 279}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|fsjc2|90}}<br>
{{supra1|Miaponoose}}{{atps|450 to 251}}<br>
</ref>

; Weight Depends on Circumstances
Weight put upon eyewitness testimony must vary based on the "circumstances of the individual case."<ref>
{{supra1|Pelletier}}{{atL|fsjc2|91}}<br>
{{supra1|Miaponoose}}{{atp|452}}<br>
</ref>

The accuracy of the eyewitness should not be determined by or be "coextensive" with the confidence or honesty of the witness.<ref>
{{supra1|Pelletier}}{{atL|fsjc2|92}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Izzard|gd876|1990 CanLII 11055 (ON CA)|54 CCC (3d) 252}}{{perONCA|Morden JA}}{{atp|255}}<br>
</ref>

The apparent reliability of eyewitness identification can be deceptive, and it is often honest and sincere.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Hibbert|51s0|2002 SCC 39 (CanLII)|[2002] 2 SCR 445}}{{perSCC-H|Arbour J}}{{atL|51s0|50}} ("[T]he danger associated with eyewitness in-court identification is that it is deceptively credible, largely because it is honest and sincere. The dramatic impact of the identification taking place in court, before the jury, can aggravate the distorted value that the jury may place on it.”)
</ref>

Establishing the credibility of an eyewitness is not sufficient to rely on their evidence as fact.
It has been acknowledged that there is a "weak link between the confidence level of a witness and the accuracy of that witness."<ref>
{{ibid1|Hibbert}}</ref>

Eyewitness evidence is, in essence, a form of opinion evidence that "the basis of which can be very difficult to assess."<ref>
{{supra1|Miaponoose}}{{atL|6hz0|11}}
</ref>

; Standard of Appellate Review
A court of appeal "will be subject findings [on identity] to closer scrutiny than is generally the case with findings of fact”.
<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Goran|1w6gw|2008 ONCA 195 (CanLII)|100 WCB (2d) 41}}{{perONCA|Blair JA}}{{atL|1w6gw|20}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Harvey|1f3k6|2001 CanLII 24137 (ON CA)|160 CCC (3d) 52}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}} (2:1){{atL|1f3k6|19}}</ref>

In certain cases, evidence from a single eye-witness can be sufficient to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt.<ref>
see {{CanLIIRPC|Pelletier v The Queen|1fr6h|1996 CanLII 143 (SCC)|[1996] 3 SCR 601}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}} at 601<br>
{{supra1|Nikolovski}}{{atp|413}} ("It is clear that a trier of fact may, despite all the potential frailties, find an accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of the testimony of a single eyewitness")<br>
</ref>

There is no requirement that an identifying witness be 100% certain. Some equivocation is permitted.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Kish|g631k|2014 ONCA 181 (CanLII)|309 CCC (3d) 101}}{{perONCA|MacFarland JA}}{{atsL|g631k|53| to 54}}<br>
</ref>

; Refusal to Identify the Accused
The judge cannot make a finding that the witnesses withheld identifying the accused due to fear on the basis of demeanour evidence alone.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Legault|2291z|2009 ONCA 86 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
====Juries====
Juries must be instructed to account for the "frailties of eyewitness identification" when considering issues such as:<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Jack|fw112|2013 ONCA 80 (CanLII)|294 CCC (3d) 163}}{{perONCA|Epstein JA}} (3:0){{atsL|fw112|15| to 16}}<br>
See also [[Juries]]</ref>
*whether the suspect known to the witness?  
*whether the circumstances of the contact during the commission of the crime including whether the opportunity to see the suspect was lengthy or fleeting?<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Carpenter|, [1998] OJ No 1819 (CA)}}{{at-|1}}</ref> 
*whether the sighting by the witness in circumstances of stress?<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Nikolovski|1fr59|1996 CanLII 158 (SCC)|[1996] 3 SCR 1197}}{{perSCC|Cory J}} (7:2){{atp|1210}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Francis|1ck6q|2002 CanLII 41495 (ON CA)| OAC 131}}{{TheCourtONCA}}, at 132<br>
</ref>

Juries must also be "instructed to carefully scrutinize the witnesses’ description of the assailant", considering whether it was "vague" and "generic" or "detailed" with "distinctive features."<ref>
{{supra1|Jack}}{{atL|fw112|16}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Ellis|1vmlk|2008 ONCA 77 (CanLII)|[2008] OJ No 361}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{AtsL|1vmlk|5||}}, {{atsL-np|1vmlk|8|}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|FA|1grgd|2004 CanLII 10491 (ON CA)| OAC 324}}{{perONCA|Cronk JA}}{{atL|1grgd|64}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Richards|1h4v0|2004 CanLII 39047 (ON CA)|(2004) 70 OR (3d) 737}}{{perONCA|McCombs J}}{{atL|1h4v0|9}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Boucher|1qpm4|2007 ONCA 131 (CanLII)|[2007] OJ No 722}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|1qpm4|21}}<br>
</ref> 

The judge should also caution on the limited value of in-court identification.<ref>
{{supra1|Jack}}{{atL|fw112|17}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Hibbert|51s0|2002 SCC 39 (CanLII)|[2002] 2 SCR 445}}{{perSCC-H|Arbour J}}{{atps|468-69}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Tebo|78jh|2003 CanLII 43106 (ON CA)| OAC 148}}{{perONCA|Feldman JA}}{{atL|78jh|19}}<br>
</ref>

Eye-witness evidence is dangerous as it has a "power effect on jurors."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Hanemaayer|2065m|2008 ONCA 580 (CanLII)|234 CCC (3d) 3}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}{{atL|2065m|21}}<br>
</ref>

A warning should be given to juries for all types of eyewitness evidence, even when it is recognition evidence.<Ref>
{{supra1|Olliffe}} at para 40<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Curran|1hcgr|2004 CanLII 10434 (ON CA)|62 WCB (2d) 283}}{{perONCA|MacPherson JA}}{{atL|1hcgr|26}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Miller|6gk5|1998 CanLII 5115 (ON CA)|131 CCC (3d) 141}}{{perONCA|Charron JA}} at pp. 150-151<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Brown|1q6q7|2006 CanLII 42683 (ON CA)|215 CCC (3d) 330}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}{{AtL|1q6q7|42}}<Br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Weighing Identity Evidence===
Bald assertions of identity by witnesses should be given little weight. The Court should consider the facts and foundation of the statement including the opportunity and ability to observe.
<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Tatham|5jch|2002 MBQB 241 (CanLII)|[2002] M. J. No 370, 167 Man. R. (2d) 152}}{{perMBQB|Schurfield J}} at 9<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Browne and Angus|gdl2h|1951 CanLII 393 (BC CA)|99 CCC 141 (BCCA)}}{{perBCCA|O'Halloran JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Harrison|gc0hv|1951 CanLII 403 (BC CA)|100 CCC 143 (BCCA)}}{{perBCCA|O'Halloran JA}}<br>
</ref>

One or more courts have recommended that cases resting entirely on eyewitness testimony should require the judge to do the following:
<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bigsky|1qfkn|2006 SKCA 145 (CanLII)|217 CCC (3d) 441}}{{perSKCA|Jackson JA}}{{atL|1qfkn|70}}</ref>
#recognize the danger of convicting based on eyewitness identification only;
#note the significant factors which may have affected the identification; and
#address those factors.

It is "incumbent upon Crown counsel to ensure that all relevant circumstances surrounding pretrial eyewitness identification procedures be fully disclosed to the defence and be made available for scrutiny by the trier of fact."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Miaponoose|6hz0|1996 CanLII 1268 (ON CA)|110 CCC (3d) 445}}{{perONCA|Charron JA}}
</ref>

The fundamental factors affecting the weight of eyewitness evidence are:
<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Wilband|fp2x4|2011 ABPC 298 (CanLII)|514 AR 370}}{{perABPC|Fraser J}}{{atL|fp2x4|16}}<br>
{{supra1|Miaponoose}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Mezzo v The Queen|1ftrq|1986 CanLII 16 (SCC)|[1986] 1 SCR 802}}{{perSCC-H|McIntyre J}}{{atL|1ftrq|24}}<br>
Browne and Angus <br>
Harrison<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Anderson|g6m5p|2014 BCPC 71 (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Skilnick J}}{{atL|g6m5p|32}} - citing McWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence, 5th edition, at paragraph 32:40:10<br>
e.g. {{CanLIIRx|"X"|g2j1v|2013 NSPC 127 (CanLII)}}{{perNSPC|Derrick J}}{{atL|g2j1v|76}} - in reference to recognition evidence<br>
</ref>
#opportunity to observe:
##light conditions
##the distance from the witness to the suspect
##the eyesight of the witness
##colour perception
#previous acquaintance with the accused<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Cachia|htv8z|1953 CanLII 455 (ON CA)|107 CCC 272}}{{perONCA|Pickup CJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Todish|gbkvz|1985 CanLII 3586 (ON CA)|18 CCC (3d) 159}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Leaney|2dkv9|1987 ABCA 206 (CanLII)|38 CCC (3d) 263}}{{perABCA|Dea J}}<br>
</ref>
#focus of attention or distraction
#presence or absence of distinctive features or appearance of the suspect/accused<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Cosgrove (No. 2)|htzgw|1977 CanLII 2085 (ON CA)|34 CCC (2d) 100}}{{perONCA|Brooke JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Corbett|gcxnw|1973 CanLII 1368 (BC CA)|11 CCC (2d) 137 (BCCA)}}{{perBCCA|Branca JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Dunlop|htvcb|1976 CanLII 1415 (MB CA)|Douglas and Sylvester (1976), 33 CCC (2d) 342}}{{perMBCA|O'Sullivan JA}} (2:1)<br>
</ref>
#the time since making the observations<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Louie|htzxh|1960 CanLII 463 (BC CA)|129 CCC 336 (BCCA)}}{{perBCCA|Coady JA}}</ref>

Extra caution should be taken where the witnesses had a limited opportunity to observe, and the confirmative opportunity occurred while the accused was under arrest.<ref> 
{{CanLIIRx|Hume|fnnnx|2011 ONCJ 535 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|M Green J}}{{atL|fnnnx|14}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Smierciak|gwc0l|1946 CanLII 331 (ON CA)|87 CCC 175}}{{perONCA|Laidlaw JA}}</ref>

Absent supporting evidence, a judge cannot say that stress upon the witness is a neutral factor in the accuracy of observations.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Francis|1ck6q|2002 CanLII 41495 (ON CA)|165 OAC 131}}{{TheCourtONCA}}</ref>

General or generic descriptors alone will be accorded only limited weight as there is "no detail that could distinguish the [culprit] from thousands of other people."<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Foster|1vxr2|2008 CanLII 8419 (ON SC)}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}{{atL|1vxr2|40}} - generic factors of approximate age and race<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Ellis|1vmlk|2008 ONCA 77 (CanLII)|[2008] OJ No 361 (CA)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atsL|1vmlk|5|}}, {{atsL-np|1vmlk|8|}}<br>
</ref>

A "fleeting glance" will generally be considered unsatisfactory opportunity to observe.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Carpenter|, [1998] OJ No 1819 (CA) }}{{perONCA|Abella JA}}{{at-|1}}<br>
</ref>

; Cross-Racial ID
It has been suggested that "cross-racial" identification evidence has a higher chance of being incorrect and so is even more challenging.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bao|j0srb|2019 ONCA 458 (CanLII)|146 OR (3d) 225}}{{perONCA|Trotter JA}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Line-ups===
The key rule in giving a photo line-up is that the procedure is fair.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Shermetta|1mpx1|1995 CanLII 4193 (NS CA)|141 NSR (2nd) 186}}{{perNSCA|Roscoe JA}} - leading case on procedure in NS<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Smierciak|gwc0l|1946 CanLII 331 (ON CA)|87 CCC 175}}{{perONCA|Laidlaw JA}}<br>
</ref>

It was recommended in the Sophonow Inquiry that to avoid false identification through line-ups the procedure should include the following:<ref>Justice Peter de Cory, The Inquiry Regarding Thomas Sophonow: The Investigation, Prosecution and Entitlement to Compensation at pp. 31-34 (2001))<br>
see also ''New Jersey v Larry R Henderson'' [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1578475.html New Jersy Supreme Court] -- list of other considerations on a lineup</ref>
*The photo pack should contain at least 10 subjects.
*The photos should resemble as closely as possible the eyewitnesses' description. If that is not possible, the photos should be as close as possible to the suspect.
*Everything should be recorded on videotape, or failing that, audiotape. In addition, or as a minimum alternative, all comments of the witness should be recorded verbatim on the form accompanying the line-up and signed by both the officer and the witness.
*The line-up should be presented by an officer who is not involved in the investigation and does not know who the suspect is.
*The officer showing the line-up should advise the witness that he does not know who the suspect is or whether there is a suspect in the line-up. The officer should also tell the witness that it is just as important to clear the innocent as it is to identify the subject.
*The photopack should be presented sequentially, not all together.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Hanemaayer|2065m|2008 ONCA 580 (CanLII)|234 CCC (3d) 3}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}{{atL|2065m|21}}<br>
</ref>
*Police officers should not speak to the witness after the line-up regarding his ability or inability to identify anyone.

Several cases have adopted these requirements or something similar.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|MacKenzie|1g0nd|2003 NSPC 51 (CanLII)|692 APR 1}}{{perNSPC|CHF Williams J}}
</ref>

Generally, improper procedure taints identification evidence, it does not render the evidence inadmissible, it only goes to weight.<ref>
{{supra1|Gonsalves}}{{atL|1wnm8|46}}<br>
</ref>

Identification based on a single photograph rather than a proper lineup goes to weight and not admissibility. <ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|United States v Khuc|21bzf|2008 BCCA 425 (CanLII)|262 BCAC 4}}{{perBCCA|Chiasson JA}}{{atsL|21bzf|31| to 32}}
</ref>

Other factors considered include:
* evidence of distinguishing features linking the accused and the perpetrator identified by the line-up photograph. <ref>e.g. {{CanLIIRP|Smith|g15gx|1952 CanLII 116 (ON CA)|103 CCC 58}}{{perONCA|MacKay JA}}</ref>
* opportunity for the witnesses to see the perpetrator; 
* Familiarity with the accused prior to court;

The Sophonow guidelines for line-ups are not legally binding and so failure to follow them will not necessarily be fatal to the identification evidence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Doyle|1txxl|2007 BCCA 587 (CanLII)|248 BCAC 307}}{{perBCCA|Hall JA}}{{atsL|1txxl|10| to 15}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Gonsalves|1wnm8|2008 CanLII 17559 (ON SC)| CR (6th) 379, [2008] OJ No 2711 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}{{atsL|1wnm8|44| to 45}} and {{atsL-np|1wnm8|53|}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Le|frj5d|2011 MBCA 83 (CanLII)|270 Man. R. (2d) 82}}{{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}{{atsL|frj5d|132| to 135}}<br>
</ref>

The prior familiarity of the witness to the accused is a factor that goes to weight.<ref>
See {{CanLIIRP|Cachia|htv8z|1953 CanLII 455 (ON CA)|107 CCC 272}}{{perONCA|Pickup CJ}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Todish|gbkvz|1985 CanLII 3586 (ON CA)|18 CCC (3d) 159}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Leaney|2dkv9|1987 ABCA 206 (CanLII)|38 CCC (3d) 263}}{{perABCA|Dea JA}}<br>
{{supra1|Hanemaayer}}{{atL|2065m|25}}<br>
</ref>

A live line-up after completing a photo line-up will add little weight to the witnesses evidence, but is still admissible.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Sutton|g14kg|1969 CanLII 497 (ON CA)|[1970] 3 CCC 152 (ONCA)}}{{perONCA|Jessup JA}}<br>
</ref> 
When in reverse order the photo line-up is given little weight.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Jarrett|htwx0|1975 CanLII 1401 (NS CA)| (1975), 12 NSR (2d) 270}}{{perNSCA|MacDonald JA}}<br>
</ref>

A witness should never be shown a single photo of the accused.<ref>
Smierciak<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Watson|gwbn2|1944 CanLII 340 (ON CA)|[1944] O.W.N. 258, 81 CCC 212, [1944] 2 DLR 801}}{{perONCA|Robertson CJ}}<br>
</ref>

During a live line-up the police should never tell the witness that the suspect is among the line-up.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Armstrong|hv013|1959 CanLII 456 (BC CA)|125 CCC 56 (BCCA)}}{{perBCCA|DesBrisay CJ}}</ref>

The accused should not be put in a line-up among those who do not hold a resemblance to him.<ref>
Armstrong<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Atfield|2f0t4|1983 ABCA 44 (CanLII)|9 WCB 300}}{{perABCA|Belzil JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Engel| (1981), 9 Man. R. (2d) 279 (CA) }}<br>
</ref>

Evidence of a live line-up can be excluded where the accused's right to counsel under 10(b) was violated.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Ross|1ft8b|1989 CanLII 134 (SCC)|[1989] 1 SCR 3}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}}<br>
</ref>

The accused's refusal to take part in a lineup is not admissible to establish guilt.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Henry|2d35b|2010 BCCA 462 (CanLII)|294 BCAC 96}}{{perBCCA|Low JA}}
</ref>

There is a weak link between a witnesses confidence and a witnesses accuracy in identifying a culprit.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Hebbert|51s0|2002 SCC 39 (CanLII)|[2002] 2 SCR 445}}{{perSCC-H|Arbour J}}{{atL|51s0|52}}<br>
</ref>

; Line-ups of One
It is not appropriate for police to engage in the practice of presenting a newly arrested accused before the witness and then seeking confirmation from the person.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Canning|1fts0|1986 CanLII 4295 (SCC)|[1986] SCJ No 37}}{{TheCourtSCC}} rev’g (1984), 65 NSR (2d) 326 (CA)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Sutton|g14kg|1969 CanLII 497 (ON CA)|[1970] 3 CCC 152}}{{perONCA|Jessup JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Proulx v Quebec (Attorney General)|51zl|2001 SCC 66 (CanLII)|[2001] 3 SCR 9}}{{perSCC|Iacobucci and Binnie JJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Zurowski|1jww5|2004 SCC 72 (CanLII)|[2004] 3 SCR 509}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Dhillon|1cqpr|2002 CanLII 41540 (ON CA)|166 CCC (3d) 262}}{{perONCA|Laskin and Goudge JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Quercia|1npnc|1990 CanLII 2595 (ON CA)|60 CCC (3d) 380}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Mezzo|1ftrq|1986 CanLII 16 (SCC)|[1986] 1 SCR 802}}{{perSCC-H|McIntyre J and Wilson J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Biddle|g1ftj|1993 CanLII 8506 (ON CA)|84 CCC (3d) 430}}{{perONCA-H|Doherty JA}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Video Identification===
Video recording identification can be more reliable than testimony as it permits "repeated and unhurried consideration."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|MB|h5mj6| 2017 ONCA 653 (CanLII)|356 CCC (3d) 234}}{{perONCA|Juriansz JA}}{{AtL|h5mj6|32}}<Br>
</reF>

Where the video evidence is clear and convincing, the trier-of-fact may use it as the sole basis for identifying the accused as the perpetrator.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Nikolovski|1fr59|1996 CanLII 158 (SCC)|[1996] 3 SCR 1197}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}{{atL|1fr59|23}}</ref>

The quality of the video should be sufficient "to be able to recognize facial features such as nose, jaw line, and profile."<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Nilsson|fp4qw|2011 BCSC 1654 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Walker J}}{{atL|fp4qw|48}}</ref>

A witness can testify to the contents of a video, establishing the identity of the accused without showing the video. It is generally considered akin to actual observations. <ref>
{{UKCase|Taylor v Chief Constable of Cheshire| (1987) 84 Cr. App. R. 191}}</ref> 

There must be caution exercised when the video quality is poor.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Cuming|1cwx0|2001 CanLII 24118 (ON CA)|158 CCC (3d) 433}}{{perONCA|Charron JA}}{{AtL|1cwx0|19}}<br>
</ref>

; Threshold for Video Recognition Evidence 
A person who is not familiar with the appearance of the accused cannot testify on the identification of the accused in a video.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Leaney|1ft3h|1989 CanLII 28 (SCC)|[1989] 2 SCR 393}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin J}}</ref>

A witness who is familiar with the appearance and idiosyncrasies of the accused that is not apparent to the trier of fact, may testify to identity where the witness can 1) state the particularities of the idiosyncrasies; and 2) can show where the idiosyncrasies are revealed on the video.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Leaney|2dkv9|1987 ABCA 206 (CanLII)|38 CCC 263 (ABCA)}}{{perABCA|Dea J}} (2:1)</ref>
A voir dire must be held to determine whether the person, such as a police officer, can testify to the likeness of the video image to the suspect.<ref> 
{{CanLIIRx|Briand|27g4n|2008 ONCJ 777 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Green J}}</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==In-Dock Identification==
Identification of an accused in the dock is generally undesirable and unsatisfactory, and so adds very little weight to the proof of identity.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|FA|1grgd|2004 CanLII 10491 (ON CA)|183 CCC (3d) 518}}{{perONCA|Cronk JA}}{{atL|1grgd|47}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Izzard|gd876|1990 CanLII 11055 (ON CA)|54 CCC (3d) 252}}{{perONCA|Morden JA}}{{atps|255-6}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Zurowski|1jww5|2004 SCC 72 (CanLII)|[2004] 3 SCR 509}}{{perSCC-H|McLachlin CJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Hibbert|51s0|2002 SCC 39 (CanLII)|[2002] 2 SCR 445}}{{perSCC-H|Arbour J}}{{atL|51s0|50}} ("...I think it is important to remember that the danger associated with eyewitness in-court identification is that it is deceptively credible, largely because it is honest and sincere.  The dramatic impact of the identification taking place in court, before the jury, can aggravate the distorted value that the jury may place on it. ...")<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Sykes|g8xvm|2014 NSSC 320 (CanLII)}}{{perNSSC|MacAdam J}}{{atsL|g8xvm|43| to 60}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Martin|1vgv5|2007 NSCA 121 (CanLII)|835 APR 70}}{{perNSCA|Oland JA}}{{atL|1vgv5|18}}<br>
</ref>

It is a long-held myth that in-dock identification by the arresting officer of the accused in court is an essential part of the process.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Nicholson|2dgcd|1984 ABCA 88 (CanLII)|12 CCC (3d) 228}}{{perABCA|Kerans JA}}{{AtL|2dgcd|4}} ("The argument for the appellant before us proceeded on the assumption that a dock identification by an arresting officer is an integral part of the criminal process. This is a myth. That the Crown often relies upon such evidence should not permit us to think that a dock identification is a ritual as essential to a criminal trial as, say, the reading of the charge. The onus upon the Crown is to prove that the crime alleged has been committed and that the accused is the person who did it. This last, like any fact-in-issue, can be proved in many different ways.")
</ref>

For purposes of comparison with the eyewitness' evidence, the judge is permitted to observe the accused in court and draw conclusions from similarities and dissimilarities.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Nikolovski|1fr59|1996 CanLII 158 (SCC)|[1996] 3 SCR 1197}}{{perSCC|Cory J}} (7:2)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Campbell|gx407|2017 ONCA 65 (CanLII)|OJ No 380}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atsL|gx407|14| and 15}}<br>
</ref>
A judge is also permitted to refuse to observe dissimilarities in appearance of the accused in court.<ref>
{{ibid1|Campbell}}{{atL|gx407|15}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Rae|g0hzg|2013 ONCA 556 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atsL|g0hzg|5| to 6}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

=== Accused Revealing Parts of Their Body===

The trial judge has discretion to order an accused to show parts of their body to the trier of fact.<Ref>
{{CanLIIR|Stephens|jdzxl|2021 ABQB 246 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|Mah J}}{{atL|jdzxl|17}}
</ref>

There is support suggesting that making such an order does not violate s. 11(c) of the Charter that protects a person from being compelled to testify against themselves.<REf>
{{CanLIIR|Whitford|1kvk9|2005 BCPC 191 (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Milne J}}{{atL|1kvk9|8}}
</ref>

A judge may refuse to order the accused to reveal a part of their body where it is not part of the "normal expectations" of an accused appearing in court.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Ermineskin|j5q8x|2020 ABPC 40 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|DePoe J}}{{atL|j5q8x|31}}
</ref>

Judges have ordered the accused to remove a mask<Ref>
{{supra1|Stephens}}{{atL|jdzxl|17}}
</ref> and show their teeth<REf>
{{CanLIIR|Whitford|1kvk9|2005 BCPC 191 (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Milne J}}
</ref> for the purpose of in-dock identification.

{{Reflist|2}}

==Recognition==
Evidence identifying complete strangers can be distinguished from evidence of recognition based on the "timeline of the identification narrative."<Ref>
{{CanLIIR|Brown|1q6q7|2006 CanLII 42683 (ON CA)|215 CCC (3d) 330}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}
</ref>
That being said. recognition evidence is "merely a form of identification evidence". Accordingly, all of the 'same concerns apply and the same caution must be taken in considering its reliability as in dealing with any other identification evidence."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Olliffe|gh5kx|2015 ONCA 242 (CanLII)|322 CCC (3d) 501}}{{perONCA|Hourigan JA}}{{atL|gh5kx|39}} ("The level of familiarity between the accused and the witness may serve to enhance the reliability of the evidence. It must be remembered, however, that recognition evidence is merely a form of identification evidence. The same concerns apply and the same caution must be taken in considering its reliability as in dealing with any other identification evidence")<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Campbell|gx407|2017 ONCA 65 (CanLII)|[2017] OJ No 380}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|gx407|10}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Spatola|g1bgt|1970 CanLII 390 (ON CA)|3 OR 74, 4 CCC 241}}{{perONCA|Laskin JA}}, at p. 82<br>
{{UKCase|Turnbull|, [1977] Q.B. 224 (Eng. C.A.)}}, at pp. 228-229
</ref>
This includes all the relevant cautions regarding the frailties of identification.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Curran|1hcgr|2004 CanLII 10434 (Ont. C.A.)|62 WCB (2d) 283}}{{perONCA|MacPherson JA}}{{atL|1hcgr|26}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Miller|6gk5|1998 CanLII 5115 (ON CA)|131 CCC (3d) 141}}{{perONCA|Charron JA}}{{atps|150-151}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Brown|1q6q7|2006 CanLII 42683 (ON CA)|215 CCC (3d) 330}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}, {{atL|1q6q7|42}}
</ref> 

Recognition evidence is admissible as "non-expert" evidence where the "witness has a prior acquaintance with the accused" and so  is in a better position than the trier of fact to identify the culprit.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|MB|h5mj6|2017 ONCA 653 (CanLII)|356 CCC (3d) 234}}{{perONCA|Juriansz JA}}{{atL|h5mj6|35}}<Br>
</ref>

The "level of familiarity between the accused and the witness may serve to enhance reliability of the evidence."<ref>
{{supra1|Olliffe}}{{atL|gh5kx|39}}<br>
{{supra1|Campbell}}{{atL|gx407|10}}<br>
</ref>

; Difference from Identity Evidence
Courts have still generally made a distinction between identity evidence and recognition evidence. The difference being that identity involves a witness matching a previously observed stranger with that of the accused. Recognition is where the observer knew the person being observed and the issue is not simply identifying a person by description, but rather recognizing the person through their acquaintanceship.<ref>
e.g. {{CanLIIRx|"X"|g2j1v|2013 NSPC 127 (CanLII)}}{{perNSPC|Derrick J}}{{atL|g2j1v|73}}<br>
</ref>

Recognition evidence is "generally considered to be more reliable and to carry more weight than identification evidence."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bob|22078|2008 BCCA 485 (CanLII)|[2008] BCJ No 2551 (CA)}}{{perBCCA|Neilson JA}}{{atL|22078|13}}</ref>

Recognition is not a distinct category from identification.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Smith|fmz9f|2011 BCCA 362 (CanLII)|310 BCAC 177}}{{perBCCA|Neilson JA}}
</ref> 
Rather they are at different points on a spectrum of reliability.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Mclsaac|, [1991] BCJ No 3617 (CA) }}<br>
</ref>
The "extent and quality" of the prior encounters is "but one factor to be considered in weighing the witness's evidence" for the purpose of identification.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Smith|fmz9f|2011 BCCA 362 (CanLII)|[2011] BCJ no. 1655}}{{perBCCA|Neilson JA}}</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Threshold to Admit Recognition Evidence ("Leaney Hearing")===
A "Leaney hearing" is needed to determine whether the Crown can adduce police officer's recognition evidence of an accused. The essential requirement is that the officer be in a better position than the trier-of-fact to determine identity.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Farah|jnbf2|2022 ONCA 243 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Brown JA}}{{atL|jnbf2|6}}
</ref>

In admitting recognition evidence, there must be sufficient indicia for a threshold degree of familiarity, which depends on:<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Anderson et al.|1p7jd|2005 BCSC 1346 (CanLII)|[2005] BCJ No 3053}}{{perBCSC|Smith J}}{{atsL|1p7jd|20|}} and {{atsL-np|1p7jd|25| to 26}} (S.C.)
{{CanLIIRP|Brown|1q6q7|2006 CanLII 42683 (ON CA)|215 CCC (3d) 330}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Berhe|ftf7p|2012 ONCA 716 (CanLII)|113 O.R. (3d) 137}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Hudson|j953h|2020 ONCA 507 (CanLII)|391 CCC (3d) 208}}{{perONCA|Tulloch JA}}{{atL|j953h|30| to 32}}<br>
{{supra1|Farah}}{{atL|jnbf2|14}}
</ref>
#the length of the prior relationship between the witness and the accused; 
#the circumstances of the prior relationship between the witness and the accused; and, 
#the recency of the contact between the witness and the accused prior to the event where the witness recognized the accused.  

It has been observed that in "most cases" recognition evidence will pass the threshold of admissibility.<ref>
{{supra1|Anderson}}{{atL|1p7jd|39}}<br>
</ref>

These indicia go to the weight of the evidence along with "the cumulative effect of recognition evidence provided by more than one witness and the circumstances under which the witness recognized the accused."<ref>
{{supra1|Anderson}}{{atL|1p7jd|25}}</ref>

Before a person can claim to recognize a person they must establish that they had a prior opportunity to observe personally the accused and become acquaintanced with him.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|PTC|53rv|2000 BCSC 342 (CanLII)|BCJ No 446}}{{perBCSC| Hood J}}{{atsL|53rv|22|}}, {{atsL-np|53rv|67|}}</ref>

Recognition simply means that "the witness's evidence is based in part on his or her dealings with the accused before the crimes were committed"<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Smith|fmz9f|2011 BCCA 362 (CanLII)|310 BCAC 177}}{{perBCCA|Neilson JA}}</ref>

Recognition evidence is considered more reliable and has more weight than identification evidence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bob (C.C.)|22078|2008 BCCA 485 (CanLII)|263 BCAC 42}}{{perBCCA|Neilson JA}}{{atL|22078|13}} ("While caution must still be taken to ensure that the evidence is sufficient to prove identity,  recognition evidence is generally considered to be more reliable and to carry more weight than identification evidence.")<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Aburto (M.E.)|1vsdx|2008 BCCA 78 (CanLII)}}{{perBCCA|Finch CJ}}{{atL|1vsdx|22}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Affleck (A.)|1vkmt|2007 MBQB 107 (CanLII)|223 Man R (2d) 1}}{{perMBQB|Simonsen J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|RRI|fqncg|2012 MBQB 59 (CanLII)|227 Man R (2d) 139}}{{perMBQB|McCawley J}}<br>
</ref>

Resemblance without anything more is not sufficient to establish identification. Other inculpatory evidence is needed.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Rybak|1wsq6|2008 ONCA 354 (CanLII)|233 CCC (3d) 58}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}{{atL|1wsq6|121}}</ref>

The witness can rely on recognizable features, including age, hairstyle, body shape, body size, gender, skin colour, and overall appearance.<Ref>
{{CanLIIR|Donnally|jnng2|2022 ABQB 207 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|Leonard J}}{{atL|jnng2|29}}
</ref>

It is significant whether the acquainted eye-witness had seen the accused shortly before observing the incident.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|ORB|, [2005] S.J. No 794 (CA)}}{{at-|14}}<br>
see also {{supra1|"X"}}{{atL|g2j1v|98}}<br>
</ref>

; No Lineup Needed
Where the witness asserts a prior familiarity with the culprit, it is not necessary for the police to conduct a full line-up array for the purpose of confirming the identity of the accused through a photo.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Jimaleh|hvmsd|2018 ONCA 841 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}