The Frailty of Eyewitness Identification
Although most
eyewitnesses are not dishonest, they may nevertheless be grossly mistaken in
their identification:
Since perception and memory are selective processes, viewers are inclined
to fill in perceived events with other details, a process which enables them to
create a logical sequence. The details people add to their actual perception of
an event are largely governed by past experience and personal expectations. Thus
the final recreation of the event in the observer's mind may be quite different
from reality.
Law Reform Commission of
Canada Study Paper on Pretrial Eyewitness
Identification Procedures (1983), at p. 10, quoted in R. v. Miaponoose (1996), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 445 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 422.
Eyewitness
identification is inherently unreliable. It is difficult to assess, is often
deceptively reliable because it comes from credible and convincing witnesses,
and is difficult to discredit on cross-examination for those same reasons.
Certainty should not
be mistaken for accuracy.
See, for instance, R. v. M.B., 2017 ONCA 653, at para. 61.
Studies have shown
that triers of fact place undue reliance on such testimony when compared to
other types of evidence. As a result, many wrongful convictions result
from faulty, albeit convincing, eyewitness testimony, even in cases where
multiple witnesses identify the same person.
See R. v. Miaponoose (1996), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 445 (Ont. C.A.), at pp. 450-451,
and R.
v. A. (F.) (2004),
183 C.C.C. (3d) 518 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 39.
For these reasons,
although identification is a matter of fact, appellate courts will subject such
findings to closer scrutiny than other findings of fact. Justice Doherty has summarized
this approach in the context of an unreasonable verdict argument:
While recognizing the limited review permitted under s. 686(1)(a)(i),
convictions based on eyewitness identification evidence are particularly well
suited to review under that section. This is so because of the well-recognized
potential for injustice in such cases and the suitability of the appellate
review process to cases which turn primarily on the reliability of eyewitness evidence
and not the credibility of the eyewitness.
R. v. Tat (1997), 117 C.C.C. (3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), at paras.
99-100.
Eyewitness testimony is in effect opinion evidence,
the basis of which is very difficult to assess. The witness' opinion when she
says ‘that is the man’ is partly based on a host of psychological and
physiological factors, many of which are not well understood by jurists.
Miaponoose,
at p. 422.
Identification
Based on a Video Recording
Witness identification based on video recordings can
under certain circumstances be more reliable as it allows repeated and
unhurried consideration.
R. v. Nikolovski,
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197, at para. 23, for instance, contemplates a videotape of
“sufficient clarity and quality” that it would be reasonable for the trier of
fact to use it as the sole basis for identifying the accused.
The trier of fact must use greater caution where the
video or photo quality is poor.
R. v. Cuming (2001), 158
C.C.C. (3d) 433 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 19.
R.
v. M.B., 2017 ONCA 653.
Stuart O’Connell, O’Connell
Law Group, www.leadersinlaw.ca
Comments
Post a Comment