Lestyn is charged with a dwelling burglary at No.10 Gryndyth Road on 22nd December at 10pm. The only evidence against Lestyn comes from Aeronwen, who says she saw him jump out of the downstairs window at No 10 on to the pavement, and run off in a direction away from her, then down an alley and out of sight. After the prosecution has closed its case, the judge is of the view that the quality of the identification evidence is poor, and there is no supporting evidence.
What is the MOST APPROPRIATE course for the trial judge to take?
see the guidelines in R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224. This is poor quality identification evidence and it is incumbent on the judge to withdraw the case from the jury and direct them to formally acquit D unless there is any supporting evidence. [A] is not the most appropriate course because it would involve allowing the case to go the jury and then giving a direction: the case needs to be withdrawn. [B] is not appropriate because the obligation to withdraw a case does not depend on the defence making a submission. [D] is wrong because the Turnbull guidelines apply to any case which depends wholly or substantially on identification evidence. Obviously, they are not disapplied because a formal identification procedure has taken place.
The correct answer is: The judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct the jury to formally acquit Lestyn, whether or not the defence made a Turnbull submission.
