Arrested for Assault: Does Witness Description Count?

Q.

I was arrested for assault but the witness described me to look totally different and so did the person that I was to have attacked. I had a video identity parade (Viper) taken and was picked out by the person that was attacked. While outside of the establishment where it took place the attacked man told the door ladies that I had done nothing wrong because I was not wearing all black. The door ladies ignored this and I was still arrested.

In the statement that was given from the person attacked the description didn't fit me at all. Do the police have to ask the person making the accusations what the attacker looked like? Please advise of what can be done about any of this?

A.

When police are called to deal with an incident, such as an allegation of assault, they will speak to the complainant and other people at the scene who will assist them in determining what happened and who – if anyone - is likely to have committed a crime. They don’t just take descriptions and information from the person who has been attacked, but ask numerous people. (If the victim had been unconscious, for example, the police would only have other eyewitnesses they could ask.) From the information that you have provided it sounds to me as though a man was attacked outside a venue, but that he then told the ladies on the door that it couldn’t be you because you weren’t wearing all black.

However, the ladies who were working on the door then told the police that you were the person who attacked the man, which is why you were arrested. You do not say whether or not you have been charged with an offence, or whether you have been bailed by the police pending further enquiries.

The Strength of the Identification Evidence

The fact that the victim picked you out in an ID parade could be compelling evidence in court that you were the person who attacked him. However, there are numerous other factors to take into consideration here which you, or your lawyer, could argue in court: firstly, the written description he gave to police wasn’t anything like you (although this could be explained by the fact that he’d just been attacked and was confused and in shock.) Secondly, the victim said you weren’t the attacker while he was still at the scene because you weren’t wearing all black. Thirdly, he could have picked you out as someone he recognised from the night of the attack but in his confusion he’s put the wrong face to the person who attacked him.

Perhaps the most problematic part of your case is that the door ladies who were purely bystanders (i.e. people who weren’t involved) pointed you out as the attacker at the scene. If they have given witness statements to the police that confirm this, their accounts are likely to be quite persuasive evidence when presented in court.

Cases Involving Identification Evidence

Although great care must be taken in a case in which identification evidence is the main part, or a very persuasive part of the prosecution’s case, it is inevitable that people make mistakes. This is why judges have to give juries warnings (called ‘directions’) when they are summing up cases. To read the direction in cases which rely on identification evidence, see: http://www.jsboard.co.uk/criminal_law/cbb/mf_04a.htm#30

Good luck

.