R. v. Goodman

The Crown in every case must prove that the accused was the one who committed the offence. Law enforcement methods used in obtaining such evidence have been the subject of much judicial scrutiny in recent years. A traditional 'line up' or 'photo line up' can be reliable but if the procedure used is suggestive the identification evidence will be irreversibly tainted and should be ignored. But what about a one-man line up? Sound absurd? The Crown in this case had no evidence that the defendant was the one who had been driving the car when the accident happened. To get around the problem, a highly suggestive and dangerous identification procedure was resorted to by the Crown (and accepted by the Court) which led to a conviction. In the midst of the trial, the witness was asked to point out the driver from the accident for the very first time. This 'in court' or 'in dock' identification technique is unsafe given that the witness has only one person to choose from - and that person has already been charged. The witness will be aware that the police and the prosecutor are confident that the defendant was the one who committed the offence. We argued that the failure of the authorities to properly test the witness's ability to recall through non-suggestive methods prior to trial rendered the evidence of identification unreliable. On appeal the Provincial Court Judge agreed; the defendant was acquitted.

Read the actual courtroom transcripts of the trial and appeal