IDENTIFICATION PARADES

IDENTIFICATION IS PROOF IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS THAT A PERSON DOCUMENT OR OTHER

THING IS THAT WHICH IT IS ALLEGED TO BE

A PARADE IS AN ORGANIZED PROCESSION OF PEOPLE ALONG A STREET

THE TERM PARADE ALSO REFERS TO AN ASSEMBLY OF SOLDIERS OR OTHER OCCASIONS

WHERE PARTICIPANTS MARCH IN FORMATION

ID PARADE IS AS AN ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS FROM WHOM A SUSPECT IS TO BE IDENTIFIED

ITS A POLICE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE IN WHICH A SUSPECT AND OTHER PHYSICALLY

SIMILAR PERSONS ARE SHOWN TO THE VICTIM OR A WITNESS TO DETERMINE WHETHER
THE SUSPECT CAN BE IDENTIFIED AS THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME

ID PARADES ARE AN EVIDENCE GATHERING PROCESS

AN ID PARADE IS NOT A JUDICIAL PROCESS

ITS A PROSECUTION FUNCTION THAT INFORMS THE JUDICIAL PROCESS

ID PARADES ARE PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE FORCE STANDING ORDERS (RULE 6)

THE SUSPECT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN TO A WITNESS DIRECTLY UNLESS ITS OBVIOUS THAT HE
IS KNOWN TO THE WITNESS

IF THERE IS DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE SUSPECT COMMITTED OFFENCE, AN ID PARADE

SHOULD BE HELD

IF THE SUSPECT IS KNOWN TO COMPLAINANT/WITNESS, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO HOLD AN

ID PARADE

IN AJODE VS R (2004)2 KLR 81 COURT HELD ONCE A WITNESS HAS BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE
SUSPECT BEFORE THE PARADE IS HELD, THEN HE WILL BE DOING NO MORE THAN
DEMONSTRATING HIS RECOGNITION OF THE SUSPECT AND NOT IDENTIFYING THE SUSPECT.
THAT INDEED IS THE REASON WHY NO IDENTIFICATION PARADE IS REQUIRED IN CASES OF
RECOGNITION

IN GITHINJI V.R (1970)E.A.231 SIMPSON CJ ONCE A WITNESS KNOWS WHO THE SUSPECT IS,
AN IDENTIFICATION PARADE IS VALUELESS

IN STANLEY KOECH &2OTHERS V.R(2007)eKLR

PW1 WAS APPELLANTS STEP MOTHER WHILE PW2 WAS THEIR FATHER. POLICE CONDUCTED
AN ID PARADE. THE PARADE WAS HELD TO HAVE BEEN VALUELESS

ANY PERSON MAY REFUSE TO APPEAR IN AN ID PARADE

IF SUSPECT REFUSES, HE CANNOT BE COMPELLED

IF SUSPECT IS SUBSEQUENTLY CHARGED, EVIDENCE OF REFUSAL IS GIVEN

 ON CONDUCTING AN ID PARADE THE CONDUCTING OFFICER MUST FILL FORM P.156
REPORT OF AN IDENTIFICATION PARADE

BEING AN EVIDENCE GATHERING EXERCISE, UTMOST CARE MUST BE TAKEN TO GIVE IT

CREDENCE

R V Mwango s/o Manaa (1936) 3 EACA 29 THE VALUE OF IDENTIFICATION AS EVIDENCE

WOULD DEPRECIATE CONSIDERABLY UNLESS AN IDENTIFICATION PARADE WAS HELD WITH
SCRUPULOUS FAIRNESS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN
THE POLICE STANDING ORDERS

THE SUSPECTS DESCRIPTION MUST BE GIVEN TO POLICE AT THE TIME OF REPORTING

INCIDENT

NTELEJO LOKWAM V REPUBLIC (2006)Eklr THE IDENTIFICATION WAS HELD THREE YEARS
AFTER THE SAID ROBBERY. IT WAS HELD IN THE ABSENCE OF A DESCRIPTION BEING GIVEN
TO THE POLICE WHEN THE FIRST REPORT WAS MADE AFTER THE ROBBERY HAD TAKEN
PLACE, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN INDEPENDENT TRIBUNAL EVALUATING THE
EVIDENCE TO ARRIVE AT A DETERMINATION THAT THE COMPLAINANTS HAD IN FACT MADE A
POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMED
WHEN THEY IDENTIFIED THE APPELLANT IN AN IDENTIFICATION PARADE CONDUCTED BY THE
POLICE.

IN LIVINGSTONE KIHUGO V R (2007)Eklr p.4 HELD THAT ID PARADE EVIDENCE UNWORTHY

BECAUSE APPELLANTS DESCRIPTION NOT GIVEN TO POLICE WHEN REPORTING ROBBERY
INCIDENT COMPLAINED OF OCCURRED AT NIGHT & APPELLANT HAD BEEN ARRESTED AS
HABITUAL ROBBER AND NOT A SPECIFIC SUSPECT IN CASE

THE STANDING ORDERS PROVIDE FOR THE FOLLOWING WHILE CONDUCTING THE PARADE

A) INFORM SUSPECT REASON FOR PARADE &HE MAY HAVE A FRIEND OR SOLICITOR AT PARADE

IN NJIHIA VS R (I986)KLR 422 C.A HELD IF PROPERLY CONDUCTED ESPECIALLY WITH AN

INDEPENDENT PERSON PRESENT LOOKING AFTER THE INTEREST OF A SUSPECT, THE
RESULTING EVIDENCE IS OF GREAT VALUE

B) The police officer in charge of the case, although he may be present, should not
conduct the parade

THE OFFICER CONDUCTING PARADE SHOULD BE AS INDEPENDENT AS POSSIBLE TO AVOID

PREJUDICING SUSPECT

ID PARADES

C) THE WITNESS OR WITNESSES SHOULD NOT SEE THE ACCUSED BEFORE THE PARADE

LIVINGSTONE MWANGI V REPUBLIC[2007) E KLR COURT HELD THAT ID PARADE WAS NOT
WORTHY OF ANY EVIDENTIAL VALUE SINCE IDENTIFYING WITNESS HAD ALREADY BEEN
SHOWN THE SUSPECT WHO WAS ALREADY ARRESTED.
 OMAR VS REPUBLIC (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 133 OF 1985)COURT SAID,

THOUGH THE PARADE HAD BEEN PROPERLY CONDUCTED, THE APPELLANTS SUCCESS IN
PROVING THAT HE HAD BEEN SEEN BY THE WITNESS PRIOR TO THE PARADE MEANT THAT THE
PARADE WAS USELESS.

D)THE ACCUSED /SUSPECTED PERSONS SHOULD BE PLACED AMONG AT LEAST EIGHT PERSONS, AS
FAR AS POSSIBLE OF SIMILAR AGE, HEIGHT, GENERAL APPEARANCE AND CLASS OF LIFE AS
HIMSELF.SHOULD THE ACCUSED/SUSPECTED PERSON BE SUFFERING FROM DISFIGUREMENT, STEPS
SHOULD BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT IT IS NOT ESPECIALLY APPARENT.

DAVID MWITA WANJA & 2 OTHERS V REPUBLIC, TWO PARADES WERE CONDUCTED IN
RESPECT OF 2ND AND 3RD APPELLANT. THE EIGHT PERSONS WHO TOOK PART IN THE SECOND
PARADE, WERE THE SAME PERSONS WHO WERE IN THE EARLIER PARADE EXCEPT THE
POSITIONS THEY TOOK.

IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS THAT THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF
THE IDENTIFICATION PARADES WERE RENDERED MEANINGLESS SINCE THE WITNESS COULD
READILY TELL BY ELIMINATION THAT THE TWO APPELLANTS WERE THE ONLY NEW FACES IN
THE PARADE. IT WAS HELD BY THE COURT THAT THIS WAS EXTREMELY PREJUDICIAL TO THE
APPELLANT.

IN MBURU & ANOTHER V REPUBLIC (2008) 1 KLR , THE SECOND ACCUSED WAS THE ONLY
PERSON IN THE PARADE WITH A VISIBLY WOUNDED FACE AND SWOLLEN EYE, HIS PARADE
WAS IMPROPERLY CONDUCTED AND HIS IDENTIFICATION WAS THUS VALUELESS.

E)THE ACCUSED/ SUSPECTED PERSON WILL BE ALLOWED TO TAKE ANY POSITION HE CHOSES AND
WILL BE ALLOWED TO CHANGE HIS POSITION AFTER EACH IDENTIFYING WITNESS HAS LEFT.

F)CARE MUST BE EXERCISED TO ENSURE THAT THE WITNESSES DO NOT COMMUNICATE WITH
EACH OTHER

THIS ENSURES THAT WITNESSES DO NOT EXCHANGE DETAILS ON PERSONS ON PARADE

IT WOULD PREJUDICE THE SUSPECT

G) EVERY UNAUTHORIZED PERSON MUST BE EXCLUDED

UNAUTHORISED PERSONS MAY OCCASION UNDUE PRESSURE ON SUSPECT

THEIR PRESENCE COULD BE WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVE

H) IF THE WITNESS DESIRES TO SEE THE ACCUSED/SUSPECTED PERSON TO WALK, HEAR HIM
SPEAK, SEE HIM WITH HIS HAT ON OR OFF, THIS SHOULD BE DONE, BUT IN THIS EVENT THE WHOLE
PARADE SHOULD BE ASKED TO DO LIKEWISE.
 THIS AVOIDS SITUATION WHERE SUSPECT IS PICKED OUT AND ASKED TO BEHAVE IN A
MANNER THAT WILL DISTINGUISH HIM FROM OTHER PARADE MEMBERS

ON THE OTHER HAND IF SUSPECT IS NOT ASKED TO BEHAVE IN PRESCRIBED MANNER BUT
ONLY ONE OTHER

PARADE MEMBER, THEN THE IDENTIFICATION WILL BE A SHAM AS THE WITNESS WILL BE
DISADVANTAGED

H) POLICE SHOULD ENSURE THAT THE WITNESS ACTUALLY TOUCHES THE PERSON HE
IDENTIFIES

REMOVES DOUBT AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON PICKED OUT ON PARADE;

IN R V CREAMER(1984)80CR.APP REP 248 ACCUSED OBJECTED TO EVIDENCE THAT A

WITNESS HAVING APPARENTLY FAILED TO IDENTIFY HIM AT PARADE TOLD I.O. THAT SHE DID
BUT WAS FRIGHTENED TO SPEAK. HELD, VALUE OF EVIDENCE DIMINISHED.

J) AT THE TERMINATION OF THE PARADE, OR DURING THE PARADE, THE OFFICER

CONDUCTING IT SHOULD ASK THE ACCUSED/ SUSPECTED PERSON IF HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE
PARADE IS BEING/HAS BEEN CONDUCTED IN A FAIR MANNER AND NOTE HIS REPLY.

SUSPECT HAS CHANCE TO MONITOR FAIRNESS OF PROCESS

K) WHEN EXPLAINING THE PROCEDURE TO A WITNESS THE OFFICER CONDUCTING THE

PARADE WILL TELL HIM THAT HE WILL SEE A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT
CONTAIN THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE. THE WITNESS SHOULD NOT BE TOLD TO PICK OUT
SOMEBODY OR BE INFLUENCED IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

IN OLUOCH V REPUBLIC (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 66 OF 1984) ONE OF THE IDENTIFYING

WITNESSES WAS, ACCORDING TO HIS EVIDENCE, TOLD TO IDENTIFY THE PEOPLE WHO
ROBBED ME ON AUGUST 10TH 1982. IT WAS HELD THAT THE WITNESS COULD REASONABLY
TAKE THAT TO MEAN THAT PERSONS WHO ROBBED HIM WERE AT THE PARADE.

CONSEQUENTLY, THE EVIDENCE WAS CONSIDERABLY OF LESSER VALUE.

IN REX V LULATIKWA S/O KABAILE ALIS RUTALIBA S/O KASESE (1941 EACA 6) COURT HELD
THAT, IT IS DANGEROUS TO SUGGEST TO AN IDENTIFYING WITNESS THAT THE PERSON TO BE
IDENTIFIED IS BELIEVED TO BE PRESENT IN THE PARADE.

L) A CAREFUL NOTE MUST BE MADE AFTER EACH WITNESS LEAVES THE PARADE, TO RECORD
WHETHER HE IDENTIFIED THE ACCUSED/SUSPECTED PERSON AND IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES.

M) A RECORD SHOULD BE MADE BY THE OFFICER CONDUCTING THE PARADE OF ANY

COMMENT MADE BY THE ACCUSED/ SUSPECTED PERSON DURING THE PARADE, PARTICULARLY
COMMENTS WHEN THE ACCUSED/ SUSPECTED PERSON IS IDENTIFIED.

N) THE PARADE MUST BE CONDUCTED WITH SCRUPULOUS FAIRNESS, OTHERWISE THE VALUE
OF THE IDENTIFICATION AS EVIDENCE WILL BE LESSENED OR NULLIFIED.
 R V MWANGO S/O MANAA (1936) 3 EACA 29.

DOCK IDENTIFICATION

COURTS GENERALLY AVOID CONVICTIONS BASED ON DOCK IDENTIFICATIONS BECAUSE SUCH

EVIDENCE, WITHOUT CORROBORATION, IS OF LESSER VALUE OR WORTHLESS.

A WITNESS OR WITNESSES POINTS OUT THE ACCUSED STANDING AT THE DOCK AND
IDENTIFIES HIM/HER AS THE CULPRIT WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME.

IN GABRIEL NJOROGE VS REPUBLIC 1982-1988 1 KAR, 34 THE COURT HELD THAT THE DOCK
IDENTIFICATION OF A SUSPECT IS GENERALLY WORTHLESS UNLESS OTHER EVIDENCE IS
ADDUCED TO CORROBORATE IT.

SIMILAR FINDINGS WERE HELD IN THE CASE OF OWEN KIMOTHO KIARIE VS REPUBLIC
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 93 OF 1983 (UNREPORTED)

AMOLO VS. REPUBLIC 1991 2 KAR, 254 THE COURT EXPLAINED THE RATIONALE FOR THE
COURTS RELUCTANCE TO ACCEPT A DOCK IDENTIFICATION WITHOUT OTHER EVIDENCE AS
FOLLOWS,

THE REASON FOR THE COURTS RELUCTANCE TO ACCEPT A DOCK IDENTIFICATION IS PART OF
THE WIDER CONCEPT, OR PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR A PARTY TO
SUGGEST ANSWERS TO HIS OWN WITNESSES OR, AS IT SOMETIMES PUT, TO LEAD HIS OWN
WITNESS.

IF AN ACCUSED SITS IN THE DOCK WHILE THE WITNESS GIVES EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE
AGAINST HIM UNDUE ATTENTION IS DRAWN TOWARDS HIM

It is also believed that the accused presence in the dock might suggest to a witness that he is
expected to identify him/her as the person who committed the offence. This was particularly
discussed in the case of Mwiruri and 2 Others vs Republic Criminal Appeal No. 117, 131, 133
of 2000