Withdrawing poor, unsupported identification evidence from the jury (Turnbull)

The Turnbull guidelines, from R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224, govern disputed visual identification evidence. Where the identification is of good quality, the case may be left to the jury with a careful warning about the special need for caution. But where, in the judge's view, the quality of the identification evidence is poor, as when it depends on a fleeting glance or an observation in difficult conditions, and there is no other evidence supporting its correctness, the judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal. The Crown Court Compendium summarises the duty: judges must examine the identification evidence at the close of the prosecution case and stop the case if it is poor and unsupported. A two-second glimpse at night, in rain, at 40 metres through glass, with nothing else, is a classic poor-quality, unsupported identification.

Why A is wrong: A Turnbull warning is the course for good-quality identification; poor and unsupported evidence must not go to the jury at all.

Why C is wrong: Turnbull is a specific exception requiring the judge to stop a case resting on poor, unsupported identification.

Why D is wrong: Section 76 concerns the admissibility of confessions, not identification evidence.

Why E is wrong: A late identification procedure cannot cure the poor quality of the original observation, and the judge's duty is to rule on the evidence as it stands.