Jeremy Ornstin successfully challenged the admissibility of video CCTV identification that the prosecution relied upon during a riot case at Wood Green Crown Court.

CCTV stills were circulated after the August riots, and an intelligence officer purported to recognise the defendant from the still, having seen his details published with ‘mug shots’ naming him from previous arrests. She emailed her superiors stating that she believed that the still “could be” that of the individual and she gave the name.

Two months later the defendant was arrested. On that date, the analyst wrote a witness statement, now stating that the photo still “was” of the defendant.

The Crown also attempted to adduce the evidence from one of the interviewing officers who claimed that he was able to confirm the recognition by stating that it was obvious from looking at the CCTV still and the defendant being interviewed that it was the same person.

Expert facial mapping evidence that we obtained and asked the Crown to admit, concluded that the CCTV material was of too poor a quality to discern any facial details.

Neither witness had ever viewed the actual CCTV footage, nor ever previously had any direct dealings with the defendant. However, this did not stop the Prosecution from asserting that the defendant was the man in the CCTV footage.

Unsurprisingly the judge halted the trial, upholding defence submissions that there was no legal basis for admitting the evidence, and recorded not guilty verdicts to counts of violent disorder and attempted burglary.

The trial advocate was Jeremy Ornstin (director and head of our advocacy department), and the instructing solicitor was Tony Meisels.