The Pharmacy Robbery: Photograph Array, Parade and Prior Conviction
At 8:40 p.m. a pharmacy is robbed by two men. One is unmasked for about twenty seconds while shouting at the 61-year-old pharmacist, who was not wearing glasses and stood roughly four metres away under a flickering tube light. Nine days later a constable shows the pharmacist a sheet of eight photographs, all at once, and remains in the room; the constable knows which photograph is the suspect’s. The pharmacist picks the third photograph after about forty seconds and says, “That looks like him, but I can’t be sure.” Two days later, at an identification parade, the same pharmacist identifies the same man “immediately and with full confidence”. The parade is conducted by an officer who has read the case file. A week before the parade, a local newspaper had printed the suspect’s photograph under the headline “habitual robber held”. The suspect has a 2016 robbery conviction. The trial court must decide what weight to give the identification.
1. Separate the system variables from the estimator variables in this case and assess whether the parade supplies independent evidence.
Read the worked answer
Estimator variables - the system cannot control them, it can only record them. Distance of about four metres, twenty seconds of exposure under flickering light, a weapon present (weapon focus), high stress, the witness’s age, uncorrected vision and no spectacles, and the partial disguise on the second assailant. These were fixed at 8:40 p.m. The only duty was to capture the witness’s description in his own words in the first record, before any photograph was shown.
System variables - controllable, and all mishandled.
- A simultaneous array rather than sequential; a single sheet; no standardised pre-array instruction that the offender may not be present; no recorded confidence statement; no recording of the procedure.
- A non-blind administrator who knew the suspect, which licenses inadvertent cueing.
- No documented rationale for choosing the seven fillers; if they are not matched to the description, the suspect stands out.
- Nine days’ delay before the first procedure.
- Pre-parade publicity showing the suspect’s photograph.
- A parade officer who had read the file and therefore knew the answer.
Does the parade add independent evidence? No. By the time of the parade the pharmacist had seen the suspect twice - in the array and in the newspaper. The parade tested recognition of a now-familiar face, not memory of the offence. The first identification was tentative; the second was confident. That shift is the signature of post-identification confidence inflation, not of a stronger memory, and treating the two as corroborating each other double-counts a single contaminated trace.
2. What weight should the court give the identification, and what would a defensible procedure have looked like?
Read the worked answer
Weight: little, and none as corroboration of itself. The identification is weak on its own terms (distance, duration, light, weapon focus, tentative first choice) and its later confident version is contaminated by three known influences: the array administrator’s knowledge, the newspaper photograph, and the rehearsal effect of a second procedure. Confidence is a poor guide to accuracy even when uncontaminated; here it has been directly inflated by the process itself.
A defensible procedure would have been:
- A sequential, double-blind lineup administered by an officer who does not know which member is the suspect, or a photo array in a shuffled, blind folder procedure.
- Pre-array instructions in fixed words: the offender may or may not be present; the investigation will continue either way.
- Fillers selected to match the description recorded in the first statement, not the suspect’s appearance.
- A confidence statement taken verbatim immediately after the choice and recorded before any feedback.
- Full video or audio recording, and a written record of the delay and the witness’s viewing conditions.
- For the parade, a stand-in or blind conductor, and no newspaper exposure in the interim.
Practical consequence for the court. The identification should not be treated as a safe basis for conviction unless independently supported - CCTV on the approach route, phone location, recovery of the marked currency, or a description given before the array that matches the accused on distinguishing features.
3. The prosecution wishes to lead the 2016 robbery conviction as similar-fact evidence. Advise on admissibility and on what should be led instead.
Read the worked answer
The general rule cuts against the prosecution. Previous bad character is ordinarily irrelevant to whether the accused committed this offence; the Evidence Act’s provision to that effect survives in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, where the corresponding section sits - cite and verify the current number before drafting. Similar-fact reasoning is a narrow exception, and its logic is dangerous here precisely because identity is the disputed issue: the more similar the prior robbery, the more tempting the inference, and the more it substitutes propensity for proof. The fact that the earlier conviction is in the case file at all creates a real risk that the parade officer’s knowledge, and the newspaper’s headline, fed the witness.
Lead instead:
- The first recorded description, compared feature by feature with the accused - including exculpatory detail such as height or build, which should be disclosed.
- CCTV covering the approach and exit from the pharmacy; the second assailant’s movements may identify the pair.
- Cell-site or phone data for the accused in the window, with a documented legal basis for the acquisition.
- Recovery of currency with recorded serial numbers, or the phone with a verifiable identifier, plus a chain-of-custody record from seizure to court.
- Any statement or conduct of the accused that is genuinely independent of the identification.
Advise the court to exclude the prior conviction as propensity evidence and to admit it, if at all, only where a specific statutory exception applies and its probative value on a fact in issue outweighs the prejudice - and to record that reasoning, because an appellate court will look at it first.