The police did not need to hold an identification parade to identify the claimant where the identification evidence against the claimant was pure recognition.The claimant appealed by way of case stated against the decision of justices to convict her of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The claimant was convicted of ABH on a minor. The assault lasted seven minutes. The claimant and the minor had known each other for a period of eighteen months prior to the assault. The victim identified the claimant as the person who had assaulted her. The police did not hold an identity parade to identify the claimant. At the claimant's trial the justices held that the police were entitled not to hold an identification parade as it was futile. The claimant submitted that the justices had erred in law in failing to exercise their discretion to exclude the identification evidence, under s.78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.Held (1) The justices were correct in refusing to exercise their discretion to exclude the identification evidence under s.78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In the circumstances of the present case the police had every reason to believe that the claimant and the victim were well known to each other. The claimant had accepted that the victim knew her. There was no question of doubt as to the victim's ability to recognise the claimant. The present case was one of pure recognition where it was futile to hold an identification parade (R v Forbes (2001) 1 AC applied).