The effect of Code D:2.3 Code of Practice in circumstances where identification parades were to be held was clear: if (a) the police had sufficient information to justify the arrest of a particular person for suspected involvement in an offence and (b) an eye-witness had identified or might be able to identify that person, and (c) the suspect disputed his identification, an identification parade must be held if (d) the suspect consented and (e) paras 2.4, 2.7 and 2.10 of Code D did not apply. The decision in R v Popat (1998) 2 Cr. App. R. 208 could not be accepted.
HL (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, Lord Hutton)