Procedures to Conduct Identification Parade

Identification Parade (IP) (or in Malay, Kawad Cam) is part of the procedures in the investigation. A Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) would be at the risk of losing the case in court if the Defence Counsel (Peguambela) is able to prove to the judge that the Pegawai Kawad cam did not follow the right procedures in conducting the IP.

There appears to be no other specific provisions either in Evidence Act 1950 or the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to identification parade. There are however guidelines established by cases of law with respect to the right conduct of identification evidence.

1. PP v Sarjeet Singh (1994) 2 MLJ 290: Where the accused persons are already known to the witnesses, there is no need to conduct identification parade.

2.Chan Sin v PP 1949 MLJ 106 CA: There should be no disparity of ages, weight, races of the persons in the parade.

3. PP v Chan Choon Keong (1989) 2 MLJ 427: Where there are two or more suspects, separate identification parade must be held.

4. Lee Tiaw Chwee v PP 1998 3 SLR 563: It was not objectionable for them to be differently attired. This is because the identification is done according to the faces of the suspect.

5.Jaafar Bin Ali v PP (1998) 4 MLJ 406: Where the witness had an opportunity to see the suspect prior to the identification parade (for example, photographs or written description) the parade has absolutely no weight.

6. Mallal’s Criminal Procedure Code (4th Edition): The suspect should be placed among a number of person (not less than 10 persons for one accused). The suspect should be invited to stand where he pleases among the people. The suspect may change his position after each witnesses has been called in.  The witnesses should be brought in one by one to identify the suspects.