The Crown sought to introduce a video recording of a complainant’s participation in a photographic lineup following a robbery.
During the lineup, the complainant initially selected the wrong photograph but verbally described identifying characteristics of the robber while reviewing the sequence.
The defence objected on the basis that the video constituted inadmissible hearsay, lacked probative value due to the erroneous identification, and risked impermissible prior consistent statements.
The court held that evidence of out-of-court identification and the identification process may be admitted as original evidence, particularly where the identifying witness testifies and is subject to cross‑examination.
The video evidence was admissible because it provided the jury with the full narrative of the identification process and assisted in assessing the reliability of the witness’s observations.