Voice identification evidence lacked necessary degree of cogency to be admitted in trial involving menacing phonecall

Criminal law – voice identification evidence – offence of sending a menacing message, contrary to s.13 of the Post Office (Amendment) Act 1951 as substituted by s.4 (2) of and by Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007 – recognition of voice that made menacing telephone call – whether trial judge erred in admitting evidence as to the capacity of the injured party to identify with any degree of certainty the voice of the appellant – jury ought to be given a Casey/Turnbul-type warning – whether voice identification evidence ought to have been ruled inadmissible on the grounds that it’s prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value – “Sound Familiar? Voice identification evidence” by David Ormerod in 2001 Crim L.R. 595 –“Sounding out expert voice identification”, by David Ormerod, in 2002 Crim L.R. 771 – whether complete absence of safeguards rendered the evidence so infirm that no warning by a judge would be sufficient to address the risk of wrongful conviction – regulation 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 (Electronic Recording of Interviews) Regulations, 1997, SI 74/1997 – voice identification evidence lacked the necessary degree of cogency to allow it to be admitted before the jury – appeal allowed.