Question: (Inspired by [Can a lawyer subject the court to a (temporary) ruse for a legitimate purpose?](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/36934/can-a-lawyer-subject-the-court-to-a-temporary-ruse-for-a-legitimate-purpose))

Under which circumstances are witnesses asked to identify people present (in particular defendants) in the courtroom?

* In which jurisdictions is this a thing? (I know it happens in the US; what about the UK, etc?)
* Are there rules mandating it (either local court rules, statutes, or jurisprudence), or is it something the parties may choose to do or not? If the parties choose, why would they do or not do it?

Answer: 
[new-zealand](/questions/tagged/new-zealand "show questions tagged 'new-zealand'") [criminal-law](/questions/tagged/criminal-law "show questions tagged 'criminal-law'")

This is commonly referred to as "dock identification" and is governed by [s 45 of the Evidence Act 2006](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0069/latest/DLM393637.html) with further enunciation in [*Harney v Police* [2011] NZSC 107](https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/86/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/e5b4349e-b1a6-4522-b27b-0c85c095bbea/e5b4349e-b1a6-4522-b27b-0c85c095bbea.pdf) at [26]–[28].

Basically, it is considered banned because visual identification has to be conducted according to a "formal procedure", and identification by witnesses in courtrooms falls well short of those formalities.

The only exception is when there is "a good reason for not following a formal procedure" — the scenarios (a)–(f) listed in s 45(4).

*Harney v Police* adds another "good reason" — in a nut shell it is when the defendant is well known to the witness:

> 
> [26] We are satisfied that where the visual identification evidence
> takes the form of a recognition by the eyewitness of someone already
> known to the witness ... that can constitute a further good reason for
> not following a formal procedure. ... [T]he formal identification
> procedures in subs (3) are primarily directed towards identification
> of strangers and the risk factors differ with identifications of
> persons previously known to the witness. ...
> 
> 
> [27] It does not follow,
> of course, that merely because identification evidence takes the form
> of recognition of a person known to the defendant, that factor will
> necessarily provide a good reason for dispensing with a formal
> procedure. It will not do so unless the appearance of the alleged
> offender was sufficiently known to the witness before the time of the
> alleged offending that a formal procedure would be of no utility. ...
> 
> 
> [28] The sufficiency of the familiarity of the witness with the
> defendant's appearance and the utility of a formal procedure need to
> be gauged in the individual case. ... There can be, however, no
> formulaic requirement, such as that the defendant must have been
> "well" known to the witness. The degree of prior contact or knowledge
> of appearance, and its sufficiency, must be assessed in each case
> taking account of all the circumstances.
> 
> 
> 

In practice, however, parties may have hard times trying to convince the judge that there is (or isn't) a "good reason" to allow dock identification. Given the vagueness of the above passages by the Supreme Court, the rationales for/against dock identification are hard to argue and so are easy to sway either way.
[new-south-wales](/questions/tagged/new-south-wales "show questions tagged 'new-south-wales'") [australia](/questions/tagged/australia "show questions tagged 'australia'")

**There are strict limits on *[visual identification evidence](https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/identification_evidence-visual_forms.html)***

This comes from Part 3.9 of the Evidence Act which is based on a uniform law across all states, territories, and the Commonwealth.

*Visual identification evidence* (including in-dock identification) is permitted only when it was part of a properly conducted police line-up, it was reasonable in the circumstances that there was no line-up, or where the defendant refused to participate in the line up after receiving legal advice.

Even when it is admissible, the judge must instruct the jury of its low probative value and advice them that they must consider such evidence cautiously before assigning it any weight.

Exceptions apply when the defendant’s identity is not an issue at trial, or when the defendant is previously well known to the witness.