[2010] 4 MLJ A B C D E F Low Kian Boon & Anor v Public Prosecutor (Heliliah FCJ) 457 In adapting the Turnbull guidelines for our local system, we have reworked the Turnbull guidelines into the following three step test. The first question which a judge should ask when encountering a criminal case where there is identification evidence, is whether the case against the accused depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of the identification evidence which is alleged by the defence to be mistaken. If so, the second question should be this. Is the identification evidence of good quality, taking into account the circumstances in which the identification by the witness was made? A non-exhaustive list of factors which could be considered include the length of time that the witness observed the accused, the distance at which the observation was made, the presence of obstruction in the way of the observation, the number of times the witness had seen the accused, the frequency with which the witness saw the accused, the presence of any special reasons for the witness to remember the accused, the length of time which had elapsed between the original observation and the subsequent identification to the police and the presence of material discrepancies between the description of the accused as given by the witness and the actual appearance of the accused. In considering the circumstances in which the identification was made, the judge should take note of any specific weaknesses in the identification evidence. If after evaluation of the identification evidence, the judge is satisfied that the quality of the identification evidence is good, he may then go on to safely assess the value of the identification evidence. Where the quality of the identification evidence is poor, the judge should go on to ask the third question. Is there any other evidence which goes to support the correctness of the identification? If the judge is unable to find other supporting evidence for the identification evidence, he should then be mindful that a conviction which relies on such poor identification evidence would be unsafe. The supporting evidence need not be corroborative evidence of the kind required in R v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658. What the supporting evidence has to be is evidence that makes the judge sure that there was no mistake in the identification. G H I [36] It is found that whatever allegations that are made of any impropriety in the conduct of the IP do not create infirmities for as indicated earlier on the HC judge has examined relevant portions of the evidence of the witnesses. Through his statements the HC judge has disclosed that the inference that the appellants are the perpetrators is not founded primarily on the IP. Instead the IP was made as a further test of the dock identification by the witnesses. No reasonable basis is detected for the IP to be rejected. [37] The next issue to be considered is the alleged failure to call certain witnesses, the failure of which would attract the application of s 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 the provision so frequently relied upon to draw adverse inferences. It is notable that in this case several statements may have been recorded. The prosecution has not chosen to produce and neither has the