header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 February 2020 / Alec Samuels
Issue: 7875 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Body of evidence

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
16254
Alec Samuels reports on gait recognition evidence
  • Gait recognition: appointing an expert.
  • Evidence: strengths and weaknesses.
  • Code of practice: invaluable for judges.

Evidence of identity from gait recognition is most unlikely to be sufficient in itself to prove a case, civil or criminal, but if admitted may nonetheless support and strengthen an allegation of identity. The lawyer will need to instruct an appropriate expert, preferably in forensic gait recognition biometrics, and will need at least a rudimentary understanding of the relevant factors that the competent expert needs to consider in analysing the material, forming an opinion, compiling a report and giving evidence. The jurors are fully accustomed to facial recognition, and voice recognition to some extent. But gait recognition is a relatively new dimension about which the judges and the jurors as decision-makers are likely to be sceptical. The credibility, reliability and accuracy of gait recognition evidence have yet to be fully established and accepted.

The advocate for the prosecution needs to shepherd his expert so

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll