- 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 as to present a compelling case and withstand challenge; the advocate
