It doesn't set any precedent at all.
The judge sounds like a twat, admittedly.
On the other hand, from what I've heard of the story, the identification wouldn't normally sufficient for a conviction - there was no other evidence, IIRC. That being the case, the identification shouldn't have been admissible.
I suspect that the judge just put things very badly. Very badly indeed.
EDIT: Note also that the Indy is here reporting what the local paper says, so there's ample scope for Chinese Whispers.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 14 Jan 2009, 15:23,
Reply)