When Tracy Ryan spotted a suspected burglar emerging from the dog sanctuary where she works, she thought she would have little problem pointing him out to police.
After all, he had a large port-wine stain on his face.
But when police set up an identity parade, they refused to take the man's distinctive birthmark into account - in case it infringed his human rights.
What's that you say? Effing insane? Stupid?
An officer from the Nottinghamshire force explained that the mark was too rare to be included in a profile of the burglar when it was entered into a computer database.
It would leave only a small pool of potential suspects in the electronic ID parade, he said, breaking police rules.
Under laws designed to take into account 'the rights and freedoms of the public', witnesses must be shown a minimum of 12 photographs before they are allowed to identify a suspect.
So screw having a positive identifying feature to narrow the possibilities, instead they use it to BROADEN the number of people she has to look at.
But wait! There's more!!
Mrs Ryan noted that, apart from his birthmark, the suspected culprit was tall and wore a white tracksuit. She also took his car registration number.
Police have subsequently made an arrest and Mrs Ryan is due to attend a second identification parade which will include the suspect, who is on bail.
He will be pictured alongside 11 people of a similar appearance. But if he has a birthmark, it will still be kept secret.
The suspected thief and the other participants will be made to cover one side of their face.
The British justice system; broken beyond belief.