Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
A.C.2.3 - Rules of evidence - Coggle Diagram
A.C.2.3 - Rules of evidence
Illegally or improperly obtained evidence
Improperly obtained evidence includes the use of entrapment, where police use deception to persuade a suspect to commit or admit to a crime. It may also occur in 'sting' operations mounted by police, where an undercover officer poses as a criminal and induces a suspect to commit a crime.
The court in fact can permit illegally or improperly obtained evidence if it helps to discover the truth. However, if it endangers a fair trial, the judge can rule it out as inadmissible.
Illegally obtained evidence is gained by breaking the law or violating a person's human rights. This would include evidence obtained in an illegal search conducted without a warrant, and using torture or degrading treatment to obtain a confession.
The right to remain silent
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows the jury to draw inferences (conclusions) about a defendant's guilt if they remain silent in the following circumstances:
Failure to answer police questions about a particular object in their possession, or about their presence in a particular place.
Failure to testify in court, unless they can give a reason for not doing so that the jury finds acceptable.
A jury can't convict solely on inferences, to secure a conviction the prosecution must provide other evidence as well.
Presumed innocent until proven guilty
The accused doesn't have to prove their innocence, so in theory they don't have to say anything in their defence, either before or during the trial.
Evidence of bad character
The CJA also permits the defence to rely on evidence of reputation to prove the defendant's 'good' character.
To prevent this unjustly damaging the defendant's reputation or credibility, character evidence is only admitted under certain circumstances:
Where it shows that the defendant has a tendency to lie.
To commit similar offences to those they are charged with.
In general, character evidence can't be used in relation to non-defendants (e.g. victims, police officers involved in the case, and defence witnesses). However, feminists have criticised the tendency in rape cases for defence lawyers to introduce evidence about victims' sexual history.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) defines bad character as 'evidence of or disposition towards misconduct'. Misconduct includes previous convictions and cautions as well as things such as racism, bullying, a bad disciplinary record at work, or having a child taken into care.
If the judge decides that the evidence of the defendant's bad character is contaminated, they may direct the jury to acquit the defendant, or order a re-trial.
The prosecution's duty of disclosure
Failure to disclosure:
The number of cases where charges were dropped due to the prosecution's failure to disclose has increased.
If the police have possession of a suspect's phone but fail to read through possibly thousands of text messages, they may miss evidence that clears the suspect of blame and so fail to disclose it to the defence.
Police have also sometimes deliberately withheld such evidence when they firmly believed that the accused is guilty.
This amounts to perverting the course of justice and is itself a criminal offence.
Unused material includes anything that might undermine the prosecution's own case or assist the defence's case (e.g. any material casting doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's witness or the reliability of a confession).
Limits to disclosure - public interest immunity:
A public-interest immunity (PII) certificate, from the court, exempts the prosecution from having to disclose sensitive materials that pose a real risk to an important public interest. For example, endangering national security or revealing the identity of undercover police officers.
The prosecution has a duty to:
Notify the accused of all the evidence they intend to rely on.
Make available to the defence any unused material relevant to the case that they don't intend to present to the court.
Hearsay evidence
Hearsay evidence is generally not admitted in court, because it is second-hand evidence that could be false.
Definition
A statement that has been made by someone out of court to a witness who is appearing in court, and which the witness wishes to rely on as evidence of a fact.
Exemptions:
However, hearsay evidence is admissible when:
Common law permits it, e.g. in the case of publicly available information, reputation or expert evidence.
The judge rules that it is in the interests of justice.
A witness is absent, abroad, dead, unfit to testify due to fear or bodily/ mental condition, or has disappeared.
All parties (prosecution, defence and judge) agree.