1. Evidence I Flashcards
What are facts in issue?
Facts in issue are the essential elements of a case that must be proved by the prosecution or, in exceptional cases, disproved or proved by the accused. These include facts like the identity of the accused, the nature of the act committed, and any required knowledge or intent. Under a not guilty plea, the prosecution must prove all elements of the case.
What is the difference between facts in issue and relevant facts?
“Facts in issue” are the central disputed facts that directly determine the outcome of a case, while “relevant facts” are any facts that are connected to the facts in issue and can help prove or disprove them, even if they are not directly disputed by the parties. Relevant facts may influence the probability that a fact in issue is more or less likely but are not themselves determinative of the outcome.
Under a plea of not guilty, what does the prosecution need to prove?
Under a plea of not guilty, the prosecution must prove the entire case, including the identity of the accused, the nature of the act committed, and the existence of any required knowledge or intent. The standard of proof operates within a binary system where facts are either accepted as having happened or not, without any allowance for “might have happened”.
What are the rules relating to formal admissions?
Formal admissions are facts formally admitted during trial, and once admitted, they are no longer in issue and must be considered as proved. They cannot be open to contradictory proof and cover only facts that could otherwise be proved by oral evidence. Formal admissions cannot be used to admit inadmissible hearsay or expert opinions as facts, although expert conclusions accepted by another party can be admitted as facts.
How can formal admissions be made?
Formal admissions can be made either in writing, which should be presented to the jury if relevant and free from inappropriate material, or orally by counsel or a solicitor during proceedings. They must be clearly recorded, and a written record is typically required unless the court directs otherwise.
Can you withdraw a formal admission?
Withdrawing a formal admission, especially one made with legal advice, is significant and requires the court’s leave under s. 10(4). It is unlikely to be granted without strong evidence of a mistake or misunderstanding.
What is the general rule for relevance and admissibility in evidence?
The general rule is that all evidence sufficiently relevant to the facts in issue is admissible, except where it is irrelevant or insufficiently relevant, in which case it should be excluded. Relevant evidence may still be excluded if a reasonably directed jury could not place any weight on it due to its defects.
When can relevant evidence be excluded?
Relevant evidence can be excluded if it might cause a reasonably directed jury to place undue weight on its defects or if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. Evidence can also be excluded under specific circumstances in strict liability cases where elements like motive or intention are deemed irrelevant and potentially prejudicial.
What is the admissibility of evidence in strict liability cases?
In strict liability cases, where no proof of mens rea is required, evidence of motive, intention, or knowledge is generally inadmissible because it is deemed irrelevant and could prejudice the accused.
How does the binary system of proof apply to facts in issue and relevant facts?
The binary system of proof applies to facts in issue by accepting them as having happened if the standard of proof is met, or not happened if it is not met. This system does not apply to relevant facts, which may be determined to “may have happened.” Relevant facts can influence the probability of a fact in issue being more or less likely but are not determinative of the case outcome themselves.
What is the admissibility of good character evidence of a prosecution witness?
Evidence of a prosecution witness’s good character is typically inadmissible to enhance credibility, as it constitutes “oath-helping.” However, it may be admissible if relevant to an issue in the trial. If good character evidence is admitted, jurors should be guided on its relevance to credibility but also cautioned about its limitations. Jurors might assume prosecution witnesses lack good character if not similarly established.
What constitutes circumstantial evidence?
Circumstantial evidence involves facts from which the existence or non-existence of the main facts in issue may be inferred. The weight given to circumstantial evidence may equal or exceed that of direct evidence if a variety of credible circumstantial evidence is more persuasive than direct evidence from less credible sources. Judges should summarize defense arguments against circumstantial evidence and instruct the jury to avoid speculation and decide if they are sure of the defendant’s guilt.
What is considered real evidence, particularly tangible objects?
Real evidence usually consists of material objects whose existence, condition, or value is in issue or relevant to an issue, produced in court for inspection by the tribunal of fact. Little weight can be attached to real evidence without accompanying testimony identifying the object and connecting it with the facts in issue. In some cases, expert testimony may be required for the tribunal of fact to draw conclusions from real evidence.
What does a ‘view’ entail in the context of evidence?
A ‘view’ refers to an inspection out of court of a material object or place that it is inconvenient or impossible to bring to court. It should occur before the summing-up and be attended by the judge, tribunal of fact, the parties, their counsel, and, where applicable, a shorthand writer. In the case of magistrates, a visit to the locus in quo should occur before the conclusion of the evidence and in the presence of the parties or their representatives.
Who decides questions of law and questions of fact in trials of indictment?
In trials of indictment, questions of law are decided by the judge, and questions of fact are decided by the jury. If the trial is conducted without a jury, the judge decides both questions of law and fact and must provide reasons for the conviction if the accused is found guilty. Additionally, lay magistrates, when sitting with a judge in Crown Court, participate in all questions to be determined by the court, including the factual aspects of any question relating to the admissibility of evidence, but must accept the judge’s ruling on any question of law
Who decides questions of law and facts in summary trials?
In summary trials, all questions of law and fact are decided by the justices or the district judge (magistrates’ courts). Justices may seek and should accept the advice of the justice’s legal adviser on questions of law, including the law of evidence, though in practice, district judges, being experienced lawyers, rarely need advice.
What is the application of PACE s.78?
Section 78 of PACE allows the court to exclude evidence on which the prosecution intends to rely if its admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it ought not to be admitted. This discretionary power is significant in ensuring the fair conduct of the trial, taking into account the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained.
How does PACE s.78 extend common law powers?
Section 78 of PACE extends common law powers by enabling the exclusion of any evidence obtained illegally, improperly, or unfairly on which the prosecution proposes to rely. This includes not just admissions or confessions but any evidence obtained in such a manner, expanding the scope of evidence that can be excluded to ensure fairness in proceedings
