Circumstantial evidence

Question 1

what is circumstantial evidence?

Answer 1

court must be able to draw an inferance from this to conclude an issue. this is indirectly incriminating.

Question 2

can you win a case purely on circumstantial evidence?

Answer 2

yes you can. build up a picture to get an inferance drawn

Question 3

what is an example of a case where such circumstantial evidence was used?

Answer 3

Norval v HMA

armed robbery.

was dispute as what the car was
was sufficient evidence in the case to draw an inferance on the guilt of the accused. was therefore guilty of armed robbery.

Question 4

in contrast, what was a case which showed there was not enough circumstantial evidence?

Answer 4

Broadley v HMA
no basis that could have convicted her of murder. crown had not established physical or verbal for her to go through the window. there was only the fingerprint. therefore it was held that all of th circumstances of the case should be taken into account

Question 5

is forensic evidence a form of circumstancial evidence?

Answer 5

yes

Question 6

routine forensic evidence. section and how many pathologists?

Answer 6

crown are only allowed to call one pathlygist. to give evidence containing anything in the report. only one forensic scientist.

Question 7

first case which talks about DNA evidence?

Answer 7

welsh v HMA- dna was corroborated by other circmstantial evidence.
eyewitness confirmed he had a similar build and a cut.
other people might have similar DNA. suggested that DNA would not be enough alone without some other type of evidence to back it up.
held that significant that blood found was wet and that had a severely bad wound when the deceased died

Question 8

what happens if the accused offers no innocent explanation?

case for this?

Answer 8

circumstances may be sufficient for conviction if no other evidence is given. variation of typical corroboration.

Langan v HMA - single fingerptint was enough in the absence of no explanation

Question 9

repeal of no case to answer?

Answer 9

Maguire v HMA - Mask from multicoloured jumper.
DNA recovered from inside the mask matched him from blood.

did not identify maguire.
claimed he had no involvment with the robbery. claimed he had never worn anythjng like the mask.
gave no reason to say why his DNA might have been on it.

However court said that he is still guilty. no misscarrage of justice. distinctive and recognisable pattern.

no innocent explanation.

Question 10

Reid v HMA

Answer 10

DNA on cigarette butt was sufficient for a corroborated case.
chance was 1 in a Billion - abence of any other explanation

Question 11

case which showed DNA evidence did not

Answer 11

Dunbar v HMA

only evidence was from his mouth and that on the envelope.
probability of it being him was 1 in 4 million
could have been 7 or 8 others.
there was no other evidence.