Criminal lit cases

Question 1

Galbraith

Answer 1

For D submission of no case to answer

The Galbraith test = two separate limbs for the defence to consider when making a submission of no case to answer:

Limb 1 - there is no evidence upon which the jury could convict; or

Limb 2 - there is some evidence, but it is so poor that it would be unsafe to leave it to the jury

= ‘the prosecution evidence is insufficient for any reasonable court properly to convict’

Question 2

Hanson

Answer 2

what is required before a defendant’s bad character is capable of showing a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged?

The guidance in R v Hanson laid down three questions to be addressed, which are:

(i) Does the history of conviction(s) establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged?
(ii) Does the propensity make it more likely that the defendant committed the offences charged?
(iii) Is it unjust to rely on the conviction(s) of the same description or category; and in any event, will the proceedings be unfair if they are admitted?

(jury should not put excessive weight on previous convictions)

Question 3

vye

Answer 3

vye direction has two limbs to direct the jury of the good character of the defendant

(a) The general rule is that a direction as to the relevance of good character to a defendant’s credibility is to be given where a defendant has a good character and has testified or made pre-trial statements [‘credibility limb’].
(b) The general rule is that a direction as to the relevance of a good character to the likelihood of a defendant’s having committed the offence charged is to be given where a defendant has a good character whether or not he has testified or made pre-trial answers or statements. [‘propensity limb’]

the second limb will still apply to defendants that have not testified

Question 4

hunter

Answer 4

two types of good character: ‘absolute good character’ and ‘effective good character’

Absolute good character =
no previous convictions or cautions and no other evidence of misconduct is admitted, proved or alleged. Such a defendant is entitled to a full good character direction and will receive both limbs of the Vye direction

(but credibility will not be available if no evidence given or mixed statements)

Effective good character =
where he has previous convictions or cautions recorded which are old, minor and have no relevance to the charge

no entitlement to a good character direction, under the discretion of the judge to treat him as a person who is of effective good character

If the judge does decide to treat the defendant as being of effective good character, both limbs should be given, but modified as necessary and may withhold the credibility limb

Question 5

Lucas

Answer 5

Where there is a possibility that inconsistencies might be regarded as lies, a Lucas direction may be appropriate

The lucas direction to the jury has four criteria. The jury must be sure that:

1. The lie is deliberate.
2. The lie must relate to a material issue.
3. There is no innocent motive for the lie (the jury must remember that people sometimes lie, for example, to bolster a just cause, or out of shame or out of a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour);
4. There must be some independent evidence to establish that the accused has lied, other than the evidence of a witness who is to be corroborated

possible situations when a lucas direction is needed:

1. Where the defendant relies on the defence of alibi.
2. Where the judge considers it desirable or necessary to tell the jury to look for support or corroboration of one piece of evidence by another and evidence of lies is a piece of corroborating evidence referred to.
3. Where the prosecution assert that something said in or out of court in relation to a distinct issue was a lie, and seek to rely on that lie as evidence of guilt; and
4. Where although the prosecution have not adopted the approach above, the judge reasonably thinks there is a real danger that the jury may.

Question 6

Turnbull

Answer 6

directions to the jury as to how they should approach identification evidence and about when a case involving identification evidence should be withdrawn

ONLY APPLIES TO IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE = EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS THAT ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED THE ACCUSED AS THE PERPETRATOR

Part one: concerns how the judge should direct the jury
Part two: concerns the circumstances in which an identification case must be withdrawn from the jury

Needs to be considered when the eye witness testimony is necessary in the case
Has to be ID evidence that the judge determines that it is WEAK OR POOR QUALITY
They are necessary because there is a lot of room for error and eye witness testimony is very compelling as the person giving the evidence is compelling even though they could be wrong. Jury is likely to convict based on it so a direction is necessary.

The judge should warn the jury of the special need for caution;
she should explain to the jury why there is a need for caution (namely wrongful convictions in the past); and she should explain that a convincing witness may be mistaken and also that a number of witnesses can all be mistaken.
The judge will bring into the case any relevant areas that may bring doubt into the identification ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

Question 7

Goodyear

Answer 7

A defendant is entitled to ask the judge for an indication of the maximum sentence if they were to plead guilty at that stage in the proceedings. This is called a Goodyear indication

Question 8

Newton

Answer 8

Newton hearing
Where the defendant pleads guilty but there is a significant difference between the prosecution version of the facts and the defence version

Only happens when the difference in events would lead to a significant difference in sentencing

At a ‘Newton’ hearing, the prosecution have to prove their version of events beyond reasonable doubt. Both advocates have a responsibility to alert the court to the need for a ‘Newton’ hearing

judge may either accept the defence version, or hear evidence and then make a finding of fact as to which is the correct version prior to a jury

sometimes the offender is required to give evidence if there is no evidence to support the defence’s account

judge cannot make findings of fact and sentence that are inconsistent with the pleas ti the counts on the indictment