Criminal Practice WS4 (Character Evidence)

Question 1

What is the definition of ‘bad character’?

Answer 1

Bad character is defined in s98 CJA 2003 as being ‘evidence of, or a disposition towards, misconduct’

Question 2

What is ‘misconduct’?

Answer 2

Commission of an offence or other reprehensible behaviour, more than just the existence of previous convictions.

It does not include evidence which:
1) has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged (e.g. racist abuse directed towards the victim during the commission of the offence)
2) Is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence (e.g. attempting to conceal a weapon used in the commission of the offence.

Question 3

What are the 7 Gateways under s101(1) Criminal Justice Act 2003?

Answer 3

Evidence of a defendant’s bad character may be raised at trial, but it is only admissible if it satisfies one of the 7 gateways.

(a) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible,
(b) the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a
question asked by him in cross- examination and intended to elicit it,
(c) it is important explanatory evidence,
(d) it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the
prosecution,
(e) it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue
between the defendant and a co- defendant,
(f) it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, or
(g) the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character.

Evidence

Question 4

Explain Gateway A ‘all parties agree to the evidence being admitted’?

Answer 4

If the CPS and defendant are in agreement that the evidence is admissible, it may be admitted.

Question 5

Explain Gateway B ‘the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross- examination and intended to elicit it’

Answer 5

Allows defendant to introduce evidence of their own bad character.

Examples
1) if they only have very minor previous convictions and do not want the jury or magistrates to think that because they are not adducing evidence of their own good character, they may have extensive previous convictions
2) Pleaded guilty on previous occasions but are pleading not guilty to the current matter. The defendant may use such convictions to say to the jury that they accept their guilt when they have committed an offence in the past, but on this occaison they are pleading not guilty because they genuinely have not committed the offence charged.

R v Paton - defendant was charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment and firearms after he was alleged to have blindfolded and interrogated a manager of a garden centre about the security at the centre and then locked her in the boot of the car.
- Various items found in the defendant’s car suggested that the defendant had been the kidnapper
- Defendant raised evidence of his own bad character by claiming that these items had come from a burglary he had committed on an earlier occasion, and that he was was not guilty of the more serious offence charged.

Question 6

Explain Gateway C ‘it is important explanatory evidence’?

Answer 6

Only prosecution may adduce evidence of the defendant’s bad character under gateway C.
- If the prosecution can establish that admitting evidence of the defendant’s bad character through this gateway is satisfied, the court has no power under CJA 2003 to prevent the admission of this evidence. The court does, however retain the discretionary powers to exclude such evidence under s78 PACE.

Only used in limited circumstances- bad character evidence may be admitted if it will assist the court in understanding the case as a whole.

Evidence is classed as explanatory if:
- without it, the court would find it difficult or impossible to properly understand the other evidence in the case
- the value of the evidence for understanding the case as a whole is substantial (more than trivial or marginal)

Example: R v Campbell - defendant was convicted of kidnapping and murder of 15 year old niece. Prosecution alleged that the defendant was infatuated with his niece and that his infatuation was partly sexual. Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had correctly allowed the prosecution to adduce bad character evidence that the defendant had downloaded material from teenage sex sites, because such evidence was necessary to explain the defendant’s motive for committing the offence.

Case law does make it clear where the evidence is clearly understandable without evidence of bad character, it should not be admitted.

Question 7

Explain Gateway D ‘it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution’

Most important one

Answer 7

If the defendant’s bad character is relevant to a matter in issue between the prosecution and defence - it may be admitted by the CPS.

Evidence will be ‘relevant to an important matter in issue’ under s101(1)(d) if it shows that:
a) the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged
b) the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful.

Question 8

What is meant by the defendant has the ‘propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged’?

Answer 8

Evidence that the defendant has been previously convicted of.

S103(2)(a) CJA 2002 ‘An offence of the same description as the one with which he is charged’
- i.e. a previous offence which is the same as the current one
- the facts of the earlier conviction must be the same, even if the offence was described differently

E.g. previous conviction for ‘theft committed on premises whilst the defendant was a trespasser’ fits the current description of ‘burglary’ so these two offences would be the same.

S103(2)(b) ‘Offences of the same category as the one which he is charged’
- Sexual offences
- Theft offences (all of the following are in the same category: theft, robbery, burglary, aggravated burglary, taking a motor vehicle or conveyance without authority, handling stolen goods, going equipped for stealing, making off without payment, any attempt to commit any of the above substantive offences’

Aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting the commission of any of the above offences.

Offences which are ‘factually similar’
- Previous convictions will be admissible if there are significant similarities between them. E.g. if previous offences similarly involved the defendant getting drunk and committing a violent crime such as assault, GBH, criminal damage’.

Question 9

When might the court disregard the CPS evidence with regards to the ‘propensity to commit an offence of the kind charged’?

Answer 9

Would not apply in the case of a particular defendant if the court is satisfied that as a result of the time which has passed since the conviction (or for any other reason), it would be unjust for it to be applied (s103(3)).

Example:
Josh is on trial for common assault. Josh has a previous conviction for common assault. This conviction occurred 15 years ago, Josh solicitor will argue that this previous conviction should not be committed in evidence at Josh’s trial to show that Josh has propensity to commit this type of offence. Given the amount of time that has elapsed since Josh’s previous conviction, he will argue under s103(3) that it would be unjust for this conviction to be used in the present case.

Question 10

What is the R v Hanson Guidelines and when is it used?

Answer 10

The court of appeal has given guidance as to the application of s103(2) in that:

1) s103(2) is not exhaustive
- Does not provide an exhaustive list of the types of offences which may demonstrate the defendant’s propensity to ‘commit offences of the kind of which he is charged’
- It provides that the defendant’s propensity may be established by demonstration of an offence of the kind listed in s103(2)(a) or (b)
- However, other offences, may be relied upon to show evidence of a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged

2) It is not necessarily sufficient just to show that the offence is of the same description or category. Three questions to be considered:
i) Does the defendant’s history of offending show a propensity to commit offences?
ii) If so, does that propensity make it more likely that the defendant committed the current offence?
iii) If so, is it just to rely on convictions of the same description or category, having in mind the overriding principle that proceedings must be fair?

3) The fewer the number of convictions a defendant has, the less likely it will be that a propensity will be established.
- If the defendant has only one previous conviction of the same description or category, this is unlikely to show the relevant propensity

3) The manner in which the previous and current offences were carried out may be highly relevant to propensity and the probative value of a defendant’s previous convictions. The factual circumstances of previous convictions are more important than the mere fact of a previous conviction.

Question 11

What is meant by ‘propensity for the defendant to be untruthful’ under Gateway D?

Answer 11

The R v Hanson guidelines can also be used here.

A propensity to be untruthful will be shown if:

1) The manner in which the previous offence was committed demonstrates that the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful (because he had made a false representation)
- I.e. the defendant was previously found guilty of an offence involving telling lies, e.g. fraud, perjury
- There is a distinction between (a) dishonesty forming the mental element of the offence and b) propensity to be untruthful.
- only where a defendant actively sought to deceive or mislead another person, by making of false representation will this demonstrate a propensity to be untruthful
- E.g. fraud, prejury etc.
- Theft for example, requires dishonest appropriation of property as the mental element of the offence
- Unless the defendant has been untruthful during the commission of the offence, e.g. he lied to another person as part of the commission of the theft, a conviction for theft alone will not show a propensity to be untruthful

2) The defendant pleaded not guilty to the earlier offence, but was convicted following a trial at which his account was disbelieved.
- I.e. the defendant pleaded not-guilty but was found guilty in any event.

Question 12

What are the grounds on which the defendant’s solicitor might argue the relevant propensity has not been made out under Gateway D?

Answer 12

The defendant’s solicitor might argue the relevant propensity has not been made out on the following grounds:

1) There are significant differences between the facts of previous offences and the current offence which means it ought not to be admissible
- i.e. distinguish the current offence from previous offending

2) Would it be unjust to rely on the convictions given the time which has elapsed since they occurred (s103(3)
I.e. this is the conviction ‘spent’ under the Rehabilitation Act 1974:

Absolute discharge - 0 years
Conditional discharge - 0 years
Fine - 1 year from date of conviction
Community order - 1 year
Custodial sentence up to 6 months - 2 years
Custodial sentence between 6 months and 4 years - 4 years
Custodial sentence between 30 months and 4 years - 7 years
Custodial sentence over 4 years - Never spent

3) Does the propensity make it no more likely that the defendant is guilty of the offence?
E.g. are the current circumstances different, e.g. motivated by desperation etc.

Question 13

Will the court exclude convictions under s101(3)?

Answer 13

Even where the prosecution can successfully make out the grounds, the court must not admit evidence which would have such an ‘adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings’ that the court ought not to admit it.

This will mainly occur where the:
1. Convictions are more prejudicial than probative i.e. if the jury are likely to convict on the basis of the previous convictions alone due to the event or nature of these.
2. Admissibility of the convictions is sought to support a case which is otherwise weak (R v Hanson)
3. Defendant’s previous convictions are ‘spent’.
- The court will likely exclude spent convictions, however, the fact they are ‘spent’ is not definitive
- If the offence is particularly similar on the facts, this might justify it being admissible even if the previous conviction is ‘spent’

Question 14

What is Gateway E ‘it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant’?

Answer 14

It cannot be used by the CPS.

• This gateway may be used by one defendant to admit evidence of another defendant’s bad character.
• A defendant is likely to want to admit evidence of defendant’s bad character to demonstrate that the other defendant has a propensity to be untruthful (and thus to undermine the credibility of that defendant) or to show that the other defendant has a propensity to commit the kind of offence with which they have both been charged (suggesting that it is the other defendant, rather than the co-defendant who committed the offence)
• A co-defendant who seeks to introduce evidence of a defendant’s previous convictions for this purpose, will need to demonstrate that such convictions are relevant to an important matter in issue between himself and the defendant, and the relevant of such convictions is more than merely marginal or trivial.

Cut-throat defence - where there are two or more defendants jointly charged and each defendant pleads not guilty and blames the others:
- in this situation it is advantageous for a co-defendant to undermine the credibility of the defendant’s evidence and suggest their version of events is more credible
- The most relevant previous convictions of a defendant which a co-defendant will seek to adduce in evidence in order to demonstrate that a defendant has a propensity to be untruthful will be convictions for specific offences which involve the making of a false statement or representation - e.g. prejury or fraud by false representation or convictions for any offence where the defendant was convicted at trial after entering a not guilty plea and testifying but not being believed by the court.

Example:
- Murad and Arthur are jointly charged with the burglary of a warehouse. Each pleads
not guilty, alleging that the other was solely responsible for carrying out the burglary.
Murad has several previous convictions for offences of obtaining property by deception.
As Murad’s defence (that Arthur carried out the burglary) will clearly undermine Arthur’s
defence, at trial, Arthur will adduce evidence of Murad’s previous convictions to show that
Murad has a propensity to be untruthful, and so undermine the credibility of the evidence
that Murad gives.

If the co- defendant can establish that the test for admitting evidence of the defendant’s bad
character through this gateway is satisfied, the court has no power under the CJA 2003 to
prevent the admission of this evidence.

Question 15

Explain Gateway F ‘it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant’?

Answer 15

Only prosecution may adduce evidence of a defendant’s bad character under Gateway F.

A defendant will give a false impression if
- he is responsible for making of an express or implied assertion which is apt to give the court or jury a false or misleading impression about the defendant’

A defendant will be treated as being responsible for making such an assertion if the assertion is:
(a) made by the defendant in the proceedings (for example, when giving evidence in the
witness box, or in a defence statement served on the CPS);
(b) made by the defendant when being questioned under caution by the police before charge, or on being charged;
(c) made by a witness called by the defendant;
(d) made by any witness in cross- examination in response to a question asked by the defendant that is intended to elicit it;
(e) made by any person out of court, and the defendant adduces evidence of it in the
proceedings (CJA 2003, s 105(2))

Example: Phillip is on trial for common assault. Phillip has several previous convictions for offences
involving violence. When the allegation of assault was put to Phillip in interview at the
police station, Phillip said: ‘I would never do such a thing. I’m a good Christian and I go
to church every Sunday.’ The CPS will be allowed to correct the false impression given by Phillip in the police interview by adducing evidence of his previous convictions.

If the prosecution can establish that the test for admitting evidence of the defendant’s bad character through this gateway is satisfied, the court has no power under CJA 2003 to prevent the admission of this evidence.

Court does however, retain a discretionary power to exclude such evidence under s78 PACE.

Question 16

Explain Gateway G ‘Where the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character’?

Answer 16

Evidence of a defendant’s previous convictions can be admitted if the ‘defendant has made an attack on another person’s character’.

Broad ground
- Attack can be on any person’s character
- it does not necessarily need to be on the character of a witness
- previous convictions can be admitted if the defendant makes a denial of guilt, which calls into question a complainants or witnesses conduct
Examples:
- He hit me first and I was defending myself
- I didn’t do it, he did
- The witness is colluding with the defendant because they are in a relationship
- The PC is bent/corrupt
- The police have conspired to set me up
- The victim is trying to do this for insurance money

The court has a right to know about the character of the person making the statement.

Examples of when this will occur
- The defendant attacks the character of a person when he is interviewed at the police station
- In his defence statement
The defendant asks a witness about a previous conviction in a cross-examination
- The defendant adduces evidence of a witness’s previous convictions

Question 17

What are the grounds of objection might eh defendant’s solicitor raise to Gateway G?

Answer 17

Where the prosecution seeks to adduce evidence of previous convictions under this gateway, the defendant’s solicitor might argue that

Unlikely to satisfy Gateway G
- The defendant’s attack merely amounts to him accusing the witness of fabricating their story.

Likely to satisfy Gateway G
- If the attack was made during an interview, that the interview evidence ought to be excluded - e.g. on the basis that there were breaches to Code C.

Question 18

When will the court exclude the convictions under Gateway G?

Answer 18

Under s101(3), the court must not admit evidence which would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

This will mainly occur where:
1) The convictions are more prejudicial than probative. i.e. jury are likely to convict on the basis of previous convictions alone due to the extent or nature of these.

2) The admissibility of the convictions is sought to support a case which is otherwise weak

3) The defendant’s previous convictions are ‘spent’
- Convictions can be spent under Rehabilitation Act if a certain amount of time has passed since the previous conviction

The court will normally exclude spent convictions, however:
- The fact they are spent is not definitive
- If the offence is particularly similar on the facts, this might justify it being admissible even if the previous conviction is ‘spent’

4) If the attack was made during an interview
- If the the defendant only made the attack due to questioning techniques adopted by the police e.g. was he annoyed.

Question 19

What are the court’s powers to exclude defendant’s bad behaviour under the Gateways A-G?

Answer 19

• The court has no power under the provisions of CJA 2003 to exclude bad character evidence admitted under any gateway other than D and G.
• Bad character evidence under a,b,c,e and f is automatically admissible if the requirements for each of these gateways are satisfied.
• Court still has a discretionary power under s78 PACE to exclude evidence on which the prosecution propose to rely if the admission of evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it ought not to be admitted.
• Court should apply provisions of s78 when making rulings as to the use of evidence of bad character, and exclude evidence where it would be appropriate to do so (basically c and f)

Question 20

For which 2 Gateways do the prosecution need to seek to adduce evidence?

Answer 20

Gateways C and F.

Question 21

What does ‘stopping contaminated case’ mean?

Answer 21

Section 107 of the CJA 2003 allows a judge in the Crown court to either direct the jury to acquit the defendant, or to order a retrial in circumstances where evidence of the defendant’s bad character is contaminated.

E.g. if witnesses have colluded in order to fabricate evidence of the defendants bad character.

DOES NOT APPLY TO TRIALS IN MAGISTRATES COURT.

Question 22

What is the notice procedure for admitting evidence of bad character (prosecution and co-defendant)?

Answer 22

Notice:
- If the Prosecution or co-defendant wishes to adduce evidence of the defendant’s bad character, they must draft and serve a notice.
- The notice which essentially puts all parties on notice that the evidence will be admitted unless opposed must include
1) The facts of the misconduct relied upon e.g. previous convictions
2) An explanation as to how these facts will be proved
3) A statement as to why the evidence is admissible

Question 23

What are the relevant time limits for serving the notice to introduce bad character as evidence?

Answer 23

Prosecution drafts and serves notice
- Not more than 20 business days after a not-guilty plea in the magistrates court
- 10 business days after a not guilty-plea in the Crown Court

Co-defendant drafts and serves notice
- Not more than 10 business days after the prosecution discloses material on which the notice is based
- And in any event, as soon as reasonably practicable.

Question 24

What is the procedure for a defendant who wishes to adduce their own bad character?

Answer 24

They must give notice
- Either orally or in writing
- As soon as reasonably practicable and, in any event before the evidence is introduced
- If in the Crown Court, notice is given of the defendant’s intention to introduce their bad character

Question 25

How can a party object against the prosecution or co-defendants notice?

Answer 25

If a party wishes to object to the notice of having bad character evidence of a defendant admitted, they must draft an application. Must be served on the court and all other parties not more than 10 business days after the initial notice was served.

Application challenges the notice and results in the court determining the outcome.
Application must stage
- Which facts identified in the notice the defendant objects to
- Which, if any, facts of the misconduct the party instead admits to
- Why the evidence is inadmissible
- Why it would be unfair to admit the evidence
- Any additional objections to the notice

Question 26

How does the court determine the application for bad character?

Answer 26

• Can hear the application in public or private.
• Without a hearing or adjourn the application without the party who made the application being present, unless it had reasonable opportunity to respond
• When the outcome is determined, the court must announce the reason to admit, or refuse to admit the evidence as bad character.

Question 27

What are the 3 Gateways for bad-character (non defendant)?

Answer 27

S100 - Gateways of non-defendant bad character evidence.

1) S100(1)(a)- it is important explanatory evidence.

2) S100(1)(b)- it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which:
- Is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and
- Is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole.

3) S100(1)(c)- all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible.
- Leave of court required unless all parties agree.

Question 28

What is meant by ‘important explanatory evidence’ under s100(1)(a) non-defendant bad character gateway?

Answer 28

Same definition as gateway under s101.

Evidence is important explanatory evidence if:
- Without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case.
- Its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial.

Example:
Dean is charged with assaulting Erin, his partner. The prosecution alleges that Dean
grabbed Erin by the hair as she was attempting to put George, their baby son, to bed. Erin has a previous conviction for assaulting George after she slapped him repeatedly when he wouldn’t stop crying. Dean’s defence is that he grabbed Erin by the hair because
he thought she was going to assault George. As Erin went to put George to bed, he
heard her say: ‘For God’s sake, will he never shut up!’ On hearing this, Dean thought that
Erin might assault George again. To explain why he grabbed Erin by the hair, Dean may
seek to adduce evidence of Erin’s previous conviction for assaulting George

Question 29

What is meant by substantial probative value’ under s100(1)(b) non-defendant bad character gateway?

Answer 29

Most likely to arise when the defendant seeks to adduce evidence of the previous convictions of a witness for the prosecution in order to support an allegation that
a) The witness is lying or has fabricated evidence against the defendant
b) The witness themselves is either guilty of the offence with which the defendant has been charged or has engaged in misconduct in connection with the alleged offence

Court must have regard to:
- Nature and number of the events, or other things to which the evidence relates
- When those events or things are alleged to have happened or to have existed

Term ‘substantial’ is likely to be construed by the courts as meaning more than merely trivial or marginal.

Question 30

How can you determine whether a witness lacks credibility?

Answer 30

Previous convictions for the prosecution which may be used to suggest that the evidence given by the witness lacks credibility may be:
- Convictions for offences where the witness has made a false statement or representation (such as prejury, fraud, theft or witness has lied to another person as part of the commission of theft)
- Convictions where the witness has been found guilty of an offence to which they pleaded not guilty but were convicted following a trial at which their version of events was disbelieved.

R v Stephenson - previous convictions of a witness which demonstrated a propensity to be dishonest (as opposed to untruthful) may be admissible under 100(1)(b) to undermine the credibility of the witness
R v Hester - defendant was charged with blackmail and prosecution called evidence who had previous conviction for burglary. Court of Appeal held that where credibility is in issue in relation to an important witness, the evidence that the witness had previous convictions for dishonesty offences may be inadmissible as being relevant to the issue of credibility, whether or not the previous convictions involved untruthfulness.

Question 31

How can a defendant raise the bad character of a other person that ‘misconduct in connection with the current offence or guilty of that offence’?

Answer 31

The other reason for a defendant wanting to raise a bad character of a person other than themselves is to use such evidence to suggest that:

a) The other person has committed some form of misconduct in connection with the current offence - e.g. a defendant charged with assault may claim that they were acting in self-defence and were attacked by their alleged victim

b)The other person is in fact guilty of the offence with which the defendant has been charged.

R v Bovell - judge could admit evidence of previous convictions relied upon to show the propensity of a prosecution witness to commit a particular type of offence if the defendant could show sufficient factual similarities between the earlier offence and current incidence.

Question 32

What is mean by ‘all parties o the proceedings agreeing to the evidence) 100(c)?

Answer 32

If all parties to the case are in agreement, evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant will always be admissible.

Question 33

What is the effect of section 78 PACE on the exclusion of evidence?

Answer 33

S78: In any proceedings a court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution
proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all of the
circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the
admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of
the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

• Discretionary ground, court may exercise this power to exclude prosecution evidence if there is something unreliable about the evidence which the police have obtained, which means it is unfair for the CPS to use it.
• Applications for defendants to exclude prosecution evidence on the ground that police breached PACE 1984 or the Codes of Practice in obtaining such evidence, may only be granted if the breaches are ‘significant and substantial’

Examples where defendant may seek court to exclude evidence under s78:
- Evidence obtained following an illegal search
- Identification evidence
- Confession evidence
- Evidence obtained from the use of covert listening and surveillance devices
- Evidence obtained in ‘undercover’ police operations

Question 34

Exclusion of evidence s76 Confession evidence summary?

Answer 34

Who may rely on it? Defence / Co-defence
Power of exclusion - shall exclude
Test: may have been obtained through oppression / anything said or done rendering confession unreliable

Question 35

Exclusion of evidence s78 ‘any prosecution evidence’ summary/

Answer 35

Who may rely on it: defence / co-defence
Power of exclusion : may exclude
Test: adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings

Question 36

Common law (prejudicial effect outweighs probative value: Any prosecution evidence?

Answer 36

Who may rely on it : defence/co-defence
Power to exclude: may exclude
Test: the prejudicial effect on the arbiter of facts’ mind outweighs any probative value of the evidence.

Question 37

Common law (relevance) Any evidence?

Answer 37

Who may relay on it - prosecution/defence/co-defence
Power of exclusion - may exclude
Test - the evidence will not be admitted if it is not relevant to the matter in issue.

Question 38

What is the scope and application of s78 PACE 1984 and the right to fair trial?

Answer 38

Under s78 PACE:
- Any evidence which the prosecution proposes to rely on may not be allowed if the court is persuaded that in all circumstances, including how the evidence was obtained, admitting certain evidence would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings
- Even evidence which is capable of being excluded under s76 PACE may be excluded under the discretionary power of s78.

‘Fairness’ of proceedings is inextricably linked to the right to fair trial that each defendant possess.
S78 is designed to provide the court with this broad discretion to exclude evidence where its admission would otherwise lead to an unfair trial.

Question 39

Who can rely on the s78 provisions with regards to the exclusion of improperly or unlawfully obtained evidence?

Answer 39

THE DEFENCE ONLY!!!

NOT THE PROSECUTION.