Evidence Flashcards
what are facts in issue?
(1) The facts which prosecution bare the burden of proving or disproving
(2) The facts which, in exceptional cases, the accused bears the burden of proving
what is the legislation used for a formal admission?
Section 10 CJA 1967
what are formal admissions?
Where a party introduces in evidence a fact which is admitted by another party, or jointly where the parties admit the fact together, then unless the court directs otherwise, a written record of this must be made of that admission
Formal admissions may be put before the jury so long as they are relevant and do not contain any material which should be excluded.
Formal admissions can be made by counsel or solicitor, written or oral
Jury should be made clear on the matter
relevance of evidence
where it bears no purpose of proving or disproving an element in the offence
where no reasonable jury could place any weight on it even if they are directed on the defects of it.
evidence of good character for a prosecution witness
it is generally inadmissible as it is seen as oath helping
it may be used only where bad character its submitted about a crown witness where the good character is used to balance it out
evidence of good character of a crown witness - propositions from the case of Mader
(1) Generally, evidence is not admissible simply to show that a prosecution witness has a good character in the sense that he or she is a generally truthful person who should be believed.
(2) However, evidence is admissible if it is relevant to an issue in the trial.
(3) The category of issues to which evidence of disposition may be relevant is not closed.
(4) If the evidence is admitted because ‘issue-relevant’, the judge should ensure that the effect of admitting it is not to water down the burden of proof on the prosecution and any good character direction given for the accused.
circumstantial evidence
the rope analogy for circumstantial evidence was described in pollock:
One strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength. Thus it may be in circumstantial evidence — there may be a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion; but the whole, taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt, that is, with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of.
what is real evidence?
real objects shown in court
they have little if no weight if they are not accompanied with expert or witness testimony.
what are views?
where the jury is taken to a site or an object which is outside of the court
the following persons should be present:
(1) Jury
(2) Counsel
(3) Judge
(4) Parties
(5) Shorthand writer
Must be taken place with the accused in case they point out anything which has not been notified by their representatives.
Judge is to produce ground rules. What the jury must see, who must speak, and when if and how the jury may ask questions.
for ‘viewing’ evidence, when must this not take place?
after the summing up
in a jury trial, who is the tribunal of fact?
the jury
in a jury trial, who is the tribunal of law?
the judge
In jury trials, what questions of law are for the judge to determine?
(1) where the court has determined that an accused is unfit to plead, whether the accused did the act or made the omission charged as the offence;
(2) challenges to jurors;
(3) the discharge of a juror or the whole jury;
(4) the competence of persons to give sworn or unsworn evidence;
(5) the admissibility of evidence;
(6) the withdrawal of an issue from the jury;
(7) submissions of no case to answer;
(8) the numerous issues on which the jury should be directed in the summing-up, such as the substantive law governing the charge, the burden and standard of proof, the use which the jury is entitled to make of the evidence adduced, the operation of any presumptions, the nature of, and any requirement for, corroboration, etc. — see further D18.21 et seq. and F5; and
(9) matters ancillary to the trial itself, such as questions of bail, costs and leave to appeal.
in jury trials, which questions of fact are to be decided by a judge?
(1) Whether the defendant is fit to plead;
(2) Existence or non-existence of preliminary facts;
(3) Sufficiency of evidence; and
(4) Evaluation of evidence adduced by the parties
in jury trials, what questions of fact are for the jury to decide?
the credibility of the witnesses called and the weight of the evidence adduced; and
whether, applying the burden and standard of proof applicable to the case, they are satisfied as to the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue.
how are questions of tribunal and fact decided in a summary trial?
Questions of fact and law are decided by the lay magistrate. Evidential issues should be decided by the magistrate upon advice from the legal adviser. District judges will rarely need this as they will have legal experience in prior occupation.
what is the legal burden of proof?
(1) Also known as the persuasive burden or the risk of non-persuasion
(2) If the legal burden is on the prosecution, then the standard is beyond reasonable doubt
(3) If the legal burden is on the defendant, then the standard is on the balance of probabilities
(4) The accused will never bear the heavier burden of proof
what is the evidential burden of proof?
(1) The duty of passing the judge and actually presenting evidence to the element of the offence.
(2) Very often the legal burden and evidential burden go hand-in-hand. Although they can be split. An example is that the evidential burden for self-defence lies with the accused, where the legal burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
(3) ^ where there is a lack of sufficient evidence for the defence, the issue is removed from the jury which is not seen to breach Art 6
(4) Normally the defence will be heard once the prosecution evidence has been heard, though if the judge sees that more evidence is required, they will tell the defence advocate and allow them more time to provide sufficient evidence for the defence.
discharge of burdens of proof by the prosecution
The legal and evidential burden of proof may be discharged if ‘such evidence as, if believed and if left not contradicted and unexplained, could be accepted by the jury as proof’.
If prosecution bear both legal and evidential burden and discharge it, it does not mean that they have succeeded on that particular issue – it goes before a jury to determine.
If the prosecution bear both legal and evidential burden and fail to discharge the evidential burden, then the issue will be withdrawn.
Failure to discharge can be done on a judge by their own motion
discharge of burdens of proof by defence
Defence may have legal and evidential burden on defence such as insanity, and discharge their burden by putting an element of doubt in the jury for prosecution.
Other situations where the defence just have the evidential burden to do this such as self-defence, it is for the prosecution to disprove the defence.
One way to put it is when the defence have both burdens, they have to prove their defence on the balance of probabilities. If the defence just have the evidential burden, then it is for the prosecution to disprove the defence.
what does it mean when a prosecutor is to prove the negative?
This can be illustrated in sexual offences, such as rape, where the prosecution must prove that the complainant did not consent to sexual intercourse.
in terms of the elements of the offence, what must the prosecution prove
beyond reasonable doubt the elements in dispute.
the general rule of burden of proof was that the prosecution bears the evidential and legal burden, what are the exceptions?
There are 3 categories to the exception from the general rule:
(1) Insanity (the accused has to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were insane when committing the act, thus allowing a full defence to their criminal actions);
(2) Express statutory exceptions (this contains statutory defences like diminished responsibility and carrying a bladed article in a public area, again, having a lower standard of proof: balance of probabilities); and
(3) Implied statutory exceptions
discharging the evidential burden of proof
Although it is said that in cases where the evidential burden lies with the defence, the burden will be discharged whenever there is sufficient evidence in relation to leave that defence with the jury; the evidence may be adduced by the defence (or elicited through the cross-examination), or it may be given by the prosecution witness (or a co-accused) giving evidence in chief or it may be given in any other way
direction for prosecution legal burden of proof
- For mental capacity, the prosecution only have to prove the mental capacity on the balance of probabilities, this is for when someone is ill-treated or neglected whilst under a duty of care
- Judge must direct the jury on the standard of proof which the prosecution owes. They must also provide a sufficient explanation of that standard of proof.
- For cases which turn on whether the accused or complainant is telling the truth, my word against theirs, it’s important that the judge does not direct the jury on to choose who to believe. Instead the jury must be told that if they wish to convict, they must decide whether they are sure that the complainant is telling the truth.
direction for defence legal burden of proof
- The jury must be directed that the standard of proof is lower than the prosecution
- Classic definition of balance of probabilities: ‘if the evidence is such that a tribunal can say: ”We think that it is more likely (probable) than not” then the burden is discharged, if the probabilities are equal, it is not”
burden of proof for self defence
defence have the evidential burden
prosecution have the legal burden to disprove the defence
burden of proof for duress
defence have the evidential burden by bringing duress as a live issue in the trial
prosecution have the legal burden to disprove the defence
when is opinion evidence allowed?
opinion evidence is generally not allowed except for experts and non-experts (where it is an opinion of the facts perceived)
admissibility of opinion evidence
- if the admissibility of expert evidence is being called into question, it is for the party wanting to adduce the evidence to prove its admissibility.
- Admissibility argument will normally fail when the expert is not an expert and expresses no expert opinion
non-expert opinion evidence
- Witness can express an opinion on the identification of the witness, i.e express their description and an opinion based on this description
- Can be used to express an opinion on items which are familiar to them such as handwriting.
- Another example is a person’s age
- Drunk
- Emotions
- Value of items but not expressly valuable items like antiques
competence of expert witness
- Some experts have required qualifications, such as 2 or more medical practitioners are required for a defence on insanity, at least one of whom is approved by secretary of state as having a special knowledge for diagnosis of medical conditions required for insanity defence
- Those instructing experts must be satisfied they have the required quals
- Unless the company only hire specifically qualified personal, the mere factor that the expert works for a specialist organisation wont suffice for the requirements of experts
- Expert’s competence may stem from training, experience or skill or a mix of all
- Police officer is eligible to give opinion about gang activity
- Solicitor who was skilled in recognising handwriting was able to come and give evidence in court about the handwriting of an advert
- Some situations but rare there will be a voir dire to determine the use of expert witnesses
what do the defence have to do if they wish to challenge the competence of the expert evidence
Defence will have to make application to court about the competence of expert if they wish to challenge it
opinion evidence involving human trafficking victims
- A conclusive grounds decision by the Home Office Single Competent Authority as to whether D is a victim of human trafficking of modern slavery may be admissible on appeal, applying the test for fresh evidence in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, s. 23.
- However, there may be discrete issues that require explanation by way of expert evidence, for example as to D’s psychiatric or psychological state or the detailed mores of people-trafficking gangs operating in countries outside the court’s own knowledge and experience. As to the former, the expert may express a view as to the detail and content of D’s account as a necessary step to reaching a diagnosis; but as to the latter, no commentary by the expert is required as to the consistency of D’s account.
matters calling for expert evidence
- Experts are unnecessary where tribunal of fact would be able to draw their own conclusions without the use of an expert
- A witnesses ability to remember the events will normally be within the capabilities of jurors to determine
- Expert evidence required to interpret cell citing evidence
- Jurors can be assisted about matter within their capabilities but have some assistance in understanding. Basically allowing information to be better digested, so where there is an influx of information, experts can eb used to allow jurors to see the salient parts of the evidence.
opinions on ultimate issues
- It means issues which are to be determined by the tribunal of fact
- Today this is allowed, so long as it is conveyed in a way which can be used by the tribunal of fact to agree to and use when determining their reasons
- Jury can be directed that they don’t always have to follow what the expert has concluded.
duty of experts
Duty to the court and that they must further the overriding objective
They provide an unbiased opinion which is neutral
Experts must:
o identify their area of expertise
o Identify when questions go outside their area of expertise
o Identify parties or the court if their opinion departs from the report given
function and weight of expert evidence
- The function is to furnish the judge or jury to help them come to their conclusions by providing the required scientific knowledge
- Directions to accept the expert evidence are done if there is no contradictions
- If experts make an opinion on an ultimate issue then jury must be directed that they are not bound by that decision
- Such appropriate direction is: ‘ where, as here, there is no dispute about findings made by an expert you would no doubt wish to give effect to them, although you are not bound to do so if you see good reasons to reject them’
- Jury must not be directed to disregard scientific evidence when the only such evidence adduced on a particular question dictates one answer only
- Verdict may be seen unsafe if jury return a verdict which goes against an ultimate issue set out by an expert.
- This is specifically an issue when it comes to diminished responsibility
general principles for privileged evidence
(a)A person entitled to claim privilege may refuse to answer the question put or disclose the document sought. The judge should not balance the claim to privilege against the importance of the evidence in relation to the trial.
(b)If a person entitled to claim privilege fails to do so or waives the privilege, no other person may object. The privilege is that of the witness, and neither party can take advantage from it. Thus, if a judge improperly rejects a claim to privilege made by a witness who is not a party to the proceedings, no appeal will lie, for there has been no infringement of the rights of the parties.
(c)A party seeking to prove a particular matter in relation to which his or her opponent or a witness claims privilege, is entitled to prove the matter by other evidence.
(d)No adverse inferences may be drawn against a party or witness claiming privilege.
(e)A claim to privilege falls to be determined in accordance with domestic law and therefore cannot succeed simply on the basis that it would succeed in some other jurisdiction.
scope of privilege
- Witness is not bound to answer any question which could incriminate them
- Anything which could expose the witness to criminal charge, forfeiture or penalty
- Courts can impose an order which will allow the disclosure but also protect the witness from the above.
- Does not extend to the incrimination of a person linked to them, such as a spouse, it must link to them specifically
Legal Professional Privilege: Scope
(a)communications between client and legal adviser made for the dominant purpose of enabling the client to obtain or the adviser to give legal advice about any matter, whether or not litigation was contemplated at the time, the privilege for such communications being known as legal advice privilege; and
(b)communications between client or legal adviser and third parties, the sole or dominant purpose of which was to enable the legal adviser to advise or act in relation to litigation that was pending or in the contemplation of the client, the privilege for such communications being known as litigation privilege.
The privilege also covers items enclosed with or referred to in such communications and brought into existence (i) in connection with the giving of legal advice or (ii) in connection with or in contemplation of legal proceedings and for the purposes of such proceedings
challenging legal professional privilege
There can be a last resort where the court will inspect the documents
the evidential burden is left to the persons who is claiming privilege
Legal Advice Privilege
- Obtaining or giving legal advice needs to be the dominant purpose in order for it to be privileged
- Documents from third parties used to give advice do not come under the privilege principle
Legal Advice Privilege: Corporate Clients
o Privilege only applies to those officers or those in the company who are directed as the client in the proceedings
o It does not apply to documents made by ex-employees
o If solicitors speak to those who are not the designated officers to be the client, then it will not be privileged
Litigation Privilege: Scope
(a)The privilege is engaged when litigation is in reasonable contemplation.
(b)Once engaged, it covers communications between parties or their solicitors and third parties for the purpose of obtaining information or advice in connection with the conduct of the litigation, provided it is for the sole or dominant purpose of the conduct of the litigation.
(c)Conducting the litigation includes deciding whether to litigate and also whether to settle the dispute giving rise to the litigation.
(d)Documents in which such information or advice cannot be disentangled or which would otherwise reveal such information or advice are covered by the privilege.
(e)There is no separate head of privilege covering internal communications falling outside the ambit of the privilege as described above.
litigation privilege, types of documents covered
o Instructions documents
o Copy or translation of unprivileged documents does not count, only when the original copy was not in the control of the party claiming privilege before they copied it
o Solicitor compiles a load of documents from third parties which will betray the trend of the advice to the client
Privilege: communication in furtherance of crime and fraud
Communication between client and legal advisor is not privileged when it incited the committal of criminal behaviour or fraud
waivering of privilege - answering no comment in police interview
- if D gives the reason for giving no comment was because of advice from solicitor, this does not amount to a waivering of privilege.
- when the basis of that advice is stated, this amounts to a wavering of privilege.
- if the accused asks the court to not allow an inference to be drawn on the ‘no comment’, thats when privilege is waivered.
type of questions used in an XIC
non-leading
lead on the facts that are not in dispute
when can leading questions be used in XIC?
o to identify a person or object in court
o for introductory matters
o when a witness is a hostile witness
consequences of asking leading questions in XIC
less weight can be applied to the evidence elicited.
when can a witness be allowed to refresh their memory in the stand?
witness can refer to a document in order to refresh their memory when:
- document is a recollection of the version of events which happened at the time; and
- memory of when the document was made is likely to be significantly better at the time it was made then when they are giving evidence in court
memory refreshing - witness being able to look at statement in the stands
- this is under s 139 CJA 2003
- the ability to refresh should be made by an application to the judge where it is in the interests of justice to do so.
- refreshing memory will normally happen in XIC and can happen at any time during them giving evidence
- verification of a document. Document must have been made by the witness.
memory refreshing outside of court
- Witnesses for prosecution are entitled to copies of their statements
- Witnesses for defence normally get their statements before they enter the witness box too
- Becomes a test of memory rather than truthfulness if witnesses cannot see their statements before they enter the witness box.
- It is not allowed to compare with one another
can witnesses talk to one another during a trial?
o Discussions between witnesses should not take place before they are about to enter into the witness box
o If there has been discussions it can be seen as fabrication
who should not be allowed to memory refresh when in the stand?
the defendant. showing them their proof of evidence means ti has to be submitted before the court which can have negative ethical consequences
can witnesses withdraw from witness box to memory refresh?
Witnesses can withdraw from the witness box to read their statements this can be the case for dyslexic people or those in need of translators etc
cross examining on member refreshing document.
where XX counsel refers to information which is on the memory refreshing document but not been said in court during the XIC, then the memory refreshing document must be entered into the court fully.
previous complaints - when are they allowed to be admissible
- Witness testifies that the statement made is true;
- Witness claims that an offence was committed against them;
- The offence sis one which relates to proceedings; and
- The complaint would constitute an offence
this is an exception to the rule against hearsay
self-serving statements / Previous consistent statements
o Witnesses may not be asked about previous oral or written statements made by witnesses and consistent with his or her evidence.
o Applies to XIC, XX and RX
o Where the accused has made an instant reaction to being caught or subsequently after the action, then this can be made admissible
o Admissible self-serving statements can be made admissible but they cannot be the basis of a case, such as, a no case to answer submission cannot be brought based solely on the accused reaction
impeaching credit of your own witness
A party is not allowed to impeach the credit of their own witness, such as bad character etc.
even where witness is hostile
hostile witness
- The witness is hostile when they display behaviour in the witness box or if they provide inconsistent statements to before
- Party can call another witness in order to challenge against the evidence of what the previous one has said
- This is to rectify what the witness has failed to establish
- Cross examination of a witness may be allowed by a judge where the witness is starting to present inconsistencies in the case that they are supporting the opposition
- Or, if they have evidence to give but refusing to do so
who must determine whether a witness is to be treated as a hostile witness?
- Judge must determine to allow counsel to treat witness as hostile
- Discretionary power and must be done not in the presence of jury
- Criminal Procedure Act 1865, section 3:
what should be done before a witness is treated as a hostile witness
Before treating a witness as hostile, counsel should try and refresh memory of the witness
statements in rebuttal of recent allegations of fabrication
A statement by a witness admitted as evidence to rebut a suggestion that his or her oral evidence has been fabricated will be admissible for the truth of its contents and to support the witnesses credibility.
If the cross examination has put forth the witness being inconsistent in statements then the inconsistent statement is allowed to be admitted for re-examination
Only allowed where it is put forth that a witness has fabricated to out forth different evidence at a later stage
Res Gestae
This is where a statement from a witness in the same time and place of the events where they are allowed to be used as evidence in order to corroborate and give consistency. Where hearsay is allowed.
previous inconsistent statement
If the witness in XIC or XX admits to making a previous inconsistent statement then that statement is admissible
This is under section 119 Criminal Justice Act 2003
If it implicates a co-accused it cannot be applied against them
Can be allowed under section 114(d) – (interest of justice to allow hearsay)
If it is merely the fact that the witness names a statement he or she cannot remember is wont suffice as being inconsistent
May be treated as a hostile witness of they are refusing to give details or refusing to admit belief
XX done by the accused
- Accused can cross-examine prosecution witnesses themselves if they so wish.
- They cannot XX witnesses who are vulnerable nor complainants of sex offences
Use of XX
- Impeaching credibility of the witness
- Show inconsistencies of evidence
- Use evidence to support the accused’s case
- Weaken the accuracy of the evidence
- A judge may intervene with XX to ensure that it is conducted fairly.
- Also a judge may intervene to get more information which is needed and has not been touched on.
If you do not XX a witness and challenge and put your case then…
…you cannot refer to it in Closing speech
what can you do in XX?
Court can impose restrictions on putting cases to vulnerable witnesses such as children.
Nothing should be a comment on fact – this should be left for speeches
Should not be argumentative
Putting questions of fact
Same restrictions apply to questions asked by a judge
Judge can refuse cross-examination question put by advocate to vulnerable witnesses where the judge feels they are unnecessary, improper or oppressive.
XX is not restricted to info given in XIC
Hearsay rules etc apply to XX
XX cannot reveal an inadmissible confession
Judge can place time limits on XX
Advocates have to distinguish between those matters of issue which are more important than others, in order to not have lengthy XX
Judicial control will not produce an unfair trial unless it was grossly disproportionate
You can suggest risk on contamination of evidence
XX on matters which call into question the credit, such as memory, circumstances, etc.
Delay in complaint with sexual offences can be used in XX
Judge can direct about this issue – such as complainant feeling shame etc.
Mental illness suggesting less credible evidence may be allowed in XX
Any disability affecting the credibility of evidence can be allowed
Previous convictions and. Bad character allowed
Bad character is subject to part 11 CJA 2003
Judges powers in a XX
- Court can impose restrictions on putting cases to vulnerable witnesses such as children.
- Same restrictions apply to questions asked by a judge
- Judge can refuse cross-examination question put by advocate to vulnerable witnesses where the judge feels they are unnecessary, improper or oppressive.
- Judge can place time limits on XX
- Judicial control will not produce an unfair trial unless it was grossly disproportionate
- Judge can direct about this issue – such as complainant feeling shame etc.
rule of finality on collateral matters
The test whether a matter is collateral or not is this: if the answer of a witness is a matter which you would be allowed on your own part to prove in evidence — if it have such a connection with the issues that you would be allowed to give it in evidence — then it is a matter on which you may contradict him.’
bias and partiality
- Witnesses bias towards the accused has always been allowed to be admissible in the sense of cross examination.
- Pollock CB said: ‘A witness may be asked how he stands affected towards one of the parties; and if his relation towards them is such as to prejudice his mind, and fill him with sentiments of revenge and other feelings of a similar kind, and if he denies the fact, evidence may be given to show the state of his mind and feelings.’
- Example of where two daughters were cross examined in the way to suggest that their mother had schooled them in what to say and that their confessions were fabricated by the mother. It was found that the judge had wrongly refused the defence to call the mother to be a witness in to question her on this bias.
- Where bias occurs during the actual trial then the judge can refuse witnesses. E.G where someone in pub gallery was taking notes of the evidence and passing it to the husband and telling him what was being said breaching the procedure.
re-examination (RX)
- Matters should be confined to matter raised in XX. With leave of the court you can go outside this
- If witness gives evidence of something which is said in a previous event, the rest of what was said cannot be asked in XIC unless it is substantially connected to what was said.
XIC =
Examination in Chief
XX =
Cross-examination
statutory measures for anonymity orders
- screening the witness from the accused
- giving evidence by live link, accompanied by a supporter (for other uses of live link;
- giving evidence in private, available where sex offences or modern slavery, servitude, forced labour or human trafficking are charged or where there is a concern that the witness may be intimidated;
- ordering the removal of wigs and gowns while the witness gives evidence;
- video recording of evidence-in-chief;
- video recording of cross-examination and re-examination where the evidence-in-chief of the witness has already been video-recorded;
- examination through an intermediary for a young or incapacitated witness;
- provision of aids to communication for a young or incapacitated witness; and
- a witness anonymity order, which may be preceded by an investigation anonymity order applying to the police investigation and pre-trial procedures such as disclosure.
other protective measures
Protection of fearful and distressed witnesses by not publicising. This is to allow quality of witness evidence
Complainant anonymity for sex offences
Prohibiting XX when:
- Child complainants of sex abuse violence, torture false imprisonment, kidnapping
- Adult complainants in sex offences
Courts should have the adaptability to help the specific issues of witnesses