Evidence Flashcards
What is the legal burden & standard of proof?
Legal burden: prosecution must prove defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Where the legal burden of proof falls on the defendant (eg. defence of duress), what is the standard of proof?
On the balance of probabilities
What is the evidential burden of proof?
Prosecution must present sufficient evidence to justify guilty finding & show that defendant has case to answer (before D has presented any evidence)
Defence only have evidential burden when raising specific defence (which prosecution must then prove beyond reasonable doubt is not true)
What is a Turnbull witness (ie. a witness to whose evidence the Turnbull guidelines can apply)?
Witness identified defendant:
a. At an identification procedure
b. On basis of recognition
c. Informally
If a defendant disputes they are the person seen by a witness at the time of the offence, how can they attempt to challenge the admissibility of the identification evidence?
- Challenge it under s78 PACE due to a significant & substantial breach of Code D, either that ID procedure carried out incorrectly or not carried out
- Challenge it in cross-examination & have judge give use Turnbull guidelines
What are the factors the judge will consider when assessing the quality of identification evidence using the Turnbull guidelines?
ADVOKATE
A sustained look or fleeting glance (length of observation)
Distance between suspect & witness
Visibility
Observation impeded in any way?
Known to witness already?
Any particular reason to remember witness (eg. unusual scar, tattoo)
Time elapsed since witness saw suspect
Errors or discrepancies between witness’s original description & actual physical appearance of defendant
What are the 3 possible outcomes when a judge assesses visual ID evidence using the Turnbull guidelines?
- Identification evidence good → judge gives jury Turnbull warning
- Identification evidence poor but supported → judge gives jury Turnbull warning & points out the weaknesses in the identification evidence
- Identification evidence poor & unsupported → judge stops trial at end of prosecution case & directs jury to acquit defendant
What is Turnbull warning?
- Dangers of relying on identification evidence
- Easy for honest witness to be mistaken
- Directing jury to examine circumstance in which ID made (ADVOKATE)
- Where evidence poor but supported: pointing out the weaknesses in the identification evidence
Can an adverse inference be drawn if a defendant fails to mention at the police station a fact they later rely on in their defence at trial?
Yes where the court does not accept there is a good reason for silence
Ask: could the defendant reasonably have been expected to mention the fact at the time they were interviewed - consider:
- Lack of disclosure by police
- Weak police case
- Complexity of case
- Events occurred long time ago
- Suspect unfit for interview
- Age/maturity of suspect
Can an adverse inference be drawn from silence at interview where the defendant had not been given the opportunity to receive legal advice beforehand?
No
Can an adverse inference be drawn from a defendant’s silence if that silence was based on legal advice?
No if jury believe defendant genuinely & reasonably relied on the advice to remain silent, & that it was the true reason for their silence
Can an adverse inference be drawn from a defendant’s failure to account for an object, substance or mark during the interview?
Only if a special caution has been given
(No requirement of reasonableness)
Can an adverse inference be drawn from a defendant’s failure to account for their presence at the scene at the time the offence was committed?
Only if a special caution has been given
(No requirement of reasonableness)
What is the special caution that must be given for adverse inferences to be drawn from failure to account for object, substance, mark or presence at scene?
Suspect must be told:
- What the offence under investigation is
- What fact suspect being asked to account for
- That officer believes this fact may be due to suspect taking part in the commission of the offence in question
- That court may draw adverse inference from failure to comply with request
- That a record is being made of the interview & may be given in evidence if suspect brought to trial
Can an adverse inference be drawn from a defendant’s silence at trial?
Yes where there is a case to answer from the prosecution evidence & the only sensible explanation for the defendant’s silence is that they have no answer to the case against them
Exception: must not be drawn where physical or mental condition makes it ‘undesirable’ for them to give evidence
What is the exception to the general rule that an adverse inference may be drawn from a defendant’s failure to give evidence on their own behalf at trial?
Adverse inference may not be drawn where the physical or mental condition of the defendant makes it ‘undesirable’ for them to give evidence
Case law suggests will be applied strictly - eg. likely to cause epileptic seizure, ADHD, but not having IQ of 9 year old
What discretionary power does s78 PACE give the court?
Court has discretion to exclude evidence which would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings -
- Evidence must be relevant
- Evidence has been improperly obtained (a significant & substantial breach of PACE or Codes)
- Manner in which the evidence was obtained casts doubt on its reliability
What are the 3 conditions of evidence for the courts to have the discretion to exclude it under s78 PACE?
- Evidence must be relevant
- Evidence has been improperly obtained (a significant & substantial breach of PACE or Codes)
- Manner in which the evidence was obtained casts doubt on its reliability