evidence Flashcards
ordinary witness for P or D
competence
- yes (s.53(1) YJCEA)
Compellable?
- yes
defendant as witness for P
competence
- no (s.53(4) but subject to s.53(5))
compellable
- no
defendant as witness for himself
competence
- yes (c.1 CEA 1898
compellable
- no (s.1(1) CEA 1998 BUT s.35 CJPOA adverse inference)
co-defendant as witness for another co-D
competences
- yes (s.1 CEA)
Compellable:
- no (s.1(1 CEA)
co-D as witness for P
competence
- NO (s.53(4) YCJEA), but subject to s.53(5))
compellable
- No (s.1(1) CEA 1898)
spouse/CP of D as witness for P
competence
- yes (s.53(1))
compellable?
- yes (s.80(2A)b) but only if s.80(3) PACE applies
spouse/CP of D as witness for D
competence
- yes (s.53(1))
compellable?
- yes (s.80(2A)b) unless jointly charged with D (s.80(4))
spouse/CP of D as witness for co-d
competence
- yes (s.53(1))
compellable?
- yes (s.80(2A)b) but only if s.80(3) PACE applies
advantage of not giving evidence as D
if evidence week, and no case can be made, no need for D to give evidence
disadvantage of not giving evidence as D
s.35 adverse inference
exam structure for competence/compelability of witnesses
- what kind of witness?
- who is calling witness?
- competent? statutory ref
- can he/she be compelled?
opression under s.76(2)a
defined in s.76(8))
- e.g. threatening use of gas cannister
- ordinary dictionary meaning (R v Fulling)
unreliability under s.76(2)b
identify ‘things said or done’
- breaches of PACE?
- other conduct like lying about having evidence/witness against them?
R v Hunter
confirms R v Vye
good character = no previous convictions or cautions recorded are old, minor, and not relevant to current charge
some D are entitled to a modified good character direction (‘effective good character’)
bad character
- previous criminal convictions
- other reprehensible behaviour
- can be admissible under s.101(1)d (relevant to an important matter in issue between D and P)
propensity to commit offences of the kind which he is charged
- offences of the same description
2, offences of the same category
hanson
no min number of events required to show propensity but the fewer convictions the weaker the evidence
- one single one probably not enough unless unusual in the circumstances
turnbull guideliens
one - prosecution case depends wholly or substantially on correctness of the identification evidence
two - evidence is disputed
elements of the turnbull warning
one - reason (judge should instruct jury the reason for the warning - mistaken witnesses can be convincing)
two - circumstances (ask jury to examine circumstances)
three - specific weaknesses (in ADVOKATE)
ADVOKATE
Amount of time under observation
distance between witness and what they saw
visability
obstruction
known or seen before
any reason to remember
time lapse between when witness saw it and identification
error or material discrepancy?
