Evidence II (s78, hearsay) Flashcards
To what evidence do s78 applications apply?
Most important means by which the defence can seek to have prosecution evidence excluded
Prosecution evidence only; cannot be relied upon by prosecution or co-D to exclude evidence D seeks to admit
What is s78 used for? Specifically where defence contend what?
Of general application - where defence contend that such evidence has been obtained unlawfully, improperly or unfairly
How does s78 link to s76?
S78 commonly used alongside s76 to exclude evidence of confessions which prosecution seek to rely on
What is the key test for excluding evidence under s78?
Whether admission of evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it
Does evidence that has been irregularly obtained render it per se inadmissible?
No; s78 is not automatic
What is the court not concerned with in s78? What is it only concerned with?
Marking disapproval of police conduct/punishing prosecution for how it has been obtained - only whether fairness dictates that evidence should be excluded
But where there has been bad faith on the part of the police when acting in breach of PACE or the Codes of Practice that is a factor which is likely to lead to exclusion of the evidence
What breaches will the defence refer to when making an application under s78?
Breaches of the Codes of Practice under PACE (where applicable)
Codes of practice set procedures that police must follow in the exercise of their powers under PACE - the breach of which will often be basis for seeking to exclude evidence under s78
Are the codes admissible in evidence?
Yes - where a breach of a code is alleged the defence can rely in court on the content of the code setting out the procedures that should have been followed
What are the 8 Codes of Practice?
- Code A - stop and search
- Code B - entry, search and seizure
- Code C - detention, treatment, and questioning of non-terrorist suspects
- Code D - identification
- Code E - audio recordings of interviews
- Code F - visual recording of interviews with sound
- Code G - arrest
- Code H - detention, treatment and questioning of terrorism suspects
What are some common examples of s78 applications?
- Right of access to legal advice improperly denied
- Waiver of right to legal advice was not voluntary, informed or unequivocal
- Failure to caution a suspect before questioning
- AA not provided for youth, mentally disordered or vulnerable suspect
- ID procedures have not been followed
Will any and every breach/contamination of the Codes justify exclusion of evidence?
No - breach must be significant and substantial
What will make a breach ‘significant and substantial’ in context of s78 application (i.e. what is the key consideration)?
The effect the breach has on the fairness of proceedings (i.e. would the admission have such an adverse effect)
Will serious breaches always lead to exclusion?
No - breach can be major but will still not lead to exclusion if court reaches the view that no unfairness was caused
Seriousness is not the principal consideration (effect is)
At what 3 points can an application under s78 be made?
- Before trial
- At commencement of trial; or
- Just prior to prosecution seeking to admit evidence which defence wishes to be excluded
How will it be decided by the judge when the s78 application will be dealt with? When will directions for it be given?
- Less significant matter = during trial itself
- Exclusion would mean prosecution case is fatally weakened or left with no/insufficient remaining evidence = pre-trial hearing or commencement of trial (pre-jury sworn in)
Directions given by judge in Crown usually at PTPH re when s78 application heard
(Where the point of law [for which app is made] is clear from the case papers/becomes clear following initial disclosure, the defence should include the point of law in the Defence Statement together with any authorities relied upon)
Above all a s78 application should be made before what?
Before evidence to which objection is taken is adduced
In Crown, what type of dispute will mean a judge will not be able to determine a s78 application?
If there is a dispute on factual matters between the parties - will have to be resolved before s78 application determined
E.g. if the defendant is advancing an argument that the police acted in a way that was in breach of the PACE codes but the police officers concerned deny this, then the judge will have to hear evidence and make a decision on the facts before the judge can decide how the law should be applied.
What burden/standard of proof applies when resolving a factual dispute as part of a s78 application and for what?
Judge has to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt to find in favour of the prosecution version of the facts
What is the different outcome if the judge hears the evidence and concludes that…
- Police acted appropriately
- Police misbehaved and there has been a significant and substantial breach of the code resulting in unfairness to D
From example: if the defendant is advancing an argument that the police acted in a way that was in breach of the PACE codes but the police officers concerned deny this, then the judge will have to hear evidence and make a decision on the facts before the judge can decide how the law should be applied
- Legal argument will fail
- Evidence likely to be excluded
What is a ‘voir dire’?
A trial within a trial; factual disputes are resolved
NB this is not the same as a hearing on admissibility of evidence! Both take place in absence of jury, but voir dire is only where facts are disputed. If facts not disputed, will be a regular hearing
Will a jury take part in a voir dire?
No
What can a magistrates’ court do re a s78 application?
Can rule on it when it arises or hear all the evidence before ruling on admissibility
Why should disputed confessions be determined as a preliminary issue?
Can be other forms of evidence, but most commonly confessions here
Interests of justice may dictate that a ruling on admissibility is made early enough to allow D to know whether evidence forms part of the case and deal with it in cross-examination
What is the rule on relevance?
All evidence sufficiently relevant to the facts in issue is admissible subject to the exclusionary rules
What is the general rule on hearsay?
Hearsay is inadmissible; a statement made out of court may not be presented in evidence as proof of its contents
Will hearsay (by definition) always be inadmissible?
Not if it falls within one of the exceptions to the general exclusionary rule
What is the main rationale for excluding hearsay?
The maker of the statement cannot be cross-examined
E.g. in trial for murder of V, A gives evidence that B said that D killed V - but only A is in court to be cross-examined and cannot test credibility of B’s statement (not safe to convict)
What is the difference between a statement and a matter stated?
- Statement = any representation of fact/opinion made by a person by whatever means (words, sketch, pictorial form etc.)
- Matter stated = purpose of person making statement appears to have been to cause another person to believe matter of cause another person to act/machine to operate on basis of that matter stated
What is hearsay?
3 part test from Twist
- What is the relevant fact the party calling the evidence is seeking to prove?
- Is there a statement of that fact/matter in the communication? (No = not hearsay)
- Did the person making the communication intend that the recipient should believe that matter or act upon it as true? (No = not hearsay)
Must all be present
A statement is hearsay if:
- Made out of court; and
- Person made it intended another person to believe it; and
- It is adduced as evidence of the matter stated
In deciding whether something is hearsay, must the purpose of causing another to believe it be the only/dominant reason for the communication?
No! As long as the recipient/any other person should believe that matter of act upon it as true
Why must the relevant matter that the hearsay is sought to prove be identified first?
If there is not a statement of that matter in the communication, no question of hearsay arises