Evidence Issues Flashcards
CORROBORATION - SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE CONFESSIONS
Knowledge nobody could know besides criminal.
Considered strong, requires little corroboration - Hartkey v HMA
CORROBORATION - basics
identification, course of conduct
Must be corroboration of all crucial facts - Smith v Lees
Identification evidence - if there is emphatic evidence, no need for much more corroboration - Ralston v HMA
Course of conduct - each incidence does not need to be corroborated, at least 2 - AC v HMA
CORROBORATION - DISTRESS
Distress provides corroboration if it is witnessed - Yates v HMA
Can corroborate a specific sexual incident and lack of consent - LAR 2023
Generlaly can only be within 24 hours - *P v HMA *
Cases where it is longer - Wilson v HMA
Behaviour in interval does not matter - Wilson v HMA
ORROBORATION - MOOROV
Two or more charges can corroborate each other if similar enough - charges must be live - MR v HMA
Accused must be identifiable in each charge.
Reluctant for a gap of more than 3.5 years - S v HMA
Circumstances must be close enough to show course of conduct.
CORROBORATION - HOWDEN
Two or more charges can corroborate one another if similar enough - BUT HOWDEN DOES NOT NEED IDENTIFICATION IN BOTH, just one - Howden v HMA
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
prior misconduct
Prior misconduct - may use prior behaviour to show course of conduct and corroborate - James Ritchie v Andrew Morren
HEARSAY EVIDENCE
Evidence of what someone else has said is inadmissible - Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor
De recenti - statement made by victim close to the crime - corroborative and strong due to recency - LAR 2023
CONFESSIONS
A statement against interest of client.
Inadmissible if:
* not given access to legal advice
* breach of test of fairness.
RIGHT TO LEGAL ACCESS
Have the right when arrested - Cadder v HMA
Right to fair trial and to remain silent - Salduz v Turkey
TEST OF FAIRNESS
Confession is inadmissible if undairly obtained - Brown v HMA
Must not be bullied/pressured into confession - HMA v Hawkins
CONFESSIONS - STATEMENTS OVERHEARD
Overheard between detained suspects is allowed - * Jamieson v Annan*
Police cannot use undercover agent/third party - HMA v Graham
REAL EVIDENCE
If evidence is in plain sight, no warrant needed - Cafferkey v HMA
WARRANT
Must be signed, valid and identify premises - HMA v Bell
Police can stumble over evidence, but cannot go fishing for it - Hepper v HMA
WITHOUT A WARRANT
Instances of urgency are allowed - HMA v McGuigan
OPINION EVIDENCE - EXPERTS
Witness can testify fact but not opinion - Fraser v HMA
TEST FOR ADMISSIBILITY
1. does evidence assist the court?
2. expert have necessary knowlegde?
3. imparial in presentation?
4. reliable body of knowledge behind evidence?
ASSISTING COURT
Must not pronounce directly - Davie v Magistrates of Edinburgh
NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE
Formal wualifications not necessary - Hopes v HMA
Must have relevant qualifications or experience - R v Clark
IMPARTIAL
Poilce officer involved in invesitagation can be impartial - Jones v HMA
