Law Of Evidence Flashcards
Adversarial v inquisitorial system
Adversarial is English legal heritage
Inquisitorial is used in South Africa and much of rest or Europe, US and France often used as example as based on Napolians code
Adversarial has lay jury
Passive judge in adversarial
Evidence heard verbally adversarial
Example of inquisitorial in English law
Coroners court ; does not determine guilt but does determine cause of death
Scope and function of jury at common law
Prosecution cannot appeal a jury acquittal except if there was jury tampering or cps can order retrial if new evidence comes to light or is in interest of justice
Jury nullification
Example of this in Clive pointing case
Jury does something unexpected as may think it is justifiable
Clive pointing concerned proprietary rights, saw evidence of instructions to fire on Argentina warship … passed evidence to press which went against official secrets act but found not guilty
Admissibility fundamental concepts
1) relevance- relevant to fact in issue or a fact that is in turn relevant to a fact in issue
2) weight -
3) probative value - evaluation of the extent to which an item proves the case
4) prejudicial value - evaluation to the extent that the evidence will be used by the tribunal in an inappropriate way
Is it the evidence excluded by exclusionary rule eg a section 78
Which party bears the legal burden
General rule - he who asserts must prove, not he who denies
Reverse burdens but negative assertions still follow general rule
Insanity burden of prof is on
Defence
Who is competent to give evidence ?
All persons are whatver their age competent to give evidence subject to s53(3)
A person is not competent to give evidence if appears not able to
A) understand the questions put to him and
B) give answers to them which can be understood
Voir dire =
Trial within a trial
Other exceptions to competence ( the accused and Co accused)
Accused not competent for prosecution - can never be called by prosecution
Accused is competent for defence but not compellable
Co accused not competent for prosecution but may become competent if acquitted or not part of proceedings any more
Co accused competent but not compelable for defence
Compelability means
Witness can be required to attend court and testify under penalty of a substantial fine or even imprisonment for contempt of court if they refuse
Section 35 CJPOA 1994
Court may draw inferences as appear proper from failure of the accused to give evidence or his refusal without good cause to answer any questions at his trial
Compelability and spouses or civil partner
Spouses / civil partner are compellable only for specific offences
Section 80(3) pace
A) involved assault or injury or threat to the wife or husband or a person who was under 16 at time
B) it was a sexual offence in respect of a person who was at the time under 16
C) attempting or conspiring to comitt any of above
Privilege of self incrimination as a witness
Witness must reassert priv every time he is asked a question that may incriminate him
Priv belongs to witness and does not confer onto another party
Judge is final arbiter of scope of priv
Types of evidence 6 types
1) direct testimony
2) real evidence
3) hearsay evidence
4) documentary evidence
5) confession evidence
6) circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence = does not involve the immediate perception of the existence of a fact in issue, but is evidence from which existence of a fact in issue can be inferred
Eg
Evidence of opportunity (right place and time )
Identity evidence
Evidence of motive
Evidence of planning
Good in proving men’s rea
R v registrar of births , marriages and deaths 2003
Can stop a witness being compellable by marrying them
Priv against self incrimination as witness
Allhusen v labouchere 1878 = witness must reassert his privilege every time he is asked a question that incriminate him
R v boyes = judge is final arbiter of the scope of the privilege
R v Garbett 1847 = wrongfully compelled self incriminating evidence may not be used against d in subsequent proceedings
Public interest immunity
R v h 2003 - 7 stage process for when prosecution withholds unused material on grounds of public interest
R v kearns 2003
There is a distinction between statements under compulsion and material having an existence independent of the will of the suspect
Section 34 cjpoa 1994
Concerns suspect failing to mention facts before trial ie under caution which he relies on in his defence
May draw proper inferences from this but only if he could reasonably be expected to disclose fact at the time
R v argent 1996
Consideration has to be taken of the actual defendant with such qualities, knowledge, apprehensions and advice as he had at the time and in the circumstances existing at the time when deciphering if he could reasonably have been expected to disclose fact
R v condron 1997
Refusing to answer questions on legal advice is unlikely to be sufficient reason for failure to mention facts that are relied on on defence