Part 7: Aspects of Evidence Law Flashcards
What does “improperly obtained evidence” mean in law?
“Improperly obtained evidence” refers to evidence that has been acquired through unlawful, illegal, or irregular means, such as using duress, inducements, deception, or exceeding police powers. This includes evidence obtained by methods that violate the rights of the accused or the legal process.
Why is improperly obtained evidence inadmissible in court?
Improperly obtained evidence is often inadmissible because it may be unreliable, and its use could encourage improper police conduct. Evidence obtained through methods like torture is particularly problematic, as suspects may say anything to avoid further abuse. Such behavior undermines the fairness of the trial process.
What happened in the Lawrie v Muir (1950) case regarding improperly obtained evidence?
In Lawrie v Muir (1950), inspectors obtained evidence from Mrs. Lawrie in good faith, believing they had lawful authority to search her premises. However, since she was not a member of the milk marketing scheme, they acted beyond their powers. The court ruled that the evidence was improperly obtained and should be excluded, highlighting the importance of protecting citizens from unlawful actions by authorities.
Why are confessions significant in criminal law?
Confessions are significant because they are highly prejudicial and carry great weight in court. While they can save time and effort in investigations, there is also a risk that suspects may falsely confess, as people often believe only the guilty would confess.
What is the purpose of the caution given to suspects before questioning in Scotland?
The police caution serves to inform the suspect that they are not obliged to answer questions, but anything they do say may be used against them in evidence. This ensures that suspects are aware of their rights before providing any information.
What was the issue in the HM Advocate v Chalmers (1954) case regarding confessions?
In HM Advocate v Chalmers (1954), a 16-year-old boy was interrogated unfairly by police officers. They cross-examined him and suggested that his story contradicted itself. After emotional pressure, he took them to the victim’s property and admitted his involvement. The court ruled that his confession was not admissible because it was obtained through improper interrogation, establishing the Fairness Test that confessions must be voluntary and freely given.
What is the Fairness Test used for in relation to confessions?
The Fairness Test ensures that a confession is voluntary, given spontaneously, and obtained through fair means. A confession cannot be accepted if it was coerced, made under pressure, or obtained through deceitful practices by law enforcement.
What was the significance of the Cadder v HM Advocate (2010) case regarding confessions?
In Cadder v HM Advocate (2010), the defendant’s confession was ruled inadmissible because he had not been informed of his right to legal advice before being questioned by the police. The UK Supreme Court found that this violated his European human rights under Article 6, and as a result, the law was changed to ensure suspects are always given the opportunity to consult a lawyer before and during police interviews.
What is character evidence?
Character evidence refers to a person’s disposition and personality, which can be used in court to show whether they are likely to behave in a certain way. It can include both positive and negative aspects of a person’s character.
Is bad character evidence of the accused generally admissible in court?
No, bad character evidence is generally not admissible in court because it is considered collateral and irrelevant. This means that evidence of the accused’s bad character (like previous convictions) is typically not allowed to influence the jury’s decision.
Can evidence of the accused’s good character be admissible in court?
Yes, evidence of the accused’s good character is admissible in certain situations. It can be used to suggest that the accused is less likely to have committed the crime, as it may indicate their general disposition and reliability.
What does Criminal Procedure (Scotland) 1995, S10(1) say about previous convictions being presented to the jury?
According to Criminal Procedure (Scotland) 1995, S10(1), previous convictions should not be introduced to the jury unless a guilty verdict has been reached. There are exceptions for certain offenses, such as driving while disqualified.
What does Criminal Procedure (Scotland) 1995, S166(3) say about previous convictions in non-jury trials?
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) 1995, S166(3) states that in non-jury trials, previous convictions should not generally be disclosed to the judge until the judge is satisfied that the accused is guilty of the current charge.
What does the law say about the prosecution mentioning the accused’s previous convictions in court?
The prosecution is not allowed to mention the accused’s previous convictions unless they have been authorized to do so. They must be careful not to ask questions that could lead a witness to disclose previous convictions.
Can evidence of the complainer’s sexual history be used in cases of sexual crimes, such as rape?
No, there is a specific prohibition on introducing bad character evidence or sexual history evidence about the complainer in sexual crime cases, such as rape or sexual assault. However, there are exceptions under certain conditions.
What must the accused do to use sexual history evidence of the complainer in a sexual crime case?
The accused must apply in writing before the trial for permission to lead evidence about the complainer’s sexual history or ask questions about it. The application must show that allowing such evidence is in the interest of justice and that it is necessary for a fair trial.
What does Section 275A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 say about the accused’s previous convictions?
According to Section 275A, if the court allows the accused to ask questions about the complainer’s sexual history or introduce evidence related to it, then the accused’s previous convictions can be disclosed to the jury.
What is the Hearsay Rule?
The Hearsay Rule states that hearsay evidence is inadmissible in court. Hearsay refers to a second-hand account of what happened, where the witness is testifying about what someone else said, rather than what they themselves directly experienced or heard.
What is an example of hearsay evidence?
An example of hearsay evidence is if John tells the court, “Beth broke the window,” when John did not personally witness the incident but only heard it from someone else. This is hearsay because it is a second-hand account that cannot be cross-examined.
Why is hearsay evidence problematic in court?
Hearsay evidence is problematic because it cannot be tested through cross-examination. The truthfulness or accuracy of the statement cannot be challenged in the same way as direct testimony.
Can hearsay evidence ever be admissible?
Yes, hearsay evidence can sometimes be admissible if it is the best available evidence or the only available evidence to prove something significant in the case.
What are some exceptions to the hearsay rule?
Some exceptions to the hearsay rule include:
Identification evidence
Documents
Res gestae (things done)
Confession evidence
What is identification evidence in relation to hearsay?
Identification evidence occurs when police testify about another witness’s identification of the accused, either at the crime scene or during an identification procedure. This is an exception to hearsay if the witness cannot recall the identification but previously told the police about it.
What are documents as an exception to hearsay?
Documents, such as lab reports or company accounts, can be introduced as evidence even if they are considered hearsay because they are often the most reliable or available evidence in certain circumstances.
