Relevance and Admissibility of Evidence

Evidence in criminal trials must tick three important boxes: it needs to be reliable, relevant, and admissible. Think of it like a quality control system for the justice system.

Reliable evidence means you can trust it's accurate and truthful. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 and Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003 set strict standards here. Courts check if evidence is credible (believable), authentic (genuine), and accurate (correct in every detail).

Relevant evidence falls into two categories that law recognises. Facts of issue cover what actually happened - like whether someone committed the crime. Relevant facts help prove or disprove these main facts - such as fingerprints found at the crime scene.

Key Point: Evidence can be completely true but still get thrown out if it was obtained illegally or unfairly.

Improperly Obtained Evidence

Sometimes police gather evidence through dodgy methods, and this can seriously backfire in court. Improperly obtained evidence includes anything collected illegally (like searches without warrants or using torture) or through unfair tactics like entrapment.

Here's the tricky bit - there's no automatic rule that bans this evidence. Section 78 of PACE gives judges the power to exclude evidence if using it would make the trial unfair.

The Colin Stagg case perfectly illustrates this principle. After Rachel Nickell's murder, police used an undercover officer to try getting Stagg to confess through entrapment. When the case reached trial, the judge ruled this evidence couldn't be used because it would compromise the fairness of proceedings.

Remember: Even if evidence points to guilt, courts will chuck it out if it was obtained through methods that undermine justice.

Pre-trial Silence and Bad Character Evidence

You've got the right to remain silent when arrested - and for good reason. People might stay quiet to avoid self-incrimination, protect others, or because they're genuinely scared (think gang members fearing retaliation).

However, Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) allows juries to draw negative conclusions from silence, especially if your defence suddenly relies on facts you never mentioned during questioning. Courts worry you might have cooked up a story between arrest and trial.

Bad character evidence under Section 98 of the CJA covers your history of misconduct and past convictions. But it's not automatically admissible - it must be relevant to the current case.

The Hanson case (2005) shows this perfectly. His previous theft and burglary convictions were allowed as evidence for a current theft charge, but his car-taking conviction wasn't relevant enough to include.

Top Tip: Past convictions only matter in court if they're directly relevant to the type of crime you're currently facing.

Disclosure of Evidence

The Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 requires prosecution to hand over all documents they plan to use - even stuff that might help your defence. This ensures fair trials by preventing nasty surprises.

When disclosure fails, justice suffers badly. In 2016-17, a staggering 916 criminal cases collapsed due to police or prosecution failing to disclose evidence - that's a 70% increase from previous years.

Liam Allan's case demonstrates the devastating consequences of poor disclosure. Accused of rape and facing 12 years imprisonment, his trial collapsed when police finally revealed 40,000 text messages showing the alleged victim had been harassing him for casual sex. The defence had repeatedly requested this evidence but were told nothing existed.

Meanwhile, defence teams must provide statements outlining their case strategy and key facts, though they don't need to disclose evidence they won't actually use.

Shocking Fact: Poor evidence disclosure caused nearly 1,000 criminal cases to collapse in just one year, highlighting how crucial proper procedures are.

Hearsay Rule and Exceptions

Hearsay evidence occurs when witnesses repeat what someone else told them about a case. Generally, courts ban this because it's like playing Chinese whispers - stories get distorted, memories fade, and you can't cross-examine the original source.

But Section 118 of the CJA creates important exceptions. Courts allow hearsay when all parties agree to its use, when the original witness is unavailable (dead, abroad, missing, or unable to testify), or when admitting it serves the interests of justice.

Steven Saunders' case (2018) illustrates this perfectly. Sentenced to 18 months for controlling behaviour, the court allowed hearsay evidence from medical staff showing his controlling nature towards his partner, even though she didn't testify herself due to fear.

The rule also relaxes for basic factual information like proving someone's age, birth date, or document authenticity.

Key Insight: Hearsay might seem unreliable, but courts recognise that sometimes it's the only way to ensure justice, especially when victims are too scared to speak.