Relevance and Admissibility of Evidence

In UK criminal trials, both prosecution and defense can present evidence to support their case. However, this evidence must meet specific criteria to be considered by the court.

Reliability of Evidence

For evidence to be admissible in court, it must be:

1. Reliable and useful
2. Relevant to the case
3. Admissible under legal standards

Reliability focuses on the truthfulness and dependability of evidence. This includes:

• Accuracy of details
• Scientific support for expert testimony
• Authenticity of documents and photographs
• Credibility of witnesses

Example: The case of Sally Clark highlighted the importance of reliable expert testimony. Sir Roy Meadow's statistical evidence was found to be inaccurate and not scientifically supported, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

Relevance of Evidence

Relevance in UK criminal proceedings considers two types of facts:

1. Facts in issue: The main points the court must decide upon
2. Relevant facts: Supporting information that proves or disproves arguments

Definition: Facts in issue are the central questions the court must answer, such as whether the defendant committed the crime intentionally or if their actions directly caused the outcome.

Example: In a murder case, facts in issue might include whether the defendant stabbed the victim with a kitchen knife and if it was done intentionally. Relevant facts could include fingerprints on the knife handle or blood on the blade.

Pre-trial Silence and Character Evidence

Pre-trial Silence

The right to remain silent is a fundamental principle in UK criminal law. However, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced some nuances:

• A suspect's failure to provide an explanation when questioned under caution may allow the jury to draw inferences of guilt.
• This applies even if the suspect has received legal advice to remain silent.
• Other evidence is still required; silence alone cannot be the sole basis for a conviction.

Highlight: Juries can draw inferences from a defendant's failure to testify in court, unless the defendant can justify their silence or the jury finds the reason acceptable.

Character Evidence and Past Convictions

The use of character evidence and past convictions in UK criminal trials is governed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003:

• Bad character is defined as evidence of misconduct, including previous convictions, cautions, and other behavioral issues.
• Generally, previous convictions or evidence of misconduct cannot be used in court.
• Exceptions exist under Section 103, allowing such evidence if it suggests the defendant is likely to commit similar offenses or is prone to lying.

Highlight: Feminist critics have raised concerns about the use of character evidence in rape cases, where defense lawyers may attempt to introduce evidence about the victim's sexual history to undermine their credibility.

Disclosure of Evidence

The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA), as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, governs the disclosure of evidence in UK criminal proceedings:

• Ensures a fair trial by requiring the prosecution to reveal all relevant evidence.
• This includes evidence that may weaken the prosecution's case or strengthen the defense.

Definition: Disclosure refers to the legal obligation of the prosecution to share all relevant evidence with the defense, promoting fairness and transparency in criminal trials.

Admissibility of Evidence in UK Criminal Proceedings

Admissibility of evidence is a crucial concept in UK criminal law, determining which evidence can be presented in court. Not all evidence gathered during an investigation is automatically admissible.

Inadmissible Evidence

Evidence can be deemed inadmissible for various reasons:

1. Improperly obtained evidence (Section 78 of PACE 1984)
2. Illegally obtained evidence
3. Evidence obtained through entrapment or deception

Example: The Amanda Knox case demonstrates how evidence can be ruled inadmissible due to improper handling and procedural errors. DNA evidence was contested due to contamination and unreliable collection methods.

Types of Inadmissible Evidence

1. Improperly obtained evidence:
   • Evidence gained through entrapment or deception may be excluded under Section 78 of PACE 1984.
   • Confessions obtained through oppression or under circumstances that make them unreliable can be excluded.

Example: In the Colin Stagg case, evidence obtained through a police "honey-trap" operation was deemed inadmissible due to the deceptive nature of the investigation.

2. Illegally obtained evidence:
   • Evidence obtained by breaking the law or breaching human rights may be inadmissible.
   • This includes evidence from illegal searches or confessions obtained through torture.

Highlight: While there is no absolute rule against using improperly obtained evidence, courts have discretion to exclude such evidence if it would affect the fairness of the proceedings.

3. Agent provocateurs and entrapment:
   • Police may sometimes use undercover operations or "sting" tactics to gather evidence.
   • Evidence obtained through entrapment may be challenged on grounds of fairness.