Relevance and Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal trials aren't just about presenting any evidence - everything must be relevant and admissible under strict legal rules. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 sets out these standards, ensuring that only proper evidence reaches the courtroom.

Facts in issue (also called principal facts) are the core elements that determine the case outcome. These are what the prosecution tries to prove and the defence attempts to disprove. For example, in a rape case, the prosecution must prove the alleged act occurred whilst the defence works to discredit this claim.

Supporting evidence must directly connect to these principal facts and be reliable, credible, authentic, and accurate. The Damilola Taylor case highlighted reliability concerns when Witness Bromley's testimony was questioned due to inconsistencies and potential coercion.

Remember: Evidence that seems relevant isn't automatically admissible - it must meet strict legal standards first.

Section 78 of PACE excludes improperly obtained evidence with ethical concerns. The Colin Stagg case (Operation Honeytrap) demonstrates this perfectly - police used entrapment tactics and "agent provocateurs" to extract false confessions, making the evidence inadmissible due to unethical collection methods.

Disclosure and Hearsay Evidence

Disclosure of evidence under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 requires prosecutors to share ALL evidence with the defence, even material that weakens their case. This ensures trial fairness and prevents miscarriages of justice.

The defence has a "duty of disclosure" too - they must outline their primary defence strategy in writing, allowing prosecutors to prepare counter-arguments. However, if prosecutors haven't found damning evidence, the defence isn't obligated to reveal this information.

The 2017 Liam Allen case shows what happens when disclosure fails. Police and the Crown Prosecution Service withheld crucial evidence, only revealing it just before trial. This left the defence unprepared and compromised trial fairness, despite Allen having faced charges for two years.

Key Point: Proper disclosure protects both sides and ensures justice - failures here can collapse entire trials.

Hearsay evidence involves statements from people not testifying in court. Section 114 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 generally considers hearsay inadmissible because these individuals can't take oaths or face cross-examination.

Exceptions exist when witnesses are deceased, missing, or unfit to testify. The Colin Pitchfork case used hearsay from a coworker that led to DNA collection, ultimately securing his conviction. This case highlights how hearsay can be powerful when properly evaluated for credibility.