Unit 3, AC 2.3

Alternative transcript:

approved by judges/magistrates, like: Illegally or improperly obtained evidence-where the prosecution uses improper/dishonest means to get evidence that supports their case. Illegally obtained evidence means they broke the law or violated a person's human rights in order to get the proof (like illegal search without warrant, or torture/degrading treatment to get a confession). Improperly obtained evidence is using entrapment to gather proof (which is the police using deception to persuade the suspect to admit to or commit a crime, like the Colin Stagg case). It can also be sting operations, where police pose as criminals and induces the suspect to commit a crime. The court can still permit this type of evidence if it helps find out the truth, but the judge will rule it out as inadmissible if it puts a fair trial at risk. If it's value in proving the case (probative value) is greater than the risk of it making the trial unfair (prejudicial effect)- the judge will let it be used. The right to silence- law says everyone is innocent until the prosecution is able to prove they committed the offence beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the suspect technically doesn't have to defend themselves before/during trial. But- the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 means the jury can make inferences about the defendant's guilt if they're silent because of: Failure to answer police questions (this can be used as evidence of their guilt, as can them failing to account for having a weapon or presence at a certain place). Failure to testify in court (can also be used to show their guilt, unless their reason for not doing so is accepted by the jury). Of course, the prosecution needs other evidence than silence for a jury to be able to convict them. Evidence of bad character- this can help see if the defendant's evidence is credible. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 says bad character is 'evidence of or disposition towards misconduct'. This can be previous convictions or cautions for things like racism. Character evidence is admitted in certain circumstances (like defendants lying/committing same offences) to stop unjust damage of someone's reputation/credibility. CJA allows the defence to rely on good character evidence. Judges can direct the jury to acquit/order a retrial if they think the evidence of a defendants bad character is contaminated. ● ● ● ● ● Disclosure of evidence: Fair trials have the defendant view all the materials that are going up as evidence against them. This means that by law, the prosecution has to disclose evidence to the defence so they can prepare to answer the case against them. Prosecution's duty of disclosure- they have to notify the accused of all evidence they're going to rely on and make sure the defence has access to any unused material relevant to the case that they aren't going to present to the court. Unused material is anything that may undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence's one- like material that questions the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses/the reliability of a confession. Many cases have been dropped because the prosecution failed to disclose evidence to the defence. Case study- Liam Allan (2017) had his rape trial halted because evidence showed the victim pestering him for casual sex. The disc was examined by police, but they failed to disclose this to the defence. This problem can increase because of digital evidence becoming more important. For example, the police may not read every single text message on a phone and will miss evidence that clears the suspect- so they won't disclose this to the defence. Perverting the course of justice is a criminal offence, but the police may deliberately withhold evidence because they think the suspect is guilty. Limits to disclose- there's certain materials the prosecution don't have to disclose to the defendant. They seek a public-interest immunity (PII) certificate from court that allows them to withhold sensitive material that risks an important public interest (like endangering national security or exposing undercover officers). Defence's duty of disclosure- they also have to disclose certain info, like the nature of defence they're going to offer, any matters of fact they're relying on/challenging and any points of law. They don't have to disclose unused material. Hearsay evidence: This is a statement someone makes out of court to a witness who is appearing in court. The witness here wishes to rely on this as evidence of a fact. (like a witness in a murder trial testifying that someone else told them they saw the defendant kill the victim). The statement above is hearsay because it's being put forward by someone who isn't a witness of the event, they just heard about it from someone else and are relying on that to prove the defendant is guilty. Hearsay evidence is second-hand evidence, so it's not generally admitted in court. Exceptions for using hearsay- all parties agree (prosecution/defence/judge), judge rules it's in the interest of justice, common law permits it (in the case of publicly available info, reputation or expert evidence), witness can't testify (abroad, dead, unfit to do it due to fear/bodily and mental condition).