Criminology unit 3 ac 2.3
Relevance - correct answer-During a criminal trial, the prosecution proves the defendant has
committed the offence and the defence will disprove. Both sides present evidence for a
jury/magistrate to consider. Not all is reliable, this concern whether the court can count on
the evidence being true. Evidence must be credible, authentic and accurate. The relevance
of evidence is the determining of facts in issue and relevant facts. The facts in issue are the
matters in dispute in a case that are decided about, the prosecution attempts to prove, and
defence disprove. For example, the Sarah Everard case where Couzens pleaded guilty to
kidnap and rape and admitted diminished responsibility with pending medical records. Yet,
relevant facts are needed to be able to prove or disprove the facts in issue. For example, the
CCTV footage of the staged arrest and body bags from purchases Couzens had made.
Admissibility - correct answer-Not every piece of evidence is admissible in court. Illegally
obtained evidence is gained by violating human rights or breaking the law. Such as evidence
obtained without a warrant or using threatening treatments to obtain confession. The case of
R. Khan involved an admission of guilt obtained by an electronic covert listening device
installed by police. The defendant's appeal was dismissed as there was no right of privacy in
the English law. Improperly obtained evidence include deception to persuade the suspect to
admit or entrapment but such evidence may be excluded by PACE. For example, the case of
Colin Stagg, there was a 'honey trap' used. Yet it may occur in 'sting' operations mounted by
the police where undercover officers pose as criminal and induce a suspect to commit a
crime. The court permits both evidence types if it discovers the truth however if it endangers
a fair trail the judge can rule it inadmissible under section 78 of PACE. The European
Convention on Human Rights article 6 states entrapment is unfair. The accused is presumed
innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt therefore don't have to prove their
innocence and can remain silence. Yet, the Criminal Justice and the jury to draw
conclusions: if failed to answer police questions or a failure to testify in Public Order Act 1994
allows court this can infer guilt. Yet other evidence must be provided to secure conviction. To
check if a defendant's evidence is credible, it's good to know their character. The criminal
Justice Act 2003 defines a bad character as 'evidence of or disposition towards misconduct.'
However, to prevent this damaging the defendant's credibility, this evidence is admitted
under certain circumstances such as where it shows the defendant is lying or commit similar
offences. Character evidence isn't used in relation to
Hearsay - correct answer-Hearsay is a statement made by someone out of court to a witness
appearing in court and is defined in S114(1) Criminal justice Act as a 'statement not made an
oral evidence in the proceedings that is evidence of any matter stated' For example, the case
Bill Roache who had no contemptuous evidence, yet due to hearsay the jury found him not
guilty on six charges of murder, clearing him of his alleged rape. Hearsay is like second-hand
evidence and therefore not generally admitted in court. However, there are some exceptions
to the rules it is admissible where all parties agree, the judge rules that it is of interest to the
jury, where a witness is absent, or the common law permits this.
Disclosure - correct answer-The prosecution must disclose all documents used in trail, under
the criminal procedure and Investigations Act 1996. Over 900 criminal cases were dismissed
Relevance - correct answer-During a criminal trial, the prosecution proves the defendant has
committed the offence and the defence will disprove. Both sides present evidence for a
jury/magistrate to consider. Not all is reliable, this concern whether the court can count on
the evidence being true. Evidence must be credible, authentic and accurate. The relevance
of evidence is the determining of facts in issue and relevant facts. The facts in issue are the
matters in dispute in a case that are decided about, the prosecution attempts to prove, and
defence disprove. For example, the Sarah Everard case where Couzens pleaded guilty to
kidnap and rape and admitted diminished responsibility with pending medical records. Yet,
relevant facts are needed to be able to prove or disprove the facts in issue. For example, the
CCTV footage of the staged arrest and body bags from purchases Couzens had made.
Admissibility - correct answer-Not every piece of evidence is admissible in court. Illegally
obtained evidence is gained by violating human rights or breaking the law. Such as evidence
obtained without a warrant or using threatening treatments to obtain confession. The case of
R. Khan involved an admission of guilt obtained by an electronic covert listening device
installed by police. The defendant's appeal was dismissed as there was no right of privacy in
the English law. Improperly obtained evidence include deception to persuade the suspect to
admit or entrapment but such evidence may be excluded by PACE. For example, the case of
Colin Stagg, there was a 'honey trap' used. Yet it may occur in 'sting' operations mounted by
the police where undercover officers pose as criminal and induce a suspect to commit a
crime. The court permits both evidence types if it discovers the truth however if it endangers
a fair trail the judge can rule it inadmissible under section 78 of PACE. The European
Convention on Human Rights article 6 states entrapment is unfair. The accused is presumed
innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt therefore don't have to prove their
innocence and can remain silence. Yet, the Criminal Justice and the jury to draw
conclusions: if failed to answer police questions or a failure to testify in Public Order Act 1994
allows court this can infer guilt. Yet other evidence must be provided to secure conviction. To
check if a defendant's evidence is credible, it's good to know their character. The criminal
Justice Act 2003 defines a bad character as 'evidence of or disposition towards misconduct.'
However, to prevent this damaging the defendant's credibility, this evidence is admitted
under certain circumstances such as where it shows the defendant is lying or commit similar
offences. Character evidence isn't used in relation to
Hearsay - correct answer-Hearsay is a statement made by someone out of court to a witness
appearing in court and is defined in S114(1) Criminal justice Act as a 'statement not made an
oral evidence in the proceedings that is evidence of any matter stated' For example, the case
Bill Roache who had no contemptuous evidence, yet due to hearsay the jury found him not
guilty on six charges of murder, clearing him of his alleged rape. Hearsay is like second-hand
evidence and therefore not generally admitted in court. However, there are some exceptions
to the rules it is admissible where all parties agree, the judge rules that it is of interest to the
jury, where a witness is absent, or the common law permits this.
Disclosure - correct answer-The prosecution must disclose all documents used in trail, under
the criminal procedure and Investigations Act 1996. Over 900 criminal cases were dismissed
