Ac 2.3 Criminology Personal Notes
Unit: Crime Scene to Courtroom Date: Name:
Topic: 2.3 Rules of evidence
- Relevance and admissibility
- Disclosure of evidence
- Hearsay rule and exceptions
- Legislation and case law
Notes made during the lesson (in your own words)
Any evidence that is used in court for criminal cases must be deemed reliable, admissible
and relevant to the case.
RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE
All evidence that is used on either the prosecution's side or the defendant's side must be
reliable. This means that the court must believe that the evidence is true. There are three
categories that evidence must fit for it to be reliable. These include, authentic which means
that it’s genuine and not forged, accurate which means the evidence is supported by facts
and credible which means it's believable by a reasonable person. An example of unreliable
evidence resulting in an acquittal is the case of Bill Roache. He was suspected of sexually
assaulting young women on the set of a popular TV show. However, due to the witnesses
not being able to remember specific details about the incident as it happened 40 years
earlier the evidence was deemed unreliable. As a result Bill was acquitted and went free.
There are two types of fact in a trial; facts in issue and relevant facts. Facts in issue are
matters that are in dispute during a trial, these are any facts that the defence is trying to
disprove and the prosecution is trying to prove. Therefore the court must decide which side
to believe. For example, in a case of burglary, the prosecution will try to prove it happened
and the defence will try and prove it didn’t. Relevant facts are pieces of information that are
used to prove or disprove the facts in issue. For example, the prosecution found fingerprint
evidence on a window that matches the suspects, linking them to the crime.
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Several kinds of evidence are not admissible in court, this includes illegally or improperly
obtained evidence, evidence of bad character and the right to remain silent.
Illegally or improperly obtained evidence is when prosecution uses improper or dishonest
methods to collect evidence that supports their argument. Evidence can be illegally
obtained if any laws are broken or an individual's human rights are violated. For example if
torture, degrading or an illegal search is used to obtain evidence or a confession. If
entrapment is used to persuade a suspect into admitting or committing a crime this is
known as improperly obtained evidence. For example, the case of Colin Stagg. To try and
get him to confess to the murder of Rachel Nickell, police set up a ‘honey trap’, which
resulted in the judge ruling out any evidence they collected through these means. If any
evidence given in court endangers a fair trial the judge has the right to rule it out as
inadmissible, however it can be used in some cases where it can help to discover the truth.
Unit: Crime Scene to Courtroom Date: Name:
Topic: 2.3 Rules of evidence
- Relevance and admissibility
- Disclosure of evidence
- Hearsay rule and exceptions
- Legislation and case law
Notes made during the lesson (in your own words)
Any evidence that is used in court for criminal cases must be deemed reliable, admissible
and relevant to the case.
RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE
All evidence that is used on either the prosecution's side or the defendant's side must be
reliable. This means that the court must believe that the evidence is true. There are three
categories that evidence must fit for it to be reliable. These include, authentic which means
that it’s genuine and not forged, accurate which means the evidence is supported by facts
and credible which means it's believable by a reasonable person. An example of unreliable
evidence resulting in an acquittal is the case of Bill Roache. He was suspected of sexually
assaulting young women on the set of a popular TV show. However, due to the witnesses
not being able to remember specific details about the incident as it happened 40 years
earlier the evidence was deemed unreliable. As a result Bill was acquitted and went free.
There are two types of fact in a trial; facts in issue and relevant facts. Facts in issue are
matters that are in dispute during a trial, these are any facts that the defence is trying to
disprove and the prosecution is trying to prove. Therefore the court must decide which side
to believe. For example, in a case of burglary, the prosecution will try to prove it happened
and the defence will try and prove it didn’t. Relevant facts are pieces of information that are
used to prove or disprove the facts in issue. For example, the prosecution found fingerprint
evidence on a window that matches the suspects, linking them to the crime.
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Several kinds of evidence are not admissible in court, this includes illegally or improperly
obtained evidence, evidence of bad character and the right to remain silent.
Illegally or improperly obtained evidence is when prosecution uses improper or dishonest
methods to collect evidence that supports their argument. Evidence can be illegally
obtained if any laws are broken or an individual's human rights are violated. For example if
torture, degrading or an illegal search is used to obtain evidence or a confession. If
entrapment is used to persuade a suspect into admitting or committing a crime this is
known as improperly obtained evidence. For example, the case of Colin Stagg. To try and
get him to confess to the murder of Rachel Nickell, police set up a ‘honey trap’, which
resulted in the judge ruling out any evidence they collected through these means. If any
evidence given in court endangers a fair trial the judge has the right to rule it out as
inadmissible, however it can be used in some cases where it can help to discover the truth.
