AC2.3
Understand rules in relation to the use of evidence in
criminal cases
Relevance and admissibility
Relevance – the quantity or state of being closely connected or appropriate
Relevance must have:
• Facts in issue or principle facts – the matters that are in dispute which the court need to
decide about (if they are guilty or not) -- examples: who is guilty of a theft? What was
taken? Are they guilty?
• Relevant facts – those needed in order to prove or disprove the facts in issue (show
innocence etc) -- examples: are fingerprints at the scene? Any evidence? CCTV?
(anything we use to support the story)
For evidence to be considered reliable, it is tested for:
• Creditability (truthful)
• Authenticity (genuine)
• Accuracy (correct, would you all get the same result)
Admissibility
Can the evidence be used in court? Is it allowed?
Types of inadmissible evidence:
1. Illegally or improperly obtained evidence:
Illegally obtained evidence – evidence obtained by breaking the law, during an illegal search or
violating human rights (for example obtaining evidence without a warrant)
Improperly obtained evidence – evidence obtained which breaches human rights, deception to
persuade a suspect to commit or admit to a crime (undercover officers joining a criminal gang)
Any evidence obtained must not breach the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Section 76 of the PACE states that oppression (getting a confession/ being forced to confess
unlawfully) should not be used in court. Instead, confessions must be freely done (voluntary)
, Improperly and illegally obtained evidence should not be used unless the judge rules it as
allowed if it doesn’t risk the fairness of the trial, helps find the truth and can lead to a correct
verdict.
Illegally or improperly obtained evidence – Case – Collin Stagg
After the murder of Rachel Nickell, the police only focussed their investigation on Collin Stagg
and invented a honeytrap ‘Operation Edzell’ to draw a confession from him, despite there being
no evidence to link him. But, this failed and Colin never actually confessed. The judge excluded
all evidence against him which was gained during the honeytrap and was ruled as inadmissible
evidence. The judge ruled that the police used ‘deceptive conduct’ to obtain the evidence.
2. Right To Remain Silent
The right not to answer any questions and this should not be used against you.
During questioning, you have the right not to answer questions, but there could be
consequences if you don’t - this should be explained to you when the police read the police
caution
• Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) states silence can
give negative interpretations, but you cannot only use silence to get a conviction,
however it can be questioned in court. Instead, other evidence is required to secure a
conviction.
3. Evidence Of Bad Character
Section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) states evidence of bad character is ‘evidence
of, or a disposition towards misconduct’.
Examples: previous convictions, racism
Misconduct – evidence of unacceptable behaviour
You may not trust bad characters as they are bias and unreliable.
If evidence of bad character, whether defendant or non-defendant, is admitted it may be used
by the jury.
Evidence of bad character for the offender can be admissible if it is: relevant to an important
issue between the defendant and prosecution, has substantial probative value, connects a false
impression given by the defendant about himself and if the defendant attacked the character of
another. - All parties must agree for this to be admissible
Evidence of bad character is usually inadmissible for victims and witnesses (you are less likely to
allow them in the court)
Understand rules in relation to the use of evidence in
criminal cases
Relevance and admissibility
Relevance – the quantity or state of being closely connected or appropriate
Relevance must have:
• Facts in issue or principle facts – the matters that are in dispute which the court need to
decide about (if they are guilty or not) -- examples: who is guilty of a theft? What was
taken? Are they guilty?
• Relevant facts – those needed in order to prove or disprove the facts in issue (show
innocence etc) -- examples: are fingerprints at the scene? Any evidence? CCTV?
(anything we use to support the story)
For evidence to be considered reliable, it is tested for:
• Creditability (truthful)
• Authenticity (genuine)
• Accuracy (correct, would you all get the same result)
Admissibility
Can the evidence be used in court? Is it allowed?
Types of inadmissible evidence:
1. Illegally or improperly obtained evidence:
Illegally obtained evidence – evidence obtained by breaking the law, during an illegal search or
violating human rights (for example obtaining evidence without a warrant)
Improperly obtained evidence – evidence obtained which breaches human rights, deception to
persuade a suspect to commit or admit to a crime (undercover officers joining a criminal gang)
Any evidence obtained must not breach the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Section 76 of the PACE states that oppression (getting a confession/ being forced to confess
unlawfully) should not be used in court. Instead, confessions must be freely done (voluntary)
, Improperly and illegally obtained evidence should not be used unless the judge rules it as
allowed if it doesn’t risk the fairness of the trial, helps find the truth and can lead to a correct
verdict.
Illegally or improperly obtained evidence – Case – Collin Stagg
After the murder of Rachel Nickell, the police only focussed their investigation on Collin Stagg
and invented a honeytrap ‘Operation Edzell’ to draw a confession from him, despite there being
no evidence to link him. But, this failed and Colin never actually confessed. The judge excluded
all evidence against him which was gained during the honeytrap and was ruled as inadmissible
evidence. The judge ruled that the police used ‘deceptive conduct’ to obtain the evidence.
2. Right To Remain Silent
The right not to answer any questions and this should not be used against you.
During questioning, you have the right not to answer questions, but there could be
consequences if you don’t - this should be explained to you when the police read the police
caution
• Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) states silence can
give negative interpretations, but you cannot only use silence to get a conviction,
however it can be questioned in court. Instead, other evidence is required to secure a
conviction.
3. Evidence Of Bad Character
Section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) states evidence of bad character is ‘evidence
of, or a disposition towards misconduct’.
Examples: previous convictions, racism
Misconduct – evidence of unacceptable behaviour
You may not trust bad characters as they are bias and unreliable.
If evidence of bad character, whether defendant or non-defendant, is admitted it may be used
by the jury.
Evidence of bad character for the offender can be admissible if it is: relevant to an important
issue between the defendant and prosecution, has substantial probative value, connects a false
impression given by the defendant about himself and if the defendant attacked the character of
another. - All parties must agree for this to be admissible
Evidence of bad character is usually inadmissible for victims and witnesses (you are less likely to
allow them in the court)
