AC2.3- Understand rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal cases.
Relevance and Admissibility
In any case that goes to court, the jury must be able to rely on the given evidence being
true, and for it to be reliable it must be credible, authentic, and accurate. If evidence
does not meet this standard, the burden of proof falls to the prosecuting barrister, which
means that if a case doesn't get charged, the responsibility goes to the prosecution.
This explains why they are so specific about the cases that go to court.
During trial, there are two types of facts: The facts in issue (principle facts) which are
exactly what the court is disputing, what the prosecution proves and the defence must
disprove, as well as the relevant facts which are the evidence, the facts that are needed
in order to prove the facts in issue.
Not all collected evidence will be admissible in court, for example if the prosecution
uses dishonest or improper methods to gain evidence that supports their case, this
would be called illegally or improperly obtained evidence. The former is when evidence
is gained by breaking the law or violating human rights, including things like torture or
harm in order to get a confession or conducting a search without getting a warrant. The
latter, improperly obtained evidence, includes things like the use of entrapment or sting
operations with undercover officers.
The court can, in some cases, permit the use of illegally or improperly obtained
evidence, but if it endangers a fair trial then the judge will likely rule it inadmissible.
Anyone on trial also has the right to remain silent, and not have adverse inferences of
their actions come as a result. A case example of this would be Condron v UK (April
2000) where two heroin addicts were arrested in 1995 and advised by their solicitor not
to answer questions as they were going through withdrawal at the time. When it came to
trial, the jury were given the choice, by the judge, to draw an inference of guilt from their
silence. After the trial, the previous defendants argued that the jury should not have
been enabled to do that. The ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) ruled that while
there is no absolute right to silence, adverse inferences should only be made in light of
case details, and overall ruled in the couple’s favour, who were then awarded £15,000
for legal costs. However, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) allows
inferences about the defendant's guilt to be made if they remain silent under certain
circumstances: Failure to answer police questions (like failing to account for objects in
personal possession or presence at a crime scene), or failure to testify in court (unless
there is a jury-acceptable reason). The jury cannot convict based on silence in court and
questioning alone.
Disclosure of Evidence
Relevance and Admissibility
In any case that goes to court, the jury must be able to rely on the given evidence being
true, and for it to be reliable it must be credible, authentic, and accurate. If evidence
does not meet this standard, the burden of proof falls to the prosecuting barrister, which
means that if a case doesn't get charged, the responsibility goes to the prosecution.
This explains why they are so specific about the cases that go to court.
During trial, there are two types of facts: The facts in issue (principle facts) which are
exactly what the court is disputing, what the prosecution proves and the defence must
disprove, as well as the relevant facts which are the evidence, the facts that are needed
in order to prove the facts in issue.
Not all collected evidence will be admissible in court, for example if the prosecution
uses dishonest or improper methods to gain evidence that supports their case, this
would be called illegally or improperly obtained evidence. The former is when evidence
is gained by breaking the law or violating human rights, including things like torture or
harm in order to get a confession or conducting a search without getting a warrant. The
latter, improperly obtained evidence, includes things like the use of entrapment or sting
operations with undercover officers.
The court can, in some cases, permit the use of illegally or improperly obtained
evidence, but if it endangers a fair trial then the judge will likely rule it inadmissible.
Anyone on trial also has the right to remain silent, and not have adverse inferences of
their actions come as a result. A case example of this would be Condron v UK (April
2000) where two heroin addicts were arrested in 1995 and advised by their solicitor not
to answer questions as they were going through withdrawal at the time. When it came to
trial, the jury were given the choice, by the judge, to draw an inference of guilt from their
silence. After the trial, the previous defendants argued that the jury should not have
been enabled to do that. The ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) ruled that while
there is no absolute right to silence, adverse inferences should only be made in light of
case details, and overall ruled in the couple’s favour, who were then awarded £15,000
for legal costs. However, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) allows
inferences about the defendant's guilt to be made if they remain silent under certain
circumstances: Failure to answer police questions (like failing to account for objects in
personal possession or presence at a crime scene), or failure to testify in court (unless
there is a jury-acceptable reason). The jury cannot convict based on silence in court and
questioning alone.
Disclosure of Evidence
