AC 2.3: Understand Rules in Relation to the Use of Evidence in Criminal Cases
Not all evidence can be used in court because to be accepted it must be reliable, admissible, and
relevant to the case.
For evidence to be considered reliable, it must be credible, authentic, and accurate.
To be credible, the evidence must be believable from a reasonable source. For example, was the
witness telling the truth? However, honesty is not enough because prevailing conditions may make
the statement impossible to be true – for example, night-time might have obscured the witness’s
vision if the crime took place in the dark.
To be authentic, the evidence must be genuine. As an example, a document presented as evidence
cannot be authentic if it is a forgery.
For evidence to be accurate, it must be correct in its details. For example, is the evidence of an
expert supported by the rest of the scientific community? The case of Sir Roy Meadow is a key
example of when this does not happen, with his testimonies in court ultimately leading to him being
struck off the medical register. In court, Meadow testified against several women who lost their
babies. In Donna Anthony’s trial, he said that the chances of two babies dying in a family like hers
was around 1 in a million, leading to her being wrongly jailed. He also said that in Sally Clark’s family
the likelihood was “one in 73 million.” Clark was also wrongfully jailed. In Trupti Patel’s trial,
Meadow suggested that “two cot deaths is suspicious, three is murder,” although she was cleared of
all charges. Due to Meadow’s status, his testimonies seemed credible, but were in fact inaccurate.
Evidence must be considered relevant if it is to be used in court. The law splits evidence as being one
of two types of facts in a trial: ‘facts in issue’, otherwise known as ‘principal facts’, and ‘relevant
facts.’ Facts in issue are the matters in a case that the court has to decide about. The prosecution
attempts to prove these facts, whereas the defence attempt to disprove them. Relevant facts are
facts needed to prove or disprove the facts in issue and cannot be argued with.
Admissibility of evidence refers to whether it is allowed in court by the judge or magistrate. Evidence
can be inadmissible due to it having been collected improperly (such as through entrapments or
‘sting’ operations) or collected illegally (such as being discovered in a search without a warrant or
because of torture.) However, the court can accept improperly or illegally obtained evidence as
admissible if it will lead to a correct verdict. This is an example of ‘Probative vs Prejudicial,’ in which
it is considered more important to get a guilty verdict than to have a fair trial.
The case of Colin Stagg can be applied to both the admissibility and relevance of evidence. Following
the murder of Rachel Nickell, the police focused their investigations on Colin Stagg. No forensic
evidence linked him to the murder, but the police created ‘Operation Edzell’ - a honeytrap to elicit a
confession from him. However, Stagg never confessed. In 1994, Mr Justice Ognall excluded all
honeytrap evidence, ruling that the police had shown “excessive zeal” and “deceptive conduct” of
the grossest kind. The evidence was inadmissible due to being obtained improperly in a honeytrap
and through the police attempting to coerce Stagg, and none of what was collected could be
considered relevant to the case as a result.
Also playing a part in whether evidence can be used in court is pre-trial silence and bad character.
Pre-trial silence refers to the right to stay silent. However, in a criminal investigation, “no comment”
can be interpreted as a sign of guilt. Proof of bad character can also be admissible in court because
legal sanctions and documents are considered admissible. However, ‘contaminated’ evidence lacking
officiality is inadmissible.
All rules regarding disclosure come from the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Disclosure ensures a fair trial
by allowing both the prosecution and defence to be fully informed of all evidence and information –
Not all evidence can be used in court because to be accepted it must be reliable, admissible, and
relevant to the case.
For evidence to be considered reliable, it must be credible, authentic, and accurate.
To be credible, the evidence must be believable from a reasonable source. For example, was the
witness telling the truth? However, honesty is not enough because prevailing conditions may make
the statement impossible to be true – for example, night-time might have obscured the witness’s
vision if the crime took place in the dark.
To be authentic, the evidence must be genuine. As an example, a document presented as evidence
cannot be authentic if it is a forgery.
For evidence to be accurate, it must be correct in its details. For example, is the evidence of an
expert supported by the rest of the scientific community? The case of Sir Roy Meadow is a key
example of when this does not happen, with his testimonies in court ultimately leading to him being
struck off the medical register. In court, Meadow testified against several women who lost their
babies. In Donna Anthony’s trial, he said that the chances of two babies dying in a family like hers
was around 1 in a million, leading to her being wrongly jailed. He also said that in Sally Clark’s family
the likelihood was “one in 73 million.” Clark was also wrongfully jailed. In Trupti Patel’s trial,
Meadow suggested that “two cot deaths is suspicious, three is murder,” although she was cleared of
all charges. Due to Meadow’s status, his testimonies seemed credible, but were in fact inaccurate.
Evidence must be considered relevant if it is to be used in court. The law splits evidence as being one
of two types of facts in a trial: ‘facts in issue’, otherwise known as ‘principal facts’, and ‘relevant
facts.’ Facts in issue are the matters in a case that the court has to decide about. The prosecution
attempts to prove these facts, whereas the defence attempt to disprove them. Relevant facts are
facts needed to prove or disprove the facts in issue and cannot be argued with.
Admissibility of evidence refers to whether it is allowed in court by the judge or magistrate. Evidence
can be inadmissible due to it having been collected improperly (such as through entrapments or
‘sting’ operations) or collected illegally (such as being discovered in a search without a warrant or
because of torture.) However, the court can accept improperly or illegally obtained evidence as
admissible if it will lead to a correct verdict. This is an example of ‘Probative vs Prejudicial,’ in which
it is considered more important to get a guilty verdict than to have a fair trial.
The case of Colin Stagg can be applied to both the admissibility and relevance of evidence. Following
the murder of Rachel Nickell, the police focused their investigations on Colin Stagg. No forensic
evidence linked him to the murder, but the police created ‘Operation Edzell’ - a honeytrap to elicit a
confession from him. However, Stagg never confessed. In 1994, Mr Justice Ognall excluded all
honeytrap evidence, ruling that the police had shown “excessive zeal” and “deceptive conduct” of
the grossest kind. The evidence was inadmissible due to being obtained improperly in a honeytrap
and through the police attempting to coerce Stagg, and none of what was collected could be
considered relevant to the case as a result.
Also playing a part in whether evidence can be used in court is pre-trial silence and bad character.
Pre-trial silence refers to the right to stay silent. However, in a criminal investigation, “no comment”
can be interpreted as a sign of guilt. Proof of bad character can also be admissible in court because
legal sanctions and documents are considered admissible. However, ‘contaminated’ evidence lacking
officiality is inadmissible.
All rules regarding disclosure come from the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Disclosure ensures a fair trial
by allowing both the prosecution and defence to be fully informed of all evidence and information –
