AC2.3 Understand rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal cases
Relevance and Admissibility
Evidence usually needs to be credible, reliable and admissible however, sometimes this isn’t
the case. There have been many cases where the rules of evidence have not been followed,
this can lead to evidence being improperly obtained and past convictions being used against
a defendant.
Improperly obtained evidence- Entrapment
Police can use ‘Agent provocateurs’ if they are finding it difficult to secure evidence. Agent
provocateurs are people who commit an act to try and entice a suspect to commit an illegal
act or admit to doing it in the past. English law allows for the judges discretion under section
78 of the police and criminal evidence act (1978) which gives the judiciary the power to allow
or dismiss evidence that has been improperly obtained. They can dismiss the evidence
under article 6 of the European convention of Human rights which ensures a fair trial.
Evidence must have a probative effect to the trial rather than a prejudicial, probative effect is
evidence that serves the purpose of proving something during a trial whereas prejudicial
effect is evidence that provides a negatively biased effect to the case.
Case Study- Colin Stagg
Colin Stagg was falsely accused of killing Rachel Nickel in London in 1992. Police began
‘operation Edzell’ which saw a female officer try to initiate a romantic relationship with Stagg
in order to get a confession out of him. Despite this, Stagg didn’t offer up a confession to the
murder however the case went ahead to court where the judge threw it out labelling it a
‘honeytrap’ operation.
Pre-Trial silence
Pre-trial silence refers to a defendant imposing their right to remain silent when questioned
by police before a trial. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, a Jury may
infer guilt but there must be more than an inference of guilt for a verdict. Inference of guilt
refers to the presumption of the defendant's guilt based on their actions before and during
the trial; however to secure a conviction , there must be testimonial or physical evidence to
back it up.
Character evidence and past convictions
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that previous convictions aren’t automatically allowed
as evidence, section 103 states that the conviction must answer the question of if the
defendant is capable of: committing offences of the kind to which they were charged or if
they are being untruthful. Disclosure under English law is part of the litigation process where
the defence and the prosecution must submit their evidence into discovery, from there, both
sides can access the evidence produced. This ensures a fair trial as it upholds the
adversarial nature of the justice system by allowing both sides to analyse and produce
arguments against each other and the evidence at hand. The Criminal Justice Act (2003)
amended the rules set out in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 which
meant that statements of disclosure must be in writing and have to include: the nature of the
Relevance and Admissibility
Evidence usually needs to be credible, reliable and admissible however, sometimes this isn’t
the case. There have been many cases where the rules of evidence have not been followed,
this can lead to evidence being improperly obtained and past convictions being used against
a defendant.
Improperly obtained evidence- Entrapment
Police can use ‘Agent provocateurs’ if they are finding it difficult to secure evidence. Agent
provocateurs are people who commit an act to try and entice a suspect to commit an illegal
act or admit to doing it in the past. English law allows for the judges discretion under section
78 of the police and criminal evidence act (1978) which gives the judiciary the power to allow
or dismiss evidence that has been improperly obtained. They can dismiss the evidence
under article 6 of the European convention of Human rights which ensures a fair trial.
Evidence must have a probative effect to the trial rather than a prejudicial, probative effect is
evidence that serves the purpose of proving something during a trial whereas prejudicial
effect is evidence that provides a negatively biased effect to the case.
Case Study- Colin Stagg
Colin Stagg was falsely accused of killing Rachel Nickel in London in 1992. Police began
‘operation Edzell’ which saw a female officer try to initiate a romantic relationship with Stagg
in order to get a confession out of him. Despite this, Stagg didn’t offer up a confession to the
murder however the case went ahead to court where the judge threw it out labelling it a
‘honeytrap’ operation.
Pre-Trial silence
Pre-trial silence refers to a defendant imposing their right to remain silent when questioned
by police before a trial. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, a Jury may
infer guilt but there must be more than an inference of guilt for a verdict. Inference of guilt
refers to the presumption of the defendant's guilt based on their actions before and during
the trial; however to secure a conviction , there must be testimonial or physical evidence to
back it up.
Character evidence and past convictions
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that previous convictions aren’t automatically allowed
as evidence, section 103 states that the conviction must answer the question of if the
defendant is capable of: committing offences of the kind to which they were charged or if
they are being untruthful. Disclosure under English law is part of the litigation process where
the defence and the prosecution must submit their evidence into discovery, from there, both
sides can access the evidence produced. This ensures a fair trial as it upholds the
adversarial nature of the justice system by allowing both sides to analyse and produce
arguments against each other and the evidence at hand. The Criminal Justice Act (2003)
amended the rules set out in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 which
meant that statements of disclosure must be in writing and have to include: the nature of the
