Criminology: AC 2.3 Understand rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal
cases (4 marks)
In criminal proceedings, not all evidence can be used. Evidence which is used in court must
be admissible which means that it must be reliable and relevant to the case. S136 of the
Evidence Act states that a final discretion on the admissibility of evidence lies within the jury.
To ensure evidence is factually secure, there are rules of evidence.
Relevance and Admissibility
Both the prosecution and defendant present evidence to the court, for the magistrates to
consider. This evidence can only be used if it is relevant, reliable and admissible.
Reliable evidence is evidence that is credible, authentic and accurate. This is usually
questioned in regards to witness testimonies and expert witnesses. The witness testimony
must be believed by a reasonable person with correct details and cannot be forged, whilst
the expert witness testimonies must be supported by the rest of the scientific community.
Improperly obtained evidence, also known as entrapment, is where the police use deception
to induce others to break the law in order to secure a conviction. This evidence can be
deemed as inadmissible evidence and can endanger the fairness of the trial which the
defendant has the right to this. Entrapment isn’t allowed a defence, but evidence may be
excluded under Section 78 Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). This can be seen
in the case of Colin Stagg and the ‘Lizzie’ evidence, where an undercover police woman
sent letters to Stagg trying to make him confess to murder, but this evidence wasn’t
admissible in court as it was deemed he was simply saying what she wanted to hear.
Illegally obtained evidence is gained by breaking the law or violating a person’s human
rights, it can include illegal searches conducted without a warrant, using torture or degrading
treatment to obtain a confession, this type of evidence is also deemed as inadmissible
evidence.
Every individual has the right to remain silent, as it is presumed innocent till proven guilty by
the prosecution. The accused doesn’t have to prove their innocence, so doesn’t have to say
anything before or during the trial, as it is a human right to stay silent. Pre-trial silence is
when a suspect fails to give an explanation under a caution, which may allow the jury to
draw an inference of guilt, this can be seen in the Colin Stagg case where he initially refused
to answer questions. This rule comes from the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It
includes failure to answer police questions and failure to testify in court. However, a jury
cannot convict solely on inferences about the accused’s silence in court. To secure a
conviction, the prosecution must provide other evidence.
Character evidence can be used to assess whether a defendant’s evidence is credible.
Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, previous convictions and character evidence are not
automatically allowed as evidence, but there are occasions when they are allowed to be
given to the court. The Criminal Justice Act Section 103 provides several rules or ‘gateways’
that allow for this evidence to be used if the defendant has a tendency to lie to commit
crimes of the same description. It can also be used to prove a defendant’s good character.
Disclosure of evidence
Disclosure in criminal cases is a rule stating that all evidence has to be disclosed to the
prosecution and defence before a trial, to ensure the procedures are fair, this due to the
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. The prosecution has a duty to: notify the
accused of all the evidence they intend to rely on, and make available to the defence any
cases (4 marks)
In criminal proceedings, not all evidence can be used. Evidence which is used in court must
be admissible which means that it must be reliable and relevant to the case. S136 of the
Evidence Act states that a final discretion on the admissibility of evidence lies within the jury.
To ensure evidence is factually secure, there are rules of evidence.
Relevance and Admissibility
Both the prosecution and defendant present evidence to the court, for the magistrates to
consider. This evidence can only be used if it is relevant, reliable and admissible.
Reliable evidence is evidence that is credible, authentic and accurate. This is usually
questioned in regards to witness testimonies and expert witnesses. The witness testimony
must be believed by a reasonable person with correct details and cannot be forged, whilst
the expert witness testimonies must be supported by the rest of the scientific community.
Improperly obtained evidence, also known as entrapment, is where the police use deception
to induce others to break the law in order to secure a conviction. This evidence can be
deemed as inadmissible evidence and can endanger the fairness of the trial which the
defendant has the right to this. Entrapment isn’t allowed a defence, but evidence may be
excluded under Section 78 Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). This can be seen
in the case of Colin Stagg and the ‘Lizzie’ evidence, where an undercover police woman
sent letters to Stagg trying to make him confess to murder, but this evidence wasn’t
admissible in court as it was deemed he was simply saying what she wanted to hear.
Illegally obtained evidence is gained by breaking the law or violating a person’s human
rights, it can include illegal searches conducted without a warrant, using torture or degrading
treatment to obtain a confession, this type of evidence is also deemed as inadmissible
evidence.
Every individual has the right to remain silent, as it is presumed innocent till proven guilty by
the prosecution. The accused doesn’t have to prove their innocence, so doesn’t have to say
anything before or during the trial, as it is a human right to stay silent. Pre-trial silence is
when a suspect fails to give an explanation under a caution, which may allow the jury to
draw an inference of guilt, this can be seen in the Colin Stagg case where he initially refused
to answer questions. This rule comes from the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It
includes failure to answer police questions and failure to testify in court. However, a jury
cannot convict solely on inferences about the accused’s silence in court. To secure a
conviction, the prosecution must provide other evidence.
Character evidence can be used to assess whether a defendant’s evidence is credible.
Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, previous convictions and character evidence are not
automatically allowed as evidence, but there are occasions when they are allowed to be
given to the court. The Criminal Justice Act Section 103 provides several rules or ‘gateways’
that allow for this evidence to be used if the defendant has a tendency to lie to commit
crimes of the same description. It can also be used to prove a defendant’s good character.
Disclosure of evidence
Disclosure in criminal cases is a rule stating that all evidence has to be disclosed to the
prosecution and defence before a trial, to ensure the procedures are fair, this due to the
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. The prosecution has a duty to: notify the
accused of all the evidence they intend to rely on, and make available to the defence any
