AC 2.3 Understand rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal cases
Improperly Obtained Evidence: Entrapment
If admissible evidence is unable to be obtained by police, they can induce others to break the law to
ensure a conviction is made. This is known as acting as ‘agent provocateurs. The English law does not
allow entrapment, however, under s.78 PACE there is no rule that allows improperly obtained evidence
to be excluded. This is due to, no matter how they came to retrieve the evidence, it is still useful. The
judge has discretion to permit evidence if it will uncover the truth. It is stated under article 6 of the
European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) that all defendants have the right to a fair trial and can
argue in their defence that how the evidence was obtained to convict them (entrapment) was unfair. It
has to be determined by the judge/magistrates whether the evidence will be helpful in establishing the
truth or if it will complicate the trial. They have the power to deem evidence admissible or inadmissible
so can exclude evidence on the grounds that the evidence was obtained unfairly and will have an effect
on the fairness of the trial. For example, in the case of Colin Stagg, who was accused of murdering a
woman named Rachel Nickell, there was no evidence to support the accusation. Operation Edzell was
conducted by police, in which an undercover female police officer formed a false romantic interest in
Stagg and consistently tried to manipulate him into confessing to the murder, however, he refused. The
evidence was dismissed on the basis that it was entrapment and the trial didn’t endure. Stagg was
acquitted and compensated for the experience.
Pre-Trial Silence
During the process of conviction, all defendants have the right to silence, although the Criminal Justice
and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) allows the jury to suspect guilt if a possible defendant fails to answer
the questions police ask them. However, guilt cannot be solely established on an inference and more
evidence is required. Exposure of information is up to the defendant, they may or may not say anything
during the trial. In Croydon vs UK, Condron was on trial for supplying heroin and possessing heroin with
intent to supply. He was advised to remain silent when being interrogated (by police) by his solicitors as
he was suffering with heroin withdrawal at the time of the interrogation and his solicitor did not want
him to say something untrue or incriminating that might ruin his chances. In the trial, the judge gave the
jury the choice to infer guilt from his silence and he was found guilty, despite providing answers and
explanations in court during the trial. The court dismissed his complaints for unfairness as there was
other evidence alongside his silence. The jury was satisfied with the idea that his silence could be due to
him being unable to properly answer the prosecutions questions in a way that would hold up in cross-
examination.
Past convictions/Character evidence
It is stated under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) that previous convictions are not allowed as
evidence against a defendant but are allowed in court under certain circumstances if it reveals the true
nature of the defendants charcter and serves as evidence to prove their capability of committing the
crime they are being accused of. For example, under s.103 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
(CJPOA) 1994, it states that ‘matters relating to the question whether the defendant has a propensity to
commit offences of the kind with which they are charged’ allow past convictions to be used as evidence.
Therefore, the previous conviction must be relevant and relatable to the current case. In the case of
David Morris, he was accused of brutally murdering a family and setting their house on fire in an attempt
Improperly Obtained Evidence: Entrapment
If admissible evidence is unable to be obtained by police, they can induce others to break the law to
ensure a conviction is made. This is known as acting as ‘agent provocateurs. The English law does not
allow entrapment, however, under s.78 PACE there is no rule that allows improperly obtained evidence
to be excluded. This is due to, no matter how they came to retrieve the evidence, it is still useful. The
judge has discretion to permit evidence if it will uncover the truth. It is stated under article 6 of the
European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) that all defendants have the right to a fair trial and can
argue in their defence that how the evidence was obtained to convict them (entrapment) was unfair. It
has to be determined by the judge/magistrates whether the evidence will be helpful in establishing the
truth or if it will complicate the trial. They have the power to deem evidence admissible or inadmissible
so can exclude evidence on the grounds that the evidence was obtained unfairly and will have an effect
on the fairness of the trial. For example, in the case of Colin Stagg, who was accused of murdering a
woman named Rachel Nickell, there was no evidence to support the accusation. Operation Edzell was
conducted by police, in which an undercover female police officer formed a false romantic interest in
Stagg and consistently tried to manipulate him into confessing to the murder, however, he refused. The
evidence was dismissed on the basis that it was entrapment and the trial didn’t endure. Stagg was
acquitted and compensated for the experience.
Pre-Trial Silence
During the process of conviction, all defendants have the right to silence, although the Criminal Justice
and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) allows the jury to suspect guilt if a possible defendant fails to answer
the questions police ask them. However, guilt cannot be solely established on an inference and more
evidence is required. Exposure of information is up to the defendant, they may or may not say anything
during the trial. In Croydon vs UK, Condron was on trial for supplying heroin and possessing heroin with
intent to supply. He was advised to remain silent when being interrogated (by police) by his solicitors as
he was suffering with heroin withdrawal at the time of the interrogation and his solicitor did not want
him to say something untrue or incriminating that might ruin his chances. In the trial, the judge gave the
jury the choice to infer guilt from his silence and he was found guilty, despite providing answers and
explanations in court during the trial. The court dismissed his complaints for unfairness as there was
other evidence alongside his silence. The jury was satisfied with the idea that his silence could be due to
him being unable to properly answer the prosecutions questions in a way that would hold up in cross-
examination.
Past convictions/Character evidence
It is stated under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) that previous convictions are not allowed as
evidence against a defendant but are allowed in court under certain circumstances if it reveals the true
nature of the defendants charcter and serves as evidence to prove their capability of committing the
crime they are being accused of. For example, under s.103 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
(CJPOA) 1994, it states that ‘matters relating to the question whether the defendant has a propensity to
commit offences of the kind with which they are charged’ allow past convictions to be used as evidence.
Therefore, the previous conviction must be relevant and relatable to the current case. In the case of
David Morris, he was accused of brutally murdering a family and setting their house on fire in an attempt
