Lecture 2 – Relevance
1. Relevance:
Definitions
As a general rule in law, any evidence that is presented to the court must be relevant to the dispute
in question.
Relevance generally – something which has a reasonably direct bearing on something else
Relevance in Law – not a fixed concept, more a word used to describe a relationship that exists
between two facts
Relevance is a complex sub-field of Evidence, and a broad overview only is given in this module.
Walkers on Evidence – “in very general terms relevant evidence may be said to be evidence which is
logically connected with those matters in dispute between the parties”.
2. Defining relevance by examples:
Strathmore Group Ltd v Credit Lyonnais 1994 SLT 1023 (per Lord Osborne, quoting established
precedent, at 1031):
‘the ultimate is whether the material in question has a reasonably direct bearing on the subject matter
under investigation’
Who is it that decides?
Judge/Sheriff
It is a question of law. The judge will decide whether a legitimate inference can be drawn from a
particular piece of evidence or a particular person giving oral testimony. If the judge (who's like a
gatekeeper) who decides that it's relevant to the facts in issue to the matters in dispute, then that
evidence will be heard by the courts. And if not, then it is deemed collateral, which means that
technically it might be relevant, but actually, it's not closely enough associated with the issues in
dispute to be deemed admissible in court.
It is a balancing Act – an art, not a science. Application of common sense and experience. The concept
of relevance is not explored in any great depth in Scot’s law.
And of course, the parties' lawyers, or if it's a criminal case the Crown and the defence, will both
probably argue before the judge or sheriff as to whether they wish that piece of evidence to be placed
before the court or not.
Swan v Bowie 1948 SC 46 *
It was a case involving several poison pen letters. The case was brought by Mr Swan against Mrs Bowie.
Allegedly Mrs Bowie had sent a number of letters around the locality which were certainly defamatory,
and which contained a lot of spiteful and unpleasant comments, and two of which (a letter and a
postcard) had been sent to Mr Swan. When Mr Swan brought his proceedings (civil proceedings)
1. Relevance:
Definitions
As a general rule in law, any evidence that is presented to the court must be relevant to the dispute
in question.
Relevance generally – something which has a reasonably direct bearing on something else
Relevance in Law – not a fixed concept, more a word used to describe a relationship that exists
between two facts
Relevance is a complex sub-field of Evidence, and a broad overview only is given in this module.
Walkers on Evidence – “in very general terms relevant evidence may be said to be evidence which is
logically connected with those matters in dispute between the parties”.
2. Defining relevance by examples:
Strathmore Group Ltd v Credit Lyonnais 1994 SLT 1023 (per Lord Osborne, quoting established
precedent, at 1031):
‘the ultimate is whether the material in question has a reasonably direct bearing on the subject matter
under investigation’
Who is it that decides?
Judge/Sheriff
It is a question of law. The judge will decide whether a legitimate inference can be drawn from a
particular piece of evidence or a particular person giving oral testimony. If the judge (who's like a
gatekeeper) who decides that it's relevant to the facts in issue to the matters in dispute, then that
evidence will be heard by the courts. And if not, then it is deemed collateral, which means that
technically it might be relevant, but actually, it's not closely enough associated with the issues in
dispute to be deemed admissible in court.
It is a balancing Act – an art, not a science. Application of common sense and experience. The concept
of relevance is not explored in any great depth in Scot’s law.
And of course, the parties' lawyers, or if it's a criminal case the Crown and the defence, will both
probably argue before the judge or sheriff as to whether they wish that piece of evidence to be placed
before the court or not.
Swan v Bowie 1948 SC 46 *
It was a case involving several poison pen letters. The case was brought by Mr Swan against Mrs Bowie.
Allegedly Mrs Bowie had sent a number of letters around the locality which were certainly defamatory,
and which contained a lot of spiteful and unpleasant comments, and two of which (a letter and a
postcard) had been sent to Mr Swan. When Mr Swan brought his proceedings (civil proceedings)
