U3 2.3 Understand rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal cases
Note- indicate which rules of evidence link to brief
The reliability of evidence refers to whether the evidence is credible, authentic and
accurate. Credibility suggests whether evidence is believable. For example, an eye-
witness testimony may be argued to not be credible if the witness lies or misleads the
court. Authenticity refers to whether the evidence is genuine, and unauthentic
documents may include forged official documents. Accuracy refers to whether the
details are correct. For example, expert witnesses may produce inaccurate
testimonies in court such as Roy Meadows did in the case of Sally Clark. Meadows
failed to explain the limited significance of a statistic in court which was argued for
the prosecution which resulted in Clark found guilty of murdering her 2 sons.
Relevance outlines 2 types of fact: facts in issue and relevant facts. Facts in issue are
ideas the prosecution and defence argue to either prove or disprove. In the case of
O.J. Simpson, the prosecution would argue that the defendant did murder his ex-
wife, whereas the defence would attempt to prove his innocence. On the other
hand, relevant facts are facts which support or oppose the fact in issue. For
example, the relevant fact that the prosecution argued was that the shoe print
found at the crime scene matched that of O.J Simpsons, supporting their claim.
When considering the use of evidence in criminal cases, prosecutors and defence
must ensure the evidence is relevant and admissible, making sure the facts that are
relevant are only presented in court. To ensure evidence is factually secure, there
are five rules that must be followed: improperly obtained evidence, pre-trial
sentence, character evidence and past convictions, disclosure in criminal cases,
and hearsay evidence.
Improperly obtained evidence, also known as entrapment, is defined as inducing
others to break the law for a conviction. This may be through conducting a search
without a warrant or demeaning the defendant into a confession. Judges also have
the discretionary power to exclude evidence if they believe it to have been
obtained through entrapment, however, in rare cases, the court permits both
evidence types if it discovers the truth, however if it endangers a fair trial the judge
can rule it inadmissible. This rule comes from S.78 of the police and Criminal
evidence act 1984, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights. The use of
entrapment was used in the Colin Stagg case through the ‘Lizzie’ evidence, in which
an undercover police woman spent 6 months creating a false relationship with
Note- indicate which rules of evidence link to brief
The reliability of evidence refers to whether the evidence is credible, authentic and
accurate. Credibility suggests whether evidence is believable. For example, an eye-
witness testimony may be argued to not be credible if the witness lies or misleads the
court. Authenticity refers to whether the evidence is genuine, and unauthentic
documents may include forged official documents. Accuracy refers to whether the
details are correct. For example, expert witnesses may produce inaccurate
testimonies in court such as Roy Meadows did in the case of Sally Clark. Meadows
failed to explain the limited significance of a statistic in court which was argued for
the prosecution which resulted in Clark found guilty of murdering her 2 sons.
Relevance outlines 2 types of fact: facts in issue and relevant facts. Facts in issue are
ideas the prosecution and defence argue to either prove or disprove. In the case of
O.J. Simpson, the prosecution would argue that the defendant did murder his ex-
wife, whereas the defence would attempt to prove his innocence. On the other
hand, relevant facts are facts which support or oppose the fact in issue. For
example, the relevant fact that the prosecution argued was that the shoe print
found at the crime scene matched that of O.J Simpsons, supporting their claim.
When considering the use of evidence in criminal cases, prosecutors and defence
must ensure the evidence is relevant and admissible, making sure the facts that are
relevant are only presented in court. To ensure evidence is factually secure, there
are five rules that must be followed: improperly obtained evidence, pre-trial
sentence, character evidence and past convictions, disclosure in criminal cases,
and hearsay evidence.
Improperly obtained evidence, also known as entrapment, is defined as inducing
others to break the law for a conviction. This may be through conducting a search
without a warrant or demeaning the defendant into a confession. Judges also have
the discretionary power to exclude evidence if they believe it to have been
obtained through entrapment, however, in rare cases, the court permits both
evidence types if it discovers the truth, however if it endangers a fair trial the judge
can rule it inadmissible. This rule comes from S.78 of the police and Criminal
evidence act 1984, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights. The use of
entrapment was used in the Colin Stagg case through the ‘Lizzie’ evidence, in which
an undercover police woman spent 6 months creating a false relationship with
