● When considering the use of evidence in criminal cases,
○ prosecutors and defence
■ must make sure the evidence is relevant and admissible
● making sure the facts that are relevant are only presented in
court.
○ S. 136 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 five rules that
must be followed:
○ improperly obtained evidence
○ pre-trial sentence
○ character evidence and past convictions
○ disclosure in criminal cases
○ hearsay evidence
● Improperly obtained evidence
○ also known as entrapment
■ is defined as inducing others to break the law for a conviction
● Judges also have the discretionary power to exclude evidence
○ if they believe it to have been obtained through
entrapment
■ however
● in rare cases,
○ It can be used if the evidence is helpful rather than
harmful
■ This rule comes from S.78 of the police and
criminal evidence act
● 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 sent letters to Stagg
trying to make him confess to murder (honey trapping).
○ but this evidence was not admissible in court
■ it was deemed he was simply saying what she
wanted to hear
● Pre-trial silence
○ occurs when a suspect fails to give an explanation under caution
■ which may allow the jury to draw an inference of guilt
● In this case,
○ other evidence is needed for a caution
■ This rule comes from the criminal justice and
public order act 1994
■ In the Colin Stagg case,
● he initially refused to answer questions,
○ leading the jury to assume his guilt
○ prosecutors and defence
■ must make sure the evidence is relevant and admissible
● making sure the facts that are relevant are only presented in
court.
○ S. 136 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 five rules that
must be followed:
○ improperly obtained evidence
○ pre-trial sentence
○ character evidence and past convictions
○ disclosure in criminal cases
○ hearsay evidence
● Improperly obtained evidence
○ also known as entrapment
■ is defined as inducing others to break the law for a conviction
● Judges also have the discretionary power to exclude evidence
○ if they believe it to have been obtained through
entrapment
■ however
● in rare cases,
○ It can be used if the evidence is helpful rather than
harmful
■ This rule comes from S.78 of the police and
criminal evidence act
● 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 sent letters to Stagg
trying to make him confess to murder (honey trapping).
○ but this evidence was not admissible in court
■ it was deemed he was simply saying what she
wanted to hear
● Pre-trial silence
○ occurs when a suspect fails to give an explanation under caution
■ which may allow the jury to draw an inference of guilt
● In this case,
○ other evidence is needed for a caution
■ This rule comes from the criminal justice and
public order act 1994
■ In the Colin Stagg case,
● he initially refused to answer questions,
○ leading the jury to assume his guilt
