AC2.3 Practice
Character Evidence:
Someone’s character is what someone sound like, what they look like, their personal and
professional history and how they dress. There is a wide debate over whether someone’s character
should be used as evidence in a criminal investigation. Under the criminal justice act 2003 it states
that previous convictions are not automatically allowed as evidence unless it is relevant to the case.
This is a strength as it prevents the jury in the trial to view the offender in a bad light thus making
the trail fair and non-biased. A weakness of this evidence rule is that someone’s character can speak
a lot about the for example, if someone doesn’t dress appropriate for court this shows that they
don’t care much about this trial nor the charge as they are not willing to go by this in a professional
manner which can be made against them. An example of this was displayed in the case of Mr
Jefferies, who was an innocent individual whose appearance caused the media to paint him as
someone he was not following the murder of Joanne Yates. Overall, the evidence rule of character
evidence is on relevant, when previous convictions match up to the crime they are being tried for,
and only admissible under a judge’s discretion. But is not reliable as it is based purely off someone’s
personal opinion.
Disclosure:
The prosecution has a duty to notify the accused of all the evidence they intend to rely on as well as
make it all available to the defence any unused material relevant to the case that they do not intend
to present in court. This law was made under the criminal procedure and investigation ac 1996 to
ensure that the trail is fair. The prosecution must provider the nature of the defence which is why
the crime happened, what the severity of the crime is and the charge and circumstance of the crime.
They must also provide the matter of fact the defence will rely on which is why the defendant is
guilty. They must also provide information on what they will challenge during the trial such as points
of prosecution or defence. They must also provide to the judge why they’re challenging evidence
such as if they plead not guilty they must prove their guilt or innocence. And finally they must
provide the relevant law points where they bring in the law and see where it can be changed or
interpreted. Overall disclosure is always relevant, always admissible and is most of the time reliable.
Entrapment:
If the police are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain secure evidence which is admissible in court,
they can consider a technique where they act as ‘agent provocateurs’. Which means they induce
others into breaking the law so that they can secure a conviction. Under section 78 of the Police and
Criminal evidence act 1984 (PACE). It states that such evidence can be excluded in order to achieve a
fair trial. In addition, the English law does not allow evidence secured through entrapment to be
used in a defence. A great example of this was displayed in the case of Collin Stag and the ‘lizzie’
evidence. Where police used a fake name to try and flirt with stag to admit to a crime he did not
commit. In article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention, it states that the defendant can
argue no right to a fair trial if evidence of entrapment is used. A strength of entrapment is it can
catch people off guard which can help to build a report against a suspect which can possibly make
them more likely to talk in their interview. In addition to this whether entrapment evidence is used
is completely down to judge to decide therefore making the trail fair overall. However, a big
weakness in this rule of evidence is that there is a high possibility you may have the wrong person
thus making all this time in effort to prove they are guiltily a waste of time. Entrapment is overall
relevant, but only when evidence is not readily available. It is admissible, under a judges discretion.
But it is not at all reliable.
Character Evidence:
Someone’s character is what someone sound like, what they look like, their personal and
professional history and how they dress. There is a wide debate over whether someone’s character
should be used as evidence in a criminal investigation. Under the criminal justice act 2003 it states
that previous convictions are not automatically allowed as evidence unless it is relevant to the case.
This is a strength as it prevents the jury in the trial to view the offender in a bad light thus making
the trail fair and non-biased. A weakness of this evidence rule is that someone’s character can speak
a lot about the for example, if someone doesn’t dress appropriate for court this shows that they
don’t care much about this trial nor the charge as they are not willing to go by this in a professional
manner which can be made against them. An example of this was displayed in the case of Mr
Jefferies, who was an innocent individual whose appearance caused the media to paint him as
someone he was not following the murder of Joanne Yates. Overall, the evidence rule of character
evidence is on relevant, when previous convictions match up to the crime they are being tried for,
and only admissible under a judge’s discretion. But is not reliable as it is based purely off someone’s
personal opinion.
Disclosure:
The prosecution has a duty to notify the accused of all the evidence they intend to rely on as well as
make it all available to the defence any unused material relevant to the case that they do not intend
to present in court. This law was made under the criminal procedure and investigation ac 1996 to
ensure that the trail is fair. The prosecution must provider the nature of the defence which is why
the crime happened, what the severity of the crime is and the charge and circumstance of the crime.
They must also provide the matter of fact the defence will rely on which is why the defendant is
guilty. They must also provide information on what they will challenge during the trial such as points
of prosecution or defence. They must also provide to the judge why they’re challenging evidence
such as if they plead not guilty they must prove their guilt or innocence. And finally they must
provide the relevant law points where they bring in the law and see where it can be changed or
interpreted. Overall disclosure is always relevant, always admissible and is most of the time reliable.
Entrapment:
If the police are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain secure evidence which is admissible in court,
they can consider a technique where they act as ‘agent provocateurs’. Which means they induce
others into breaking the law so that they can secure a conviction. Under section 78 of the Police and
Criminal evidence act 1984 (PACE). It states that such evidence can be excluded in order to achieve a
fair trial. In addition, the English law does not allow evidence secured through entrapment to be
used in a defence. A great example of this was displayed in the case of Collin Stag and the ‘lizzie’
evidence. Where police used a fake name to try and flirt with stag to admit to a crime he did not
commit. In article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention, it states that the defendant can
argue no right to a fair trial if evidence of entrapment is used. A strength of entrapment is it can
catch people off guard which can help to build a report against a suspect which can possibly make
them more likely to talk in their interview. In addition to this whether entrapment evidence is used
is completely down to judge to decide therefore making the trail fair overall. However, a big
weakness in this rule of evidence is that there is a high possibility you may have the wrong person
thus making all this time in effort to prove they are guiltily a waste of time. Entrapment is overall
relevant, but only when evidence is not readily available. It is admissible, under a judges discretion.
But it is not at all reliable.
