AC 2.3 Writing Frames
In a criminal case, the court will be concerned with the relevance and
admissibility of the evidence that is presented. One factor of this is the
evidence’s reliability, which differs depending on the type of evidence. For
example, if it is a witness statement, the court would be concerned with the
credibility of the individual making the account, as they may not be telling the
truth. If it is documentary evidence, the court will need to ensure that this is in
fact authentic and if it an expert witness that is giving facts regarding the case,
these will need to be accurate. One example where this was a problem is in the
case of Sally Clark where the expert witness Sir Roy Meadows gave incorrect
figures on the probability of cot deaths which resulted in her being wrongly
convicted of the murder of her infant children.
If evidence is illegally or improperly obtained, it will not be admissible in court.
Illegally obtained evidence refers to any evidence obtained while in breach of the
law, for example, anything found in a house without a search warrant. Improperly
obtained evidence can refer to circumstances such as entrapment where the
police attempt to trap a suspect into either committing a crime or confessing to
one. A real life example of this is the case of Colin Stagg where a female police
officer was used to perform a honey trap to get him to confess to the murder of
Rachel Nickell. However, the judge has the power to permit illegally and
improperly obtained evidence if they believe its probative value outweighs its
prejudicial effect.
While suspects do have a right to remain silent during police questioning, under
the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the jury are given permission to
make inferences about their lack of an answer under certain circumstances. One
of these circumstances is if the suspect fails to answer police questions and
another circumstance is if they fail to testify in court without an acceptable
explanation.
Another factor that the court will be concerned with is the disclosure of evidence.
Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, all parties involved have a right to a fair
trial. To ensure that this is upheld, the prosecution have a duty to disclose any
evidence that they have gathered throughout the investigation prior to the trial,
no matter how insignificant they may deem it to be. This gives the defence the
opportunity to prepare a response to what they will be shown in court. One
example where police failed to disclose evidence is in the case of Liam Allan. He
was accused of rape but the trial had to be stopped when further evidence was
discovered on a computer disc that showed the alleged victim pestering Allan for
sex; this evidence had already been examined by the police but they had not
disclosed it. This contributed to him being found not guilty and was pivotal for
the case. However, in some cases the prosecution do not have to disclose all of
their evidence. This is when it would reveal sensitive information such as
undercover police identities and national security. In these cases, the prosecution
will need to obtain a public interest immunity (PII) from the court.
One type of evidence that courts need to consider carefully is hearsay evidence.
This is evidence that is based on information that a witness appearing in court
has heard from someone else. Generally, this evidence cannot be permitted in
court, as stated under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 114. However, there
are some exceptions to this rule: if both the prosecution and defence agree to
hear the evidence and open it up to rigorous cross-examination, if the judge
In a criminal case, the court will be concerned with the relevance and
admissibility of the evidence that is presented. One factor of this is the
evidence’s reliability, which differs depending on the type of evidence. For
example, if it is a witness statement, the court would be concerned with the
credibility of the individual making the account, as they may not be telling the
truth. If it is documentary evidence, the court will need to ensure that this is in
fact authentic and if it an expert witness that is giving facts regarding the case,
these will need to be accurate. One example where this was a problem is in the
case of Sally Clark where the expert witness Sir Roy Meadows gave incorrect
figures on the probability of cot deaths which resulted in her being wrongly
convicted of the murder of her infant children.
If evidence is illegally or improperly obtained, it will not be admissible in court.
Illegally obtained evidence refers to any evidence obtained while in breach of the
law, for example, anything found in a house without a search warrant. Improperly
obtained evidence can refer to circumstances such as entrapment where the
police attempt to trap a suspect into either committing a crime or confessing to
one. A real life example of this is the case of Colin Stagg where a female police
officer was used to perform a honey trap to get him to confess to the murder of
Rachel Nickell. However, the judge has the power to permit illegally and
improperly obtained evidence if they believe its probative value outweighs its
prejudicial effect.
While suspects do have a right to remain silent during police questioning, under
the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the jury are given permission to
make inferences about their lack of an answer under certain circumstances. One
of these circumstances is if the suspect fails to answer police questions and
another circumstance is if they fail to testify in court without an acceptable
explanation.
Another factor that the court will be concerned with is the disclosure of evidence.
Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, all parties involved have a right to a fair
trial. To ensure that this is upheld, the prosecution have a duty to disclose any
evidence that they have gathered throughout the investigation prior to the trial,
no matter how insignificant they may deem it to be. This gives the defence the
opportunity to prepare a response to what they will be shown in court. One
example where police failed to disclose evidence is in the case of Liam Allan. He
was accused of rape but the trial had to be stopped when further evidence was
discovered on a computer disc that showed the alleged victim pestering Allan for
sex; this evidence had already been examined by the police but they had not
disclosed it. This contributed to him being found not guilty and was pivotal for
the case. However, in some cases the prosecution do not have to disclose all of
their evidence. This is when it would reveal sensitive information such as
undercover police identities and national security. In these cases, the prosecution
will need to obtain a public interest immunity (PII) from the court.
One type of evidence that courts need to consider carefully is hearsay evidence.
This is evidence that is based on information that a witness appearing in court
has heard from someone else. Generally, this evidence cannot be permitted in
court, as stated under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 114. However, there
are some exceptions to this rule: if both the prosecution and defence agree to
hear the evidence and open it up to rigorous cross-examination, if the judge
