Unit 3 AC2.3- Understand rules in relation to the use of
evidence in criminal cases
● 20 minutes (4 marks)
● The rules of evidence: relevance and admissibility, disclosure of evidence, hearsay rule and exceptions,
and legislation and case law
● Use legislation
● Focus on evidence used in court, not the wider investigation/outcome
Relevance and Admissibility
● Relevance refers to the facts that link to the case
● Two types of facts need to be considered:
○ Facts in issue- “principal facts”, matter which are in dispute
○ Relevant facts- facts needed to prove/disprove the Facts in issue
● Evidence is considered admissible if it is credible (reasonable), authentic (trusted) and accurate
(supported)
● For evidence to be allowed to use, its probative value (the value of evidence) must outweigh the
prejudicial effect (the risk of evidence producing an unfair trial)
● Illegally obtained evidence can be: gained by breaking the law or breaching someone’s human rights, or
an illegal search or confessions obtained by torture or degrading treatment
● Another form of illegally obtained evidence is known as entrapment- deception to coerce a suspect into
giving a false confession or inducing them to commit crimes
● Case study- Colin Stagg was suspected to be the rapist and killer of Rachel Nickell, in order to convict
him police needed evidence so undercover officer Lizzie James formed a relationship with him online
where she pretended to share his deviant sexual fantasies. This led to a half confession which was
seen as inadmissible by the judge due to the nature of how it was obtained.
● The Criminal Justice Act 2003 defines bad character as “evidence of or disposition towards
misconduct”- bad character is automatically not allowed to be included as evidence of character
● However, this is admissible when:
○ All parties agree it’s admissible
○ The evidence is given by the defendant themselves
○ It’s relevant to an important matter in the issue
Disclosure of evidence
● The Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 (later amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003)
states that full disclosure should be made of all materials held by the prosecution
● The prosecution must notify the accused of the evidence they intend to rely on, and make available to
the defence any unused material they do not intend to rely on
● Hearsay evidence is defined in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as a “statement not made in oral evidence
in the proceedings that is evidence of any matter stated”, aka evidence which is not firsthand
● Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court, although there are some exceptions:
○ Where all parties agree the evidence is admissible
○ Judge rules it is in the interest of justice
○ Where common law permits
○ Where a witness is abroad, dead, unfit to testify or has disappeared
● Case study: Steven Saunders was sentenced to 18 months for controlling and coercive behaviour
against his partner. The victim did not provide evidence against him but it was rather hearsay evidence
by her midwife which convicted saunders. This was accepted by the judge as it was compelling enough
to convict Saunders for the crime.
evidence in criminal cases
● 20 minutes (4 marks)
● The rules of evidence: relevance and admissibility, disclosure of evidence, hearsay rule and exceptions,
and legislation and case law
● Use legislation
● Focus on evidence used in court, not the wider investigation/outcome
Relevance and Admissibility
● Relevance refers to the facts that link to the case
● Two types of facts need to be considered:
○ Facts in issue- “principal facts”, matter which are in dispute
○ Relevant facts- facts needed to prove/disprove the Facts in issue
● Evidence is considered admissible if it is credible (reasonable), authentic (trusted) and accurate
(supported)
● For evidence to be allowed to use, its probative value (the value of evidence) must outweigh the
prejudicial effect (the risk of evidence producing an unfair trial)
● Illegally obtained evidence can be: gained by breaking the law or breaching someone’s human rights, or
an illegal search or confessions obtained by torture or degrading treatment
● Another form of illegally obtained evidence is known as entrapment- deception to coerce a suspect into
giving a false confession or inducing them to commit crimes
● Case study- Colin Stagg was suspected to be the rapist and killer of Rachel Nickell, in order to convict
him police needed evidence so undercover officer Lizzie James formed a relationship with him online
where she pretended to share his deviant sexual fantasies. This led to a half confession which was
seen as inadmissible by the judge due to the nature of how it was obtained.
● The Criminal Justice Act 2003 defines bad character as “evidence of or disposition towards
misconduct”- bad character is automatically not allowed to be included as evidence of character
● However, this is admissible when:
○ All parties agree it’s admissible
○ The evidence is given by the defendant themselves
○ It’s relevant to an important matter in the issue
Disclosure of evidence
● The Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996 (later amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003)
states that full disclosure should be made of all materials held by the prosecution
● The prosecution must notify the accused of the evidence they intend to rely on, and make available to
the defence any unused material they do not intend to rely on
● Hearsay evidence is defined in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as a “statement not made in oral evidence
in the proceedings that is evidence of any matter stated”, aka evidence which is not firsthand
● Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court, although there are some exceptions:
○ Where all parties agree the evidence is admissible
○ Judge rules it is in the interest of justice
○ Where common law permits
○ Where a witness is abroad, dead, unfit to testify or has disappeared
● Case study: Steven Saunders was sentenced to 18 months for controlling and coercive behaviour
against his partner. The victim did not provide evidence against him but it was rather hearsay evidence
by her midwife which convicted saunders. This was accepted by the judge as it was compelling enough
to convict Saunders for the crime.
