Ac2.3
In order for evidence during a trial to be admitted, it must follow the general rules of evidence. This
includes the evidence being reliable meaning it is credible (believable), authentic (genuine) and
accurate (correct). For example, in the Sally Clark case, the wrong statistics were given leading to an
unfair trial. The evidence must also be relevant where facts in issue must be proven by the
prosecution - relevant facts like footprints tend to prove the facts in issue. Evidence must be
admissible and illegally obtained evidence where human rights are violated (e.g. illegal searches with
no warrant or degrading treatment) should be overlooked. The Birmingham 6 case shows illegally
obtained evidence as the suspects confessions were a result of sleep and food deprivation, leading
to a wrongful conviction of 21 murders. Furthermore, improperly obtained evidence where
dishonest or immoral tactics are used will also be inadmissible, unless dismissing it leads to an unfair
trial or the value it holds in discovering the truth is higher than the risks for an unfair trial. In the case
of Colin Stagg, the evidence was obtained improperly as it involved an undercover officer faking a
romantic interest in him which is unethical. Colin Stagg was charged on the basis of the prosecution
claiming he confessed to murdering Rachel Nickell, however, the trial quickly collapsed, and the
prosecutions technique was deemed as a “deceptive conduct of the grossest kind.”
Disclosure of evidence must follow the legislation under the Criminal Procedures and Investigations
Act 1996 and was amended in part 22 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. This means the prosecution
must disclose all the evidence they’re relying on in court, along with any ‘unused material’ which
could include the evidence that is in favour of the defendant. This may have exceptions if the
prosecution seeks for the Public Interest Certificate from the court. Under this, they are entitled to
not disclosing evidence deemed as sensitive if it threatens the public interest in the case. The
defence does have the ‘duty of disclosure’ in which they are required to inform the prosecution on
the evidence they are challenging as well as what they will rely on. A case where the police failed to
properly disclosure evidence is that of Liam Allen in which they didn’t pass a disk with messages that
showed the victim was pursuing ‘casual sex’ with the defendant. This led to Liam being charged with
rape as the defence didn’t have the computer disk to prove his innocent.
Any hearsay evidence (second hand evidence that witnesses appearing in court rely on) must follow
specific procedures, as well as certain legislation: Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 and Criminal Justice
Act 2003. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 suggests that evidence is only admissible when all the parties
agree to it being admitted, it is in the best interest of justice (ruled by the judge) and if the person
who made the statement cannot attend the court. However, the case law permits the evidence if the
statement comes from a professional or expert (the higher the reputation of the court attendant,
the higher the likelihood of the evidence being accepted) and if the information is already publicly
available. The importance of hearsay evidence is seen in the case of Al-Khawaha, he was convicted
for assaulting two patients who were under hypnosis. Due to the death of one victim prior to the
trial, the police and two of her friends were allowed to read out the statements given to them by the
victim. The fact that all the account of events corroborated lead to Al-Khawaha being found guilty,
showing how hearsay evidence is sometimes crucial.
In order for evidence during a trial to be admitted, it must follow the general rules of evidence. This
includes the evidence being reliable meaning it is credible (believable), authentic (genuine) and
accurate (correct). For example, in the Sally Clark case, the wrong statistics were given leading to an
unfair trial. The evidence must also be relevant where facts in issue must be proven by the
prosecution - relevant facts like footprints tend to prove the facts in issue. Evidence must be
admissible and illegally obtained evidence where human rights are violated (e.g. illegal searches with
no warrant or degrading treatment) should be overlooked. The Birmingham 6 case shows illegally
obtained evidence as the suspects confessions were a result of sleep and food deprivation, leading
to a wrongful conviction of 21 murders. Furthermore, improperly obtained evidence where
dishonest or immoral tactics are used will also be inadmissible, unless dismissing it leads to an unfair
trial or the value it holds in discovering the truth is higher than the risks for an unfair trial. In the case
of Colin Stagg, the evidence was obtained improperly as it involved an undercover officer faking a
romantic interest in him which is unethical. Colin Stagg was charged on the basis of the prosecution
claiming he confessed to murdering Rachel Nickell, however, the trial quickly collapsed, and the
prosecutions technique was deemed as a “deceptive conduct of the grossest kind.”
Disclosure of evidence must follow the legislation under the Criminal Procedures and Investigations
Act 1996 and was amended in part 22 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. This means the prosecution
must disclose all the evidence they’re relying on in court, along with any ‘unused material’ which
could include the evidence that is in favour of the defendant. This may have exceptions if the
prosecution seeks for the Public Interest Certificate from the court. Under this, they are entitled to
not disclosing evidence deemed as sensitive if it threatens the public interest in the case. The
defence does have the ‘duty of disclosure’ in which they are required to inform the prosecution on
the evidence they are challenging as well as what they will rely on. A case where the police failed to
properly disclosure evidence is that of Liam Allen in which they didn’t pass a disk with messages that
showed the victim was pursuing ‘casual sex’ with the defendant. This led to Liam being charged with
rape as the defence didn’t have the computer disk to prove his innocent.
Any hearsay evidence (second hand evidence that witnesses appearing in court rely on) must follow
specific procedures, as well as certain legislation: Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 and Criminal Justice
Act 2003. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 suggests that evidence is only admissible when all the parties
agree to it being admitted, it is in the best interest of justice (ruled by the judge) and if the person
who made the statement cannot attend the court. However, the case law permits the evidence if the
statement comes from a professional or expert (the higher the reputation of the court attendant,
the higher the likelihood of the evidence being accepted) and if the information is already publicly
available. The importance of hearsay evidence is seen in the case of Al-Khawaha, he was convicted
for assaulting two patients who were under hypnosis. Due to the death of one victim prior to the
trial, the police and two of her friends were allowed to read out the statements given to them by the
victim. The fact that all the account of events corroborated lead to Al-Khawaha being found guilty,
showing how hearsay evidence is sometimes crucial.
