Criminology task 5C
When contemplating the use of evidence in criminal cases, prosecutors and defence attorneys must
ensure that the evidence is relevant and admissible, and that only relevant facts are offered in court.
According to Section 136 of the Evidence Act, the jury has the last say on evidence admissibility.
There are five principles that must be observed to guarantee that evidence is factually secure:
unlawfully obtained evidence, pre-trial sentencing, character evidence and prior convictions,
disclosure in criminal proceedings, and hearsay evidence.
Improperly obtained evidence, often known as entrapment, is described as coercing people to
violate the law in exchange for a conviction. Judges also have the discretionary right to remove
evidence if they consider it was gained by entrapment; nevertheless, it can be utilised in rare
circumstances if the evidence is beneficial rather than damaging. This regulation is based on Section
78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Entrapment was utilised in the Colin Stagg case through the Lizzie evidence, in which an undercover
policewoman addressed letters to Stagg attempting to get him to confess to murder, but this
evidence was declared inadmissible in court since he was merely repeating what she wanted to hear.
Pre-trial silence happens when a suspect fails to explain himself or herself under caution, allowing
the jury to assume guilt. Other evidence is required in this instance to issue a warning. The criminal
justice and public order act of 1994 is the source of this rule. Furthermore, in the Colin Stagg case, he
first refused to answer questions, which led the jury to believe he was guilty.
Character evidence and prior convictions are not admissible in court under Section 103 of the
Criminal Justice Act of 2003. However, there are exceptions under S.103 that enable this evidence to
be utilised if they have a history of committing crimes of the same type. Lee’ past criminal record
was considered in the scenario, as is related significantly to the case. Whereas, In the Colin Stagg
case, he was placed on the sex offender's registry after naked sunbathing in a park, which was used
against him in court.
The criminal process and investigations legislation of 1996 initially enforced the requirement of
disclosure in criminal proceedings, but this was later altered by the criminal justice act of 2003. To
maintain fair proceedings, this rule specifies that all evidence must be provided to the prosecution
and defence prior to a trial. The nature of the offence, why the accusation is being disputed, and
legal issues must all be addressed in the defence's statements. In the case of Sally Clarke, the
prosecution refused to reveal medical evidence proving her innocence, resulting in her unjust
imprisonment.
Finally, hearsay evidence is a statement made from court, and it must not be used as evidence, but
parties can use hearsay evidence if satisfied it is in the interest of justice, or the person who said the
statement is now dead, lives abroad or is vulnerable. This is put in place under S.114 of the criminal
justice act. Amanda Knox is an example of hearsay evidence, as when both her and her boyfriend
were charged with murder, they were reported to be saying the wrong things about each other.
When contemplating the use of evidence in criminal cases, prosecutors and defence attorneys must
ensure that the evidence is relevant and admissible, and that only relevant facts are offered in court.
According to Section 136 of the Evidence Act, the jury has the last say on evidence admissibility.
There are five principles that must be observed to guarantee that evidence is factually secure:
unlawfully obtained evidence, pre-trial sentencing, character evidence and prior convictions,
disclosure in criminal proceedings, and hearsay evidence.
Improperly obtained evidence, often known as entrapment, is described as coercing people to
violate the law in exchange for a conviction. Judges also have the discretionary right to remove
evidence if they consider it was gained by entrapment; nevertheless, it can be utilised in rare
circumstances if the evidence is beneficial rather than damaging. This regulation is based on Section
78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Entrapment was utilised in the Colin Stagg case through the Lizzie evidence, in which an undercover
policewoman addressed letters to Stagg attempting to get him to confess to murder, but this
evidence was declared inadmissible in court since he was merely repeating what she wanted to hear.
Pre-trial silence happens when a suspect fails to explain himself or herself under caution, allowing
the jury to assume guilt. Other evidence is required in this instance to issue a warning. The criminal
justice and public order act of 1994 is the source of this rule. Furthermore, in the Colin Stagg case, he
first refused to answer questions, which led the jury to believe he was guilty.
Character evidence and prior convictions are not admissible in court under Section 103 of the
Criminal Justice Act of 2003. However, there are exceptions under S.103 that enable this evidence to
be utilised if they have a history of committing crimes of the same type. Lee’ past criminal record
was considered in the scenario, as is related significantly to the case. Whereas, In the Colin Stagg
case, he was placed on the sex offender's registry after naked sunbathing in a park, which was used
against him in court.
The criminal process and investigations legislation of 1996 initially enforced the requirement of
disclosure in criminal proceedings, but this was later altered by the criminal justice act of 2003. To
maintain fair proceedings, this rule specifies that all evidence must be provided to the prosecution
and defence prior to a trial. The nature of the offence, why the accusation is being disputed, and
legal issues must all be addressed in the defence's statements. In the case of Sally Clarke, the
prosecution refused to reveal medical evidence proving her innocence, resulting in her unjust
imprisonment.
Finally, hearsay evidence is a statement made from court, and it must not be used as evidence, but
parties can use hearsay evidence if satisfied it is in the interest of justice, or the person who said the
statement is now dead, lives abroad or is vulnerable. This is put in place under S.114 of the criminal
justice act. Amanda Knox is an example of hearsay evidence, as when both her and her boyfriend
were charged with murder, they were reported to be saying the wrong things about each other.
