A.C 2.3: Understand rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal cases
Relevant facts will aid in proving or disproving facts in issue, where the defendant will plead
not guilty to his alleged charge and the issues debated by prosecution and defence at trial.
Evidence should always be reliable, through means of credibility, authenticity, and accuracy.
This means that the reasonable person believes it to be true, and there have been no
forgeries of documents, making the evidence believable and correct. However, certain
evidence can be illegally or improperly obtained by the police. Entrapment, for example, is
when police induce others to break the law so that they can get a conviction, which is
excluded under s78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 19884 [PACE]. Even though no
evidence was linked to Colin Stagg and the murder of Rachel Nickell, the police decided to
honey-trap him through a female police officer, ‘Lizzie’, to gain information about him to try
and secure a conviction. Though [s.78 PACE 1985] gives magistrates and judge’s discretion
to exclude such prosecution evidence under common and statute law, if obtained under
improper means. This includes the exclusion of forced confessions under s.76 PACE. If,
however, the court deems the probative value of improperly obtained evidence to outweigh
its prejudicial effect, it may admit the evidence. Another example of evidence that would be
considered inadmissible at court is Hearsay evidence, as s114 (1) Criminal Justice Act 2003
defines it as a ‘statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings that is evidence of
any matter stated’. The original witness is not able to swear the truth and cannot be cross-
examined, which makes it inadmissible. However, a trial judge may make an exception for
hearsay evidence on the basis that the original witness is absent, dead, or unfit to testify in
person, and is admitted in the interests of justice. Evidence of bad character under the
Criminal Justice Act 2003, will not be automatically allowed, however, if the offender tends
to commit crimes of the same category, it will be introduced as evidence under section 103
of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The prosecution must disclose all the documents that they
plan to use at trial (including evidence they plan not to use), as per the Criminal Procedure
and Investigations Act 1996, amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, evidence
protected by a Public Interest Immunity Certificate is exempt from the prosecutions duty to
disclose, as an importance of national security. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
1994, allows a judge to invite a jury to make adverse inferences if the defendant mentions
something in court, matters that could have been stated before trial. However, this alone is
not enough to convict.
Relevant facts will aid in proving or disproving facts in issue, where the defendant will plead
not guilty to his alleged charge and the issues debated by prosecution and defence at trial.
Evidence should always be reliable, through means of credibility, authenticity, and accuracy.
This means that the reasonable person believes it to be true, and there have been no
forgeries of documents, making the evidence believable and correct. However, certain
evidence can be illegally or improperly obtained by the police. Entrapment, for example, is
when police induce others to break the law so that they can get a conviction, which is
excluded under s78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 19884 [PACE]. Even though no
evidence was linked to Colin Stagg and the murder of Rachel Nickell, the police decided to
honey-trap him through a female police officer, ‘Lizzie’, to gain information about him to try
and secure a conviction. Though [s.78 PACE 1985] gives magistrates and judge’s discretion
to exclude such prosecution evidence under common and statute law, if obtained under
improper means. This includes the exclusion of forced confessions under s.76 PACE. If,
however, the court deems the probative value of improperly obtained evidence to outweigh
its prejudicial effect, it may admit the evidence. Another example of evidence that would be
considered inadmissible at court is Hearsay evidence, as s114 (1) Criminal Justice Act 2003
defines it as a ‘statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings that is evidence of
any matter stated’. The original witness is not able to swear the truth and cannot be cross-
examined, which makes it inadmissible. However, a trial judge may make an exception for
hearsay evidence on the basis that the original witness is absent, dead, or unfit to testify in
person, and is admitted in the interests of justice. Evidence of bad character under the
Criminal Justice Act 2003, will not be automatically allowed, however, if the offender tends
to commit crimes of the same category, it will be introduced as evidence under section 103
of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The prosecution must disclose all the documents that they
plan to use at trial (including evidence they plan not to use), as per the Criminal Procedure
and Investigations Act 1996, amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, evidence
protected by a Public Interest Immunity Certificate is exempt from the prosecutions duty to
disclose, as an importance of national security. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
1994, allows a judge to invite a jury to make adverse inferences if the defendant mentions
something in court, matters that could have been stated before trial. However, this alone is
not enough to convict.
