A.C.2.3 - Understand rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal cases
Reliability
In a criminal trial, the prosecutor has to prove that the offender did the crime, presenting
arguments and evidence in court to the jury or magistrates to consider whether the accused
has done the crime. For this to be effective, the evidence presented must be credible,
reliable and admissible, but sometimes, evidence can not meet this criteria. For example, in
the case of Damilola Taylor, testimonial evidence from a 14 year old girl presented unreliable
evidence. She lied in 6 different testimonies she gave, and her stories were not
double-checked to check the credibility and reliability of the evidence in accordance with the
case.
Credibility means the evidence must come from a reasonable person, as well as being
believable itself. The evidence must be truthful, and must be considering all the factors that
could affect the believability, such as visibility during a time of the day. Authenticity refers to
the documents being genuine. The courts must ensure that the documents are valid and
have no forgery. And finally, the evidence must be accurate, containing all the correct details.
Experts witnesses are expected to present facts accurately and reliably. Even if the opinion
of the particular expert can differ, the court expects these experts to put the evidence
forward truthfully and unbiased. In the case of Sally Clark, Professor Roy Meadows was
inaccurate as his statistic of the probability of 2 cot deaths was 1 in 73 million, which was not
true.
Relevance
“Facts of issue” are facts presented in the case that are in dispute, and facts that courts have
made decisions about. These facts are for the prosecution to prove and the defence to
disprove. For example, if a stabbing occurred, the facts of issue would be: was the weapon a
knife? Did the stabbing cause the death of the victim? Was there any intention to kill with this
stabbing? ‘Relevant facts are facts needed in order to prove or disprove the “facts of issue.”
In this same example, relevant facts would be the fingerprints on the knife: the blood pattern
or knife: and the evidence available to establish if the offender killed the victim.
Admissibility
Illegally or improperly obtained evidence is not admissible and can not be used in court.
Illegally obtained evidence is gained by breaking a law of violating a person’s human rights.
For example, evidence found without a warrant, using violence to obtain a confession. If the
judge feels as though the evidence endangers the process of the trial, it is ruled as
inadmissible and will not be presented in court. If the probative value (value in proving
evidence the evidence of the case) of the evidence outweighs the prejudicial effect (risk of
evidence in producing a fair trial), the judge may allow it. Improperly obtained evidence
includes the use of police involvement of deception to admit to committing a crime. While
sting operations are not always inadmissible, the judge makes the decision of whether it can
be used. In the case of Colin Stagg, the evidence against him was improperly obtained as
the evidence was the result of a “honeytrap” by an undercover female police officer. The
police were pressured by the media to find the killer, therefore the sting operation was
pinned on Colin Stagg. The court determines whether illegally / improperly obtained
evidence can be used by a judge having “discretionary powers” to exclude evidence if they
believe that it is prejudiced and could have an adverse effect on the case. This derives from
common law and the PACE 1984 section78 legislation.
Reliability
In a criminal trial, the prosecutor has to prove that the offender did the crime, presenting
arguments and evidence in court to the jury or magistrates to consider whether the accused
has done the crime. For this to be effective, the evidence presented must be credible,
reliable and admissible, but sometimes, evidence can not meet this criteria. For example, in
the case of Damilola Taylor, testimonial evidence from a 14 year old girl presented unreliable
evidence. She lied in 6 different testimonies she gave, and her stories were not
double-checked to check the credibility and reliability of the evidence in accordance with the
case.
Credibility means the evidence must come from a reasonable person, as well as being
believable itself. The evidence must be truthful, and must be considering all the factors that
could affect the believability, such as visibility during a time of the day. Authenticity refers to
the documents being genuine. The courts must ensure that the documents are valid and
have no forgery. And finally, the evidence must be accurate, containing all the correct details.
Experts witnesses are expected to present facts accurately and reliably. Even if the opinion
of the particular expert can differ, the court expects these experts to put the evidence
forward truthfully and unbiased. In the case of Sally Clark, Professor Roy Meadows was
inaccurate as his statistic of the probability of 2 cot deaths was 1 in 73 million, which was not
true.
Relevance
“Facts of issue” are facts presented in the case that are in dispute, and facts that courts have
made decisions about. These facts are for the prosecution to prove and the defence to
disprove. For example, if a stabbing occurred, the facts of issue would be: was the weapon a
knife? Did the stabbing cause the death of the victim? Was there any intention to kill with this
stabbing? ‘Relevant facts are facts needed in order to prove or disprove the “facts of issue.”
In this same example, relevant facts would be the fingerprints on the knife: the blood pattern
or knife: and the evidence available to establish if the offender killed the victim.
Admissibility
Illegally or improperly obtained evidence is not admissible and can not be used in court.
Illegally obtained evidence is gained by breaking a law of violating a person’s human rights.
For example, evidence found without a warrant, using violence to obtain a confession. If the
judge feels as though the evidence endangers the process of the trial, it is ruled as
inadmissible and will not be presented in court. If the probative value (value in proving
evidence the evidence of the case) of the evidence outweighs the prejudicial effect (risk of
evidence in producing a fair trial), the judge may allow it. Improperly obtained evidence
includes the use of police involvement of deception to admit to committing a crime. While
sting operations are not always inadmissible, the judge makes the decision of whether it can
be used. In the case of Colin Stagg, the evidence against him was improperly obtained as
the evidence was the result of a “honeytrap” by an undercover female police officer. The
police were pressured by the media to find the killer, therefore the sting operation was
pinned on Colin Stagg. The court determines whether illegally / improperly obtained
evidence can be used by a judge having “discretionary powers” to exclude evidence if they
believe that it is prejudiced and could have an adverse effect on the case. This derives from
common law and the PACE 1984 section78 legislation.
