AC 2.3 – UNDERSTAND THE RULES IN RELATION TO THE USE OF EVIDENCE IN
CRIMINAL CASES
CREDBILITY & ACCURATE;
In criminal proceedings, some evidence is unable to proceed to trial as it may be inadmissible,
irrelevant, uncredible, or unreliable. To be reliable, evidence must be true and proven true by a
credible source; Reliability is often questioned during witness testimonies or expert witnesses. To be
used in court, the witness testimony provided mut be considered believable by a reasonable person,
and in terms of the expert witnesses, their statements must be supported by the scientific
community they belong to. This is known as accurate evidence; Accurate evidence is where the
information or evidence provided is correct in all aspects of the details.
RELEVANCE;
To be a relevant piece of evidence, the object/statement must be categorised into two types of fact;
principal facts or relevant facts. Principle facts are the facts that the prosecution will attempt to
prove as fact while the defence will try and prove as myth – this is something such as proving the
defendant guilty of homicide. Relevant facts are facts that support or deny the principal facts (such
as an accusation) – this is something such as fingerprints and blood marks on a knife or sharp
instrument that was used to murder the victim. If evidence is seen as irrelevant, it is therefore
inadmissible.
ILLEGAL EVIDENCE;
Evidence can even be rejected if it was illegally obtained by the people working on the investigation.
This can be evidence that was gained by either breaking the law or violating an individual's human
rights (such as confession under torture or searching a property without a warrant). Under section
28 of the PACE act (1984), evidence that has been illegally, unfairly, or improperly obtained by
prosecution can be inadmissible as it can endanger the fairness and equality of the trail present.
However, if the court deems this evidence valuable to uncovering the truth of the prosecution, and
the value in proving the case outweighs the risk of causing unfairness of inequality in the trail, the
judge will most likely allow the use of the evidence. A time where illegally obtained evidence was
overturned was in the case of R V Samuel where the defendant has been arrested on the suspicion
of murder and armed robbery but was denied a solicitor per his request (which alone was an
infringement on his human rights under the Human Rights Act of 1998). After his conviction he
appealed against it with the reason he received an unfair trial; He was granted the appeal. Evidence
that is considered unlawful/unfair is any evidence that had been collected in breach of PACE codes
of practice, use of entrapment, unlawful search, violation of Article 8 (the right to privacy), violation
of the right against self-incrimination, or in breach of legal privilege.
IMPROPER EVIDENCE:
Improperly obtained evidence is where the police persuade or use deception techniques to try and
entice a confession or evidence out of an individual. This is called entrapment, and it can be used to
try and make an individual commit or confess to committing an offense. If discovered, the evidence
can be deemed inadmissible, and therefore, unusable in court. An example of this happening in real
time would be the Colin Stagg case, where a female officer went undercover to start a romantic
relationship with Stagg to try and get him to confess to the murder of Rachel Nickel on Wimbledon
commons. The honeytrap technique was thrown out by the judge during the trail as they denied
using evidence produced by “deceptive conduct of the grossest kind” from an undercover officer.
CRIMINAL CASES
CREDBILITY & ACCURATE;
In criminal proceedings, some evidence is unable to proceed to trial as it may be inadmissible,
irrelevant, uncredible, or unreliable. To be reliable, evidence must be true and proven true by a
credible source; Reliability is often questioned during witness testimonies or expert witnesses. To be
used in court, the witness testimony provided mut be considered believable by a reasonable person,
and in terms of the expert witnesses, their statements must be supported by the scientific
community they belong to. This is known as accurate evidence; Accurate evidence is where the
information or evidence provided is correct in all aspects of the details.
RELEVANCE;
To be a relevant piece of evidence, the object/statement must be categorised into two types of fact;
principal facts or relevant facts. Principle facts are the facts that the prosecution will attempt to
prove as fact while the defence will try and prove as myth – this is something such as proving the
defendant guilty of homicide. Relevant facts are facts that support or deny the principal facts (such
as an accusation) – this is something such as fingerprints and blood marks on a knife or sharp
instrument that was used to murder the victim. If evidence is seen as irrelevant, it is therefore
inadmissible.
ILLEGAL EVIDENCE;
Evidence can even be rejected if it was illegally obtained by the people working on the investigation.
This can be evidence that was gained by either breaking the law or violating an individual's human
rights (such as confession under torture or searching a property without a warrant). Under section
28 of the PACE act (1984), evidence that has been illegally, unfairly, or improperly obtained by
prosecution can be inadmissible as it can endanger the fairness and equality of the trail present.
However, if the court deems this evidence valuable to uncovering the truth of the prosecution, and
the value in proving the case outweighs the risk of causing unfairness of inequality in the trail, the
judge will most likely allow the use of the evidence. A time where illegally obtained evidence was
overturned was in the case of R V Samuel where the defendant has been arrested on the suspicion
of murder and armed robbery but was denied a solicitor per his request (which alone was an
infringement on his human rights under the Human Rights Act of 1998). After his conviction he
appealed against it with the reason he received an unfair trial; He was granted the appeal. Evidence
that is considered unlawful/unfair is any evidence that had been collected in breach of PACE codes
of practice, use of entrapment, unlawful search, violation of Article 8 (the right to privacy), violation
of the right against self-incrimination, or in breach of legal privilege.
IMPROPER EVIDENCE:
Improperly obtained evidence is where the police persuade or use deception techniques to try and
entice a confession or evidence out of an individual. This is called entrapment, and it can be used to
try and make an individual commit or confess to committing an offense. If discovered, the evidence
can be deemed inadmissible, and therefore, unusable in court. An example of this happening in real
time would be the Colin Stagg case, where a female officer went undercover to start a romantic
relationship with Stagg to try and get him to confess to the murder of Rachel Nickel on Wimbledon
commons. The honeytrap technique was thrown out by the judge during the trail as they denied
using evidence produced by “deceptive conduct of the grossest kind” from an undercover officer.
