Understand rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal cases Unit 3 AC 2.3 Understand rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal cases AC2.3 Understand rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal cases   Rules of evidence · relevance and admissibility · disclosure of evidence · hearsay rule and exceptions · legislation and case law Learners should have an understanding of how evidence is used in court. AC2.3 Understand rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal cases   A simple/basic understanding of the rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal cases. (1-2) Detailed understanding of the rules in relation to the use of evidence in criminal cases. (3-4)

Court Evidence comes in these forms: Oral testimony: the oral statement of a witness made on oath in open court and put forward as evidence of its truth. Witness statements and expert reports: written statements made by witnesses including expert reports, which are produced in the proceedings as evidence. Real (tangible) evidence: this is usually a material object of some kind, which is produced for inspection, either to prove that it exists, or so that the court can make an inference as to its condition or value, for example, ripped clothing, a knife or burnt documents. Hearsay evidence: hearsay evidence is a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings that is evidence of the matter stated. Documentary evidence: documents including digital records of communications, and so on, produced as evidence to the court.

Relevance and admissibility Whilst witness evidence is critical in court proceedings, not all evidence produced is in fact admissible. For the evidence to be admissible it must be: Relevant Material Competent.

Relevance…. To be considered relevant, it must have some reasonable tendency to help prove or disprove some fact. It need not make the fact certain, but at least it must tend to increase or decrease the likelihood of some fact. Once admitted as relevant evidence, the finder of fact (judge or jury) will determine the appropriate weight to give a particular piece of evidence.

Material… A given piece of evidence is considered material if it is offered to prove a fact that is in dispute in a case. https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/evidence/

Competence Competent evidence is an object or testimony proven to be reliable, like matching fingerprints, the results of a DNA test, or an expert on footprints. An expert’s opinion that isn't generally accepted in his/her field, on the other hand, is neither competent nor admissible.

What can make evidence inadmissible? The main reason evidence is ruled inadmissible is because it falls into a category deemed so unreliable that a court should not consider it as part of deciding a case Examples include: hearsay evidence (“he said , she said”) expert's opinion that is not based on facts generally accepted in the field. (see Sally Clark case) evidence that is gathered using illegally is commonly ruled inadmissible. (see Colin Stagg case)

Disclosure of evidence There is a duty on the prosecution to disclose certain types of material to the defence so that they can be prepared to defend that case. Alternatively, if it is clear the material is overwhelming, the defendant can choose to plead guilty and receive credit in reduction of sentence. These principles are laid down in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.(CPIA 1996)

Rules of disclosure: Firstly, there is an obligation upon the prosecution to notify the accused of all the evidence upon which they intend to rely. Secondly, the prosecution are under a duty to make available to the defence any material of relevance to the case which they do not intend to use. Those materials are also often referred to as ‘unused material’.

There are exceptions to disclosure.. According to the CPIA 1996 certain types of materials can be protected from disclosure and those include when it would not be in the public’s best interest for the material to be disclosed. This is also known as invoking public interest immunity. The judge will decide in each case. They include: Relating to national security Given in confidence Relating to the identity or activities of informers or under-cover police officers (Case study!!!!!) Relating to the location of premises used for police surveillance Revealing surveillance techniques or other methods of detecting crime Relating to a child or a young person and generated e.g., by a local authority department for social services.

Hearsay evidence How much weight should juries give this evidence? Put simply, the term hearsay covers any oral or written statements made by a person who is not the witness testifying in court to prove that which is contained in the statement. (Criminal Justice Act 2003) Eg. The witness in a murder trial heard a man say that he saw the accused stab the victim to death. The statement is hearsay because it is being put forward by someone who may not have seen the incident but heard about it How much weight should juries give this evidence?

Hearsay evidence rules https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/488508/Evidence_v3.0EXT_clean.pdf Using the gov.uk website make notes on the rules of hearsay evidence (page 17 & 18)

Exceptions to hearsay…

CASE LAW: Successful use of hearsay evidence.. https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/12/15/use-of-hearsay-evidence-does-not-automatically-prevent-a-fair-trial-rules-strasbourg/ Read the article and make notes on the two cases where hearsay evidence has been used successfully

Successful use of expert witnesses in cases Here are four of the most famous expert witnesses in legal history (in no particular order): 1. United States v. Driver 1921: This was the first published court case in which a psychologist expert witness’ testimony was heard, setting up an important precedent for the application of psychology in the courts from then on. 2. The George Zimmerman Trial: The now-infamous trial of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin included the testimony of expert witness services. In 2013, a forensic expert witness testified that he found none of Zimmerman’s DNA under Martin’s fingernails. 3. The Oscar Pistorius Trial: The trial of Pistorius, the Olympian charged for the murder of his girlfriend, used several expert witnesses to try to determine whether or not Pistorius was guilty or not. 4. The OJ Simpson Trial: Former football player OJ Simpson went on trial for the death of his ex-wife in one of the most publicized trials in legal history. The prosecution used dozens of expert witness services to analyze the forensics of the crime scene during the trial.

Now find two UK cases and make notes

Unsuccessful use of “expert” witness evidence https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/mar/23/ukcrime.law Read about Jim Bates – what should happen to the people successfully prosecuted using evidence from this man? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7340997.stm

Make notes on 3 cases where the use of expert witnesses has been criticised: (Clue: Sally Clark)