Since the hearsay evidence establishment in the early nineteenth century, there had been much criticism over the admission of hearsay evidence in criminal cases in which were regarded as 'absurd' by Lord Reid and Lord Diplock. The first statutory reform took place soon after its establishment seen in “Bankers’ Books Evidence Act” and later further reforms were made in “The Evidence Act 1938”. Despite the hearsay rules reforms, controversial aspects were still apparent relating surrounding the admission of hearsay evidence. In April 2005, the hearsay provisions of The Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the common law relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings. The CJA 2003 addressed the definitional problem under …show more content…
Even though the common law rules governing the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings were abolished, many of the exceptions to the rules were persevered by subsection (1) under Section 118. The CJA 2003 only simplifies and relaxes certain aspects of the rule, and the exceptions to it which previously have contributed to difficulties in applying the rule. Any rule of law preserved by section 118 makes it admissible. Under the Statutory categories of admissibility Section 114(1)(d) will be considered only in cases where admissibility under the other statutory provisions and the retained common law rules is not allowed. The guidelines for the factors to consider regarding the test of admissibility is “interests of justice” in which Prosecutors need to take these factors into account when considering the likely admissibility of evidence that the prosecution propose to call. These will also be the factors to take account of when receiving a notice of intention to adduce hearsay evidence from the defence in which the prosecutor will need to decide whether to oppose any notice or agree to admit the evidence. Section 114(1)(d) also states that hearsay evidence is admissible if the court is satisfied that it is in the “interests of justice” for it to be admissible. There was much controversy over the “interest of justice” in some older cases. In Sparks v R …show more content…
In order for the subsection (1)(d) to admit statements not made in oral evidence, the court must have regarded following factors , many factors that are considered required for adducing hearsay evidence under any of its sections. These factors include how much probative value the statement has whilst considering other evidence and how it was adduced. These are factors which generally should be considered with all types of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings and subsequently, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 haven’t appeared to make statutory amendments on how hearsay evidence is adduce other than the 2003 Act or any other statutory provision makes it admissible and that any rule of law preserved by section 118 makes it admissible but as in previous cases highlighted above, evidence can still be admitted under this act even if it fails to abide by Section 120 strict factors. As a result of this, the Criminal justice Act hasn’t appeared to make any significate changes in exercising the discretion of admissibility and how evidence can be adduced with regards to its new reforms. This act has only appeared to apply more strict rules of the admission of hearsay evidence
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
R N Howie and P A Johnson, Annotated Criminal Legislation NSW, 2011-2102, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths 2012) 17769-1774
In this paper, I argue that courts should not treat civil parties in quasi-criminal cases the same as criminal defendants because character evidence can be misused as propensity character evidence. Part II of this paper discusses the bar against admitting character evidence. Part III deals with the split among courts as to whether this rule can apply in quasi-criminal cases. Part IV of this paper concludes that courts should resolve this split and refrain from treating civil parties in quasi-criminal cases as criminal defendants because the risk of prejudice does not support this use of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Next there is the problem of cross- examination which contaminates evidence by suggestion. In W and M, two boys aged 10 and 11 years old were convicted of sexual offences but in each case, the complainant, an eight-year old girl, had withdrawn her key accusations under cross- examination. The Court of Appeal however, concluded that the retractions were unreliable because they were obtained by the use of highly suggestive questioning such as ‘This happened, didn’t it?’ The Court’s message is that cross-examiners must avoid contaminating the witness’s answers. Questions may be quite clear but not permissible because they pressure the witness to respond in one way or another. In the case of E, the Court of Appeal repeated that heavily suggestive questions are not permissible because of the risk that the witness will become confused.
The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. - Counsel [24] See footnote 22 – but page 61 [25] GEOFFREY, Marshall, Constitutional Theory, Clarendon Law Series, Oxford 1971 Chapter1 – the Law and the constitution, part 3. Dicey’s doctrine and its critics. [26] REGINA v HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY, Ex parte SMEDLEY, [COURT OF APPEAL], [1985] Q B 657, 19 December 1984, (c)2001 The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales [27] MITCHELL, JDB, Constitutional Law, 2nd edition, Edinburgh, W Green & SON LTD, 1968, Convention, page 31 [28] See footnote 22 but page 64
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
Evidence collection is a crucial part of forensics. Its reliability can be compromised by input bias from law
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
4. The basis for the admissibility of the evidence as part of res gestae is its close connection to the facts in issue as to form part of the transaction out of which the facts in issue arose. 4 Res
Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial or not The term ‘Judicial Precedent’ has at least two meanings, one of which is the process where Judges will follow the decisions of previously decided cases, the other is what is known as an ‘Original Precedent’ that is a case that creates and applies a new rule. Precedents are to be found in Law Reports and are divided up into ‘Binding’ and ‘Persuasive’.
Barbara A. Hocking and Laura L. Manville (2001), the accused right to silent can be classified into two parts. The first part is concerned with the accused genuine right not to say anything during questioning. This right serves to protect the accused from self-incrimination. The second part forbids the examiner from using the accused choice to remain silent as a reason to announce him or her guilty of a crime. Barwick CJ noted in R v Ireland [1997] that when judges are exercising their discretion, they need to take into consideration the two competing public requirements.
In order to decrease the number of cases of miscarriage of justice, there should me more accurate and appropriate way of getting the evidences. After the 1995 act there has been increased use of scientific methods but there should be more and accurate usage of the CCTV footages and forensic evidences. Reducing the police misinterpretation and making the accurate reports and good questioning skills are required. “Interviewing supervisory policy was also introduced to aid increase in the quality of the information received during the interviews and identifies areas where improvements are
This is a very delicate situation, which should be handled with the degree of importance required since the witness might be key in unraveling the plain truth regarding a given case (Robertson et.al, 2016, 21). Thus the manner in which the witness and evidence are handled in this case is key since any missed steps would lead to tampering with evidence which will most likely render it non-admissible in a court of law. Thus, handling of witness and evidence is vital in ensuring that they are presented without any coercion or