Evidence - 12 Points You Need to Know

to this bite size 20 minute webinar presentation on Behalf Off Gator Law at my name is Colleen Beaumont. For many years, I was a legal adviser to Magistrates thereafter, and I was a defense lawyer. This presentation at concerns evidence. So let's deal then, with the first of 12 points, the 1st 1 being Melvin's. Please do remember that the first rule of evidence is relevance, whether it be hearsay, evidence that bad character evidence or any other evidence for that matter. And it may be, and you may find yourselves being challenged in court mawr mawr by the Magistrates as to the relevance off a particular line of questioning. And, of course, following the criminal procedure rules 2000 and 15 as amended Magistrates are going to get at more and more involved in the trial process by way, even perhaps, of guillotine ing thea amount of time that you can spend doing your examination in chief a cross examination on reexamination. So please, if you are a lawyer dealing with a criminal choir, do think please. Is this particular piece of evidence at all in any sense relative. Is it probative of anything? Does it go towards proving a fact. Does it go towards disproving a fact? I don't think anyone at benefits and the criminal justice process is not enhanced at my lawyer's waffling on about wholly irrelevant matters. Brevity. Please point to the second rule of evidences. Admissibility. How am I going to get this piece of evidence before the court? How am I going to get this exhibit before the court? But of course, the main way in which evidence becomes admissible, of course, is a live or testimony coming from the mouths of the witnesses during the drying. Or it may be that the contents of the statement could be summarized in red Pursuant. Deception nine of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. Because no one takes issue with the contents of the statement on, Of course, there's no need to cross examine the witness on any points. Thirdly, it may be that section came comes into Play Section, King of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 whereby admissions are made as regards relevant piece of pieces of evidence whereby there is no me for strict proof of these matters. Three. That raise just I was raised yesterday. I is merely a common law exception to the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence all of the common law exceptions to the rule against of the admission of hearsay evidence have Bean retained by Section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. What is raised, Yes, die on? Why might a statement for within the race jest I principle whereby can be admitted in evidence? Well, I'll tell you, I'm sure you know. Anyway, it's a statement made by a person so overcome by the event that it's possibility of concoction or distortion could be disregarded. These are statements made in moments or extremists at the common law accepting that in a moment of extremists that one is unlikely to tell a falsehood. Classic examples of current race guest die in domestic violence cases The 999 call on a body cam footage Do please very mind that the statements made by the complainant in her living room to the police officers or be their court on body cam footage they are here safe statements because, of course, she's not coming to give evidence of live or testimony of what happened. Then they will be an application by the prosecution for the body footage to complain. Now it might be advisable for that. Body footage could be playing initially just to see whether or not these worst statements made by a person in a state of anguish so overcome by the event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded. Just because its body cam footage doesn't mean it's no hear, say, it's always here, say, if she's not coming to call to give live or testimony of the statements contained within the body cam footage on playing the body cam footage, everyone might see that the complainant isn't in a state of extremists, in which case it may be difficult for the prosecution to get those statements into evidence because they don't fall within the raged yes, die principle whereby the court can receive hearsay evidence. Do you remember, please that her demeanor on the body cam footage That's no hear, say her injuries as portrayed by the body cam footage. That's not hearsay. We are concerned with the statements that she makes to be police offices in the living room, and they may well, we admissible as hearsay because everyone can see they fall within the range. Just I principle. Why? Because thes were statements uttered by a person so emotionally overpowered by the event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded. As I say, all of the common law exceptions to the rule of gates the admissibility of hearsay have bean retained by Section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Expert evidence. Well, if you're going to get expert evidence, of course, don't forget to serve your report. Don't forget to serve your Section nine statement which of course, produces at the report or exhibits the report on Do serve it up on the other side. We know from the criminal procedure rules 2000 and 15 is amended at the two failure on the party on the part of the party. And to reduce that the experts with Paul may result in the court refusing the party at the right to adduce that particular piece of evidence. Sir, please do you make sure you said your experts people. And of course, if you don't like your experts bought and you don't have to tell the other side that you instructed inexpert but Of course, it's very important that you act ethically. You must not allow your client the defendant to pursue a line of defense which is not supported by your experts. Report it classy is laced drinks or hip flask events if the report comes back saying that the client was clearly over the limit. Hip last defense, you can't. Is it war? Where? Support the client in court? Who says what I have to change Then what? I say. I drank and say I drank a bit unless whereby I'm under the limit at the time of driving. If he wants to do that, you have to direct him to amuse five and six unfairly obtained evidence, and you've got unfairly obtained confessions. And they dealt with under Section 76. Andan fairly obtained evidence generally, including confessions on their dealt with under section 78. Now it may be that you can't agree the interviewing officers for the police. Why? Well, because your plant instructions are that the confession in the interview was a pained, unfailing by trickery, my deception by deceit by a pressure. In those circumstances, of course, you're going to have to flag this up with the prosecution, and you're going to have to put the crown on notice of the fact that you want those officers called because you need to cross examine them as to whether or not this confession made by the bank in the interview was obtained. I'm fairly what's happening when this is what we call a wide ear. A try away within a triumph effectively at these officers are examining Chief by the crown. You are then able to cross examine them on, Put your points to them along your planet's instructions. There are then re examined by the crown questions from the Magistrates on then both park is the crown on the Defense makes speeches as to why this confession or not, or ought to be a used in evidence. The prosecution bear the burden in this wide gear. This trial, within a trial of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was not a paying by trickery or deceit, full a pleasure. The Magistrates retire on no gap. Assisted by their legal adviser, the Magistrates then have to make a decision as to whether or not to allow the confession to be introduced into evidence they will come back in, they will give you a ruling. If they're with the crown, the interview goes in that stage. If they're against the crown, then the compassion is no formally produced into evidence. And, of course, if there with the defense of the crown may have to reconsider their case to see whether or not absent the confession that they have a realistic prospect or conviction in the case unfairly obtained evidence. The rule was a very different, I'm afraid. Section 78 you are no having a wide here. The defense bear the burden or beat on a balance of probabilities, of showing that this evidence was obtained unfairly in some way on therefore or to take no part in the trial. The Magistrates need no give you a ruling. You simply put your section 78 points during the trial by way of cross examination at the magistrate can deliberate on these matters at the very end of the case, when they're out on verdict on the defense, bear the burden, albeit on a balance of probabilities you can see, can't you? How procedurally on evidentially in terms of burdens, Section 76 78 are very different. Section 139 is a very interesting section Criminal Justice Act 2000 and three that permits any person that, whilst giving live fourth or testimony to refresh their memory from a document made earlier. If, of course, the court is satisfied the document best their signature, they are indeed the maker of this earlier document on that matters were likely to have been significant. Refresher in their minds are when the document was made than the matters are today, and that often will be. The case won't get when the statement was made shortly after the proceedings. But of course, the trial is some 369 12 18 months later. Now don't get me wrong. Section 139 is in the form. Really? Oven aide memoire for the witness is not for the witness to stop reading from their statement that they might catch you refresh their memory from the statement at whilst giving evidence in relation to dates, times places exactly. The Court of Appeal have said more than once that the giving of evidence is not a test of one's memory. We have what's called the best evidence rule wallet And if the best evidence is contained in that earlier document, that of course the witness should be allowed to refresh their memory from that earlier document in order to give the best possible factual account of what happened on the not limited to witnesses. Section 139 Any person giving evidence may refresh their memory from a document made earlier by them, so that includes your client refreshing his memory from an evidential proof. So please, please peace take more than one proof from the client taking everyday sure truth, which, of course, he or she may refresh their memory foam at Walt's, giving evidence at trial and take another proof of all of those matters that you would not wish the court to know about discussions about his or her anti seedings. Except you on the reason I say this is because if the client starts reading from his proof, that might become an exhibit and it might go to the Magistrates. So it's part of your pre try or preparation, and you might catch take sufficient copies. So the prosecutor has warned the legal adviser has one on there's one for each member at the bench remember, this is your client's examination in chief, so there's no harm from the defense perspective in this becoming an exhibit. It's what you would want him to say in examination in chief. Any section 119 Inconsistent statements. Mom won nine of the criminal justice at 2003 particularly useful to the crown where they're witnessed. The complainant is now giving statements in live or testimony inconsistent with that contain in her earlier wicked statement. In those circumstances, Section 119 enables the prosecution not only to cross examine her without ah hostility ruling on her earlier inconsistent statements. But more importantly, it allows the court to receive her earlier statement as evidence of the truth of its contents if they wish to. That is a very useful section for the crown bad character. Well, we've only got 20 minutes, so I can't go into a great deal of detail about bad character in here. Say bad character of witnesses that Section 100 at the Criminal Justice Act 2000 and three, The bad character of a witness is a rule of exclusion. You won't get permission to do cross examine a witness as today character. Unless, of course, you get the leave of the court and you satisfy the court off the enhanced relevance tests, there must be an enhanced relevance in being allowed to cross examine a witness as to their character. You might be cross examining them to establish their a liar, and they got previous convictions for perjury. Bigger me throughout, etcetera. You might be cross examining the witness on in relation to Is she a violent person? Does she have previous convictions for grievous bodily harm? Where your clients defenses. We were acting in self defense, the bad character of the defendant. Section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 No leave is required. The bad character evidence self, the defendant is a rule of inclusion. You have to bring it within one of the gateways mentioned in Section one o'War on by far and away. The most important gateway is relevant to an important matter in issuing trial between the prosecution on the defense, like cross examining the defendant. As to his previous, the carrying weapons where there's an issue are still whether or not he had the weapon cross examining the defendant as to his truthful nurse where there's an issue as to whether or not he lied to commit the offence. Hearsay. Evidence Point number 10 Section 11 for only at the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Here's my definition of hearsay evidence. Hearsay. Is anything other the live or testimony coming from the mouth of the witness in the witness box of what that witness saw off? What that witness said, and of what that witness did, which is being a do store put forward as evidence of the truth of its contents. All statements that read a here say they're not live or testimony. Body cam footage here say anything the witness wants to say that was said to them by someone who's not coming to court to give evidence hearsay unless unless the party wishing to induce the statement is no putting it forward as evidence at the truth of its contents. But is putting it forward merely as evidence of the fact that this was something that was said 11. There might be any number of reasons as to why the party, usually the crown, is applying for a statement to be read that set out in Section 116 The witness is dead. The witnesses abroad, the witnesses poorly. The witness cannot be found. The witnesses too fearful to come to court to give live or testimony. There's a whole list. And of course, if the statements read, it's here saying the defense are not being given an opportunity to cross examine the maker of the statement. And finally, section 1141 d after Criminal Justice Act 2000 and three. Any statement can be received by the court, even though it's a hearsay statement in the interests of justice. If the court want to receive that state, Well, there you are. That's our 20 minutes. It went down fast and thank you for watching this particular webinar on for listening to me. And I know that data law have a number of these 20 minutes bite sized webinars, and I look forward to your company again in the not too distant future. Thank you.