Principles and procedures to admit and exclude evidence - Right to a fair trial

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Overview

Admitting and excluding evidence is essential for a fair trial in the criminal justice system. For SQE1 FLK2 exam preparation, it's important to understand these rules. This article covers the burden and standard of proof, visual identification evidence, hearsay, confession rules, character evidence, and excluding improperly obtained evidence. We'll discuss these concepts within the framework of the right to a fair trial as outlined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Burden and Standard of Proof

A key aspect of criminal proceedings is the presumption of innocence, as established in Article 6(2) of the ECHR. This impacts who must prove the case and to what degree.

Prosecution's Responsibility

In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, covering:

  1. The actus reus (guilty act)
  2. The mens rea (guilty mind)
  3. The absence of a valid defense

The case of Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 highlighted that the prosecution must meet this high standard. Lord Sankey noted:

"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to... the defense of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception."

Shifting Responsibility

Sometimes, the burden shifts to the defendant in cases involving:

  1. Statutory exceptions
  2. Special defenses, like insanity

Here, the defendant's standard is "on the balance of probabilities," a lower threshold.

Visual Identification Evidence

While potentially powerful, visual identification evidence can be unreliable. The case of R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 provides guidelines for assessing its use.

The Turnbull Guidelines

  1. Quality of the identification: Consider lighting, duration, distance.
  2. Time between observation and identification.
  3. Discrepancies in description.
  4. Recognition of a known individual.
  5. Possibility of mistaken identification.
  6. Corroboration.

Judges must caution juries about relying on such evidence.

Example: R v Hagland [1969] 1 QB 504

A conviction was overturned due to insufficient jury warnings about the risks of visual identification evidence, emphasizing the need for specific instructions.

Hearsay and Confession Evidence

Hearsay, traditionally inadmissible, has seen changes under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003).

Definition of Hearsay

Section 114(1) of the CJA 2003 defines hearsay as:

"A statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings that is evidence of any matter stated."

Admissibility of Hearsay

Hearsay is admissible if it meets certain criteria:

  1. Statutory provisions
  2. Agreement by all parties
  3. Interests of justice
  4. Common law exceptions

Confession Evidence

Under s.76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), a confession may be excluded if:

  1. Obtained by oppression
  2. Likely to be unreliable

Example: R v Mushtaq [2005] UKHL 25

Judges must decide on the admissibility of confessions, advising juries to disregard unreliable ones.

Character Evidence

The admission of character evidence is managed by the CJA 2003.

Definition of Bad Character

Section 98 refers to bad character as evidence of misconduct, excluding evidence relevant to the charge.

Gateways for Admissibility

Bad character evidence is admissible through specific gateways under s.101(1), such as:

  1. Agreement of all parties
  2. Initiated by the defendant
  3. Important explanatory evidence
  4. Relevant to significant issues

Exclusionary Discretion

Courts can exclude evidence if it harms the fairness of the proceedings.

Example: R v Mitchell [2016] UKSC 55

The Supreme Court ruled that bad character evidence must have real relevance to an important issue.

Exclusion of Evidence

Courts can exclude evidence harmful to fairness under s.78 of PACE 1984.

Factors Considered

  1. The severity of the impropriety
  2. Impact on rights
  3. Importance of the evidence

Example: R v Looseley [2001] UKHL 53

Evidence obtained through entrapment may be excluded to protect justice.

Conclusion

Understanding the rules for admitting and excluding evidence is critical for ensuring fair trials. Key points for exam candidates include:

  1. Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. Identification evidence needs careful attention.
  3. Hearsay admissibility is defined by statute.
  4. Confessions can be excluded if unreliable.
  5. Bad character evidence is limited to specific conditions.
  6. Courts can exclude evidence impacting fairness.

By understanding these areas, candidates will be ready to address complex issues and ensure justice in their careers.