Evidence - Concepts of Evidence ( Case Law)

What are the three concepts of evidence?

Relevance, Admissibility, Weight

What was the respondent convicted of in DPP v Kilbourne

One offence of buggery and five affiances of indecent assault on two groups of boys

What was the defence in DPP v Kilbourne?

Innocent association

What did the judge direct the jury to in DPP v Kilbourne?

They would be entitled to take the uncorroborated evidence of the second group of boys, or either of them, if they thought the boys' evidence as to what was done to them by the appellant was a truthful and reliable account, as supporting evidence given by the boys in the first group

What was the basis of the appeal in DPP v Kilbourne?

Lawson J. had misdirected the jury on what could amount to corroboration

What were the main questions in the case of DPP v Kilbourne

1) Is evidence of a child victim of a sexual assault charged, say in count 1 of an indictment, capable of amounting to corroboration of the evidence of a child victim of a similar assault charged in count 2 of the indictment

2) Is the evidence of an accomplice capable of being corroborated by the evidence of another accomplice

DPP v Kilbourne on what evidence amounts to corroboration

Any evidence which is admissible, relevant and believed is capable of amounting to corroboration of the evidence of a witness who requires corroboration, to which the first evidence is admissible and relevant

When can the sworn evidence of a child victim of sexual assault amount to corrobation of another child's account according to DPP v Kilbourne

When there is sufficient connection between the offences charged to make the evidence called on each count admissible and relevant to the other

Can two sworn witnesses who both require corroboration corroborate each other's statements?

Yes, granted that there is no danger of conspirancy between them this excludes two accomplices of the same crime.

Can a witness who needs corroboration provide it?

No, a witness who requires corroboration, cannot give it to another witness who also requires corroboration.

When does evidence become corroboration according to DPP v. Kilbourne?

Evidence which is a) admissible and b) relevant to evidence requiring corroboration, and, if believed, confirming it in the required particulars, is capable of being corroboration of the evidence, and, when believed, is in fact corroboration

When is the ability to corroborate given to a witness?

Where the witness is otherwised believed

ex concessis

from things conceded

What was held in DPP v Kilbourne

As there were enough children to show a "system" the judge found that the appeal could be allowed and that the children could all corroborate each other's accounts. There was no misdirection of the initial trial judge

When is evidence relevant according to DPP v Kilbourne?

if it is logically probative or disprobative on some matter which requires proof. It makes the matter which requires proof more or less probable

What determines the "weight" of evidence according to DPP v. Kilbourne

the degree of probability (both intrinsically and inferentially) which is attached to it by the tribunal of fact once it is established to be relevant and admissible

When is evidence admissible?

If it may be lawfully adduced at trial

Can irrelevant evidence be admissible?

No

Is all relevant evidence admissible?

No

Is all admissible evidence relevant?

No

All relevant evidence is prima facie admissible

True

Rex v Simmons on corroboration

The probative force of all the acts together is much greater than one alone, for, whereas the jury might think one man might be telling an untruth, three or four are hardly likely to tell the same untruth unless they were conspiring together. If there is nothing to suggest a conspiracy, their evidence would seem to be overwhelming

What is admissible evidence?

Information that a court will receive for the purpose of determining the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue

Who determines whether evidence is admissible?

A question of law determined by the trial judge

What does a judge firstly consider when determining if evidence is admissible?

relevance

What does a judge consider when determining whether evidence is admissible AFTER DETERMINING IF IT IS RELEVANT

Whether the evidence is caught by an exclusionary rule

What is "weight"

A question of fact to be determined by the finder of fact (the jury)

What is the assessment of weight based on?

Human judgement

What is the ultimate question for the jury?

Whether the prosecution discharged its burden of proving all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt

What does direct evidence require?

Jury or magistrates' acceptance or rejection of the evidence that has been given

What does circumstantial evidence require?

The court must accept BOTH the witness's account and draw an inference from the evidence

What is direct evidence?

Facts in issue

What is circumstantial evidence?

Evidence of relevant facts

Facts in Issue in a Civil Action

Facts alleged in the statement of case by the parties, including facts necessary to establish any pleaded defence that is either denied or not admitted by the other party

Facts in Issue in Criminal Cases

the effect of a plea of not guilty is to declare everything material to the offence charged a fact in issue. However this is circumstantial.

What are collateral facts

Facts relating to some subsidiary matter which itself affects the question of whether a fact in issue will or will not be established.

Give two examples of collateral facts

Competence of a witness (bias etc.), weight attached to their evidence

What is hearsay evidence?

statement made otherwise than by a person giving oral evidence in proceedings, and such evidence is sought to be tendered for the truth of the matters stated. IT IS AN OUT OF COURT STATEMENT

What is the general rule in hearsay evidence?

It is inadmissible

When may hearsay become admissible?

If it falls into one of the common law or statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule

Best Evidence Rule

If the original of a document is available, then it must be produced. Failure to produce the original will affect the weight attached to the copy of the document.

Is the best evidence rule still relevant?

It is now considered relatively defunct.

per curiam

What are the material facts of R v Blastland?

Appellant charged on indictment with buggery and murder, the case for prosecution was that he had forcibly buggered a 12 year old boy and then strangled him with a scarf

What was the appellant's argument in R v Blastland?

It had been M, not he, who had committed the crimes. He sought to call a number of witnesses to give evidence that M had said, before the boy's body was discovered, that a boy had been murdered

What was the distinction made between hearsay and admissible evidence in Rv Blastland

If M was on trial, what he told the police about the murder of the boy and the location of his body before he was found may have been considered admissible and an exception ot the hearsay rule and led to his conviction; however, because it was the appellant's case, what M told the police outside of court was considered to be hearsay

What did the trial judge say about the evidence the appellant sought to submit in R v Blastland?

That the evidence was hearsay and inadmissible in court.

What is said about the connection between knowledge and state of mind in R v Blastland

The crown does not equate knowledge (of a crime) with state of mind (the committing of the crime)

What is the rule against hearsay evidence according to Teper v The Queen?

The rule against hearsay evidence is fundamental. It is not the best evidence, and it is not delivered on oath. The truthfulness and accuracy of the person whose words are spoken to another witness cannot be tested by cross-examination, and the light which his demeanour would throw on his testimony is lost.

What was held in DPP v Blastland?

The admissibility of a statement tendered in evidence of the maker's knowledge or other state of mind must always depend on the degree of relevance of the state of mind sought to be proved to the issue in relation to which the evidence is tendered.

Was the appeal dismissed in DPP v Blastland?

Yes

What was the most pertinent issue in Blastland?

HOW M came by the knowledge of the murder, not the fact that he came by it

What are the material facts in R v Greenwood?

The defendant was charged with the murder of a young woman after confessing to the police. At trial, he said these confessions were untrue and that there was medical evidence to show he suffered from a depressive illness

Adduce

to cite, present or bring forward a fact, reason or evidence to support an argument or claim

What was the position of the defence in R v Greenwood?

They wanted to adduce evidence to a third party who was the boyfriend of the victim and had been violent towards her. He was in the vicinity at the time and had possession of her blood-stained underwear.

What did the trial judge initially state in R v Greenwood?

The evidence they were attempting to adduce to the boyfriend was irrelevant and therefore inadmissible as there was no evidence to link Parkinson to the events of the night in question; thus the jury could only speculate

What did the Court of Appeal state in R v Greenwood?

That the trial judge's ruling was inaccurate, as Parkinson was in the vicinity, was known to the victim and might be considered to have a motive

What was held in R v Greenwood?

There is no obligation on a defendant to establish that someone else committed the offence, but if he has evidence to show that someone else did it or HAD MOTIVE to do it he must be able to adduce it clearly

Why was it wrong to exclude the additional information about the victim's boyfriend in R v Greenwood?

Due to his relationship to the victim, his violence towards her and his presence in the vicinity at the time the offence was committed

What did Teper v R state about the admissibility of words that sought to be proven by hearsay evidence?

Contemporaneous with the action or event or clearly associated with it in time, place or circumstances

Res gestae

"things done" an exception to the hearsay rule that allows spontaneous statements to be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule in court

What was held in Teper v R

That the shouting of the lady was admissible and counted as res gestae

Material Facts of Teper v R

It was believed that the appellant was attempting to commit insurance fraund by lighting the shop owned by his wife on fire