Effectiveness Of The Criminal Evidence Act 2003

After observing the trial of Mr. Sanger Rainsford, many concerns arose for me. There was quite a bit of information proposed by the prosecution that seemed

There is indeed a crisis to a certain extent in the use of forensic science in the prosecution of individuals in criminal cases; this is because some judges and juries over value the objectivity of forensics, without evaluating the timeline and crime scene as a whole. This was particularly evident in the 1995 case of Mallard. In this case Andrew Mallard was convicted for the 1994 murder of Mrs Laurence, a jewellery shop owner in Perth. Mallard is now considered innocent of the murder; however this innocence was only obtained through two appeals. In the second appeal of Mallards, forensic evidence was put forward, but it is alleged that it had not been properly disclosed to the legal team of Mr Mallard when the trial commenced. Thus one of the

The way we perceive truth has consistently changed along with a new change in medium as truth can be different things to different people in different time periods. Postman discusses how law used to be conducted orally as there was no written law so rhetoric and proverbs had to be used in order for justice to be done (18). Now there is so much written law as every trial is recorded and there is endless precedents that can be looked up in

e Report, for Resource Utilisation, Witness Accuracy and Psychological Methods for Detection and Successful Prosecution.

The year, 1984 saw the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, also known as the PACE codes. The PACE codes were an act of parliment, the introduction of these codes was to standardise and proffessionalise police work. It basically provides a core framework of police powers and safeguards around stop and search, arrest, detention, investigation, identification and interviewing suspects. Official dissatisfaction with the rules of the criminal process goes back to the mid 1960's when the Home Office asked the Crimial Law Revision Committee to look into the rules of evidence in criminal cases. After their ill fated 11th Report the Home Office shelved the issue until 1977 when the labour government announced that it was to set

Turning to the case of Guy Paul Morin, one will see that the witness account played a great deal in the conviction of Morin. Mr. X falsely testified against Morin because he did not like Morin. The crown also used evidence from undercover officers where statements of Morin were recorded on a 60 minute tape recorder, which the officers believed to be 90 minutes. This made the case interesting because the crown used this instance for saying that Morin confessed to the crime after 60 minutes. This showed false accusation that was made both by the police officers and crown attorneys.

This is seen in R v Holt, R v Bird where even though the defendants withdrew their statements because of fear, the Court upheld their conviction of contempt . Even with section 116 2E of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (provision for hearsay on fear which allows a person to use a statement as their evidence) , women were still prosecuted. This is seen in R v A where A was charged and convicted of perverting the course of justice by withdrawing her statement against her husband . What this shows is that the rules of evidence did not protect the victims of domestic violence as one can argue that the Criminal Justice Act does not address the shame, emotional abuse and the fear of reputation damage the victims of domestic violence face. However, it can be argued that section 116 2E has its advantages as it makes the defendant who instils violence to plead guilty. Yet, can this be said to be advantageous? If the defendant pleads guilty he/she gets a sentencing discount. One can question the message this sends out to defendants. Also, it can be argued that the provision for hearsay contradicts the rights of the defendant under article 6 (3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights which states that there should be examination of witnesses . The introduction of statements being used as evidence makes this requirement difficult. Nevertheless, it can be said that the court must balance

The rational for the present sense impression exception for hearsay stem from the notion that statement is reliable because the contemporaneity of the event observed and the hearsay statement describing it leaves no time for reflection. Thus, the likelihood of deliberate misrepresentation or faulty recollection is eliminated. People v. Brown 80 N.Y.2d 729, 734, 610 N.E.2d 369, 594 N.Y.S.2d 696 (1993); People v. Vasquez 88 N.Y. 2d. 561, 575, 670 N.E.2d. 1328, N.Y.S.2d 697 (1996); People v. Melendez 296 A.D.2d 424, 426, 744 N.Y.S.2d 485 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2002). In People v. Semple the audio tape of the radio communication between the police officers during the police high speed chase provide no opportunity for any of the officer to reflect and to fabricate the statement. People v. Semple 174 Misc.2d 879, 882, 666 N.Y.S.2d 900 (Sup. Ct. 2d Dept. 1997). In People v. Melendez, the defendant made a 911 call shortly made after stabbing her boyfriend claiming that it was an accidental stabbing. The Appellant Division deem that the defendant does not appear to have sufficient time to fabricate anything on the 911 tape. People v. Melendez 296 A.D.2d 242, 244, 744 N.Y.S.2d 485 (App. Div. 2d Dept. 2002). In Jerkson case following the reasoning from People v. Semple and People v. Melendez when the unidentified woman saw that the police was apprehending the wrong man she dialed 911 to inform the police

Pierce and Chambers, Continuity evidence in criminal cases a somewhat defence perspective, viewed 1 April 2017,

Safety is a fundamental right that we all deserve. Most of us rely on the government to provide this security. We pay for this through taxes, but the question that we must ask ourselves is are we getting what we are paying for? By paying our taxes to the government we are giving it the authority to choose the service we are getting back. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) is an Act of Parliament which instituted a legislative

The importance of witness testimony is invaluable to any case, but how the testimonies are obtained is integral to assuring that the information given is indeed factual. In the case of

Accordingly, while hearsay statements are generally inadmissable in a judicial proceeding, hearsay statements are “not necessarily inadmissible in an administrative proceeding.” Travers v. Balt. Police Dep’t, 115 Md. App. 395, 408 (1997) (citing Md. Dep’t of Human Res. v. Bo Peep Day Nursery, 317 Md. 573, 595 (1989)). Indeed, if hearsay statements are sufficiently credible and probative, they may even form the sole basis for the agency’s finding. Travers, supra, 115 Md. App. at 411-13; Kade v. Hickey Sch., 80 Md. App. 721, 725

Common law also permitted the prosecution to adduce evidence that was relevant to the accused’s guilt of the offence charged,

In the discussion which follows, the function served by ‘evidence’ within the adversarial system will be considered. The central importance of relevance to the admissibility of evidence will be linked to the purpose served by the tribunal of fact. The range of factors which impact on the criminal justice system will act as a basis to consider the justification for the exclusion of certain evidential material. Developments in attitudes as a result of recent legislation will lead the discussion to the conclusion that the above statement is not sustainable

In today’s society there are rules that define evidence pertaining to a defendant’s trial. These rules are defined as the “The Rules of Evidence” or “The Law of Evidence.” These rules create a safe and orderly environment, promote efficiency, and enhance the quality of evidence that pertain to all criminal trials. These rules restrict what a jury can and cannot hear or see, details of the law, and the importance of the effective performance of the law enforcement officer. Americans are well aware of the rules that govern evidence; but what are they, what do they mean, how do they apply to each case, and how are they broken down.