Pros And Cons Of Uncorroborated Evidence

The purpose of this report is to discuss the matter The Queen V Bayley, which took place on the 29th of September 2012. Adrian bailey (serial rapist) was found guilty on charges of murder and rape, this report will discuss in detail the court proceedings that lead up to the imprisonment of Adrian Bayley and also the events prior to the kidnapping of Jill Meagher. The purpose of this report is to discuss the purpose of law in our society and how it applies to people who commit crimes in our community. As well as the purpose of criminal law in our community.

In some circumstances the statement can be used as evidence without the support of the victim and the final decision in regards to continue with the prosecution will depend on the CPS and police seriousness of the crime and available evidence. It may be decided it’s in the public interest despite the wishes of the victim.

Researchers have come up with various explanations trying to explain the sexual abuse cases in the globe. Some of these explanations form a basis on psychological perspectives, biological perspectives, and criminal perspectives. Despite these differences, rape cases are considered a violation of an individual right and the traumatizing effects are reported to be similar. The paper will focus mainly on the criminological approach to rape cases (Grooth & Jean, 1979). Various criminologists’ literature will be reviewed in association to rape as an offense against the law.

“... contrary to popular misconceptions, ... the defense's use of or the court's awareness about expert testimony on battering and its effects does not equate to acquittal for a battered woman defendant.” (The Validity and Use of Evidence Concerning Battering 37)

Within society, there is an engrained belief of what makes a person a legitimate victim and often their status as a ‘victim’ is questioned. This is especially true if the victim does not fit the typical stereotype of who is considered to be a legitimate victim. This is most widely illustrated in cases involving male victims of sexual assault.

One piece of evidence that proves the boy’s innocence is the height of the father. This takes an effect on the evidence against the boy because he is 6 inches shorter than his father was. So it would have been harder for the boy to stab the dad it would of taking

From the essay, The Dead Baby Mystery, Gawade starts with a court case that involves the murders of eight children of Marie Noe that no one could explain what happened. As Gawande writes, “some of the most respected pathologists of the time, could find no explanation for the crib deaths” (202) and “Foul play was strongly considered, but no evidence for was found” (202). What Gawande has written is that at the time, cases like these, child murder or accident, determines not easily. Even three decades later — the case reopened and she was charged — one of the officials that wrote back to Gawande stating “that there was no direct evidence to support the charges” (Gawande 204). That quote Gawande wrote to show that the charge came from indirect or circumstantial evidence. With what has happened to Noe and the children, Gawande postulates that charging people in the child abuse case is difficult to do because it uses circumstantial evidence. Thus, what I write for this paper will be a summary of Gawande's points in the essay The Dead Baby Mystery of how it is difficult to convict a Marie Noe in a child abuse case.

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

accounts of sexual abuse,But all the evidence of the case is pointing otherwise. Such as the

The first grounds for an appeal, in regards to Arika’s testimony, is that identification evidence of Bargo at [20] was wrongly admitted. Except as otherwise provided in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (EA), in order for evidence to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Evidence will be considered relevant in a proceeding, if that evidence when accepted, could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding. The facts in issues are the elements of the crime with which the defendant is being charged. Identification evidence from a witness is made up of the witness asserting that the accused is the person the witness heard, saw, or smelt perpetrating the crime. In the present case, Arika’s testimony would be classified as identification evidence, as she asserted that Bargo was the person who she had seen rape her.

In the case of a crime assault and suspicion of rape of a 14 year-old girl; Jones, Walsh and Bert were arrested. During the investigation, the police obtain statement from a man name Bland providing additional information that suspect Jones was involved in three separate assaults and rapes of juveniles over three days. The prosecution filed charges against Jones, Walsh and Bert for their involvement in the crime. The suspect, Bert then hired an attorney to defend him and explains to his lawyer that he did not participate in any acts of raping these girls and that he was only present one time with Jones and all he did was hit one of the girls. Bert also goes on to say that he can prove this because at the times the other rapes are alleged to have occurred, he was with Mook, who is currently out of the country on a mountain climbing trip and will not return for 2 months. Bland also contacts the prosecutor’s office and provides a written statement to the prosecutor that Walsh was not present during any of the rapes. (Case Study, n.d.)

Second, we must look at the affects of being a witness not only on the legal system but also on the child as an individual. Children could be further traumatized emotionally and physically by involvement as a witness. Finally, we need to closely look at how the legal system is set up and how well children fit into this system. Are witness procedures set up in a way that children can understand and accurately give their testimony? These are the things that need to be looked at closely to determine if children can be reliable and credible witnesses in court.

May and Powles view evidence as ‘something’ which tends to prove or disprove something else. In the context of a trial this consists of information placed before the court for the purpose of proving or disproving facts in issue. Beecher-Monas states that in a system based on the rule of law and which aspires to ‘truth’, the accuracy and reliability of such information is essential. The mechanisms available to the court to determine the latter, centre on the presentation of evidence under oath, cross-examination and the observation of witness demeanour .

Following such protocol could help in cases where classifying a person’s guilt is based on fact finding by way of fair and honest legal procedures instead of presenting facts alone. Because the rights listed in the Constitution are not simple, accountability and liability must be present for criminal justice officials and authorities. Equality and uniformity should have a place in the justice process.

The Supreme Court case, R v Vollmer[8], states that the appellant was convicted of murdering his de facto partner – where evidence as to the deceased’s past violent history in a previous relationship was available at the time of trial but not relied on by defence counsel – where there was no evidence led at trial or on appeal of a history of violence between the appellant and the deceased – where the appellant sought to rely on the defences of self-defence and provocation at trial under sections 271(2), 304 and 668E(1)[9]. Where the cases R v Hajistassi[10], R v Mogg[11] and Re Knowles[12] were applied as precedent to the final decision of the case.