Essay on relevancy and admissibility of evidence in court:
There are facts that are relevant to the issue and can be proved. On the other end there are those facts which cannot be proved on the ground that they are irrelevant to the issue. Such facts include the character of the accused and are broken down into facts of character evidence, similar fact, previous consistent and evidence of previous conviction. The general rule of law regarding the irrelevant facts is that they are inadmissible.
Character evidence is regarded as irrelevant fact and the general rule of law is that it is inadmissible in court. There are, however, exceptions to the general rule where character evidence becomes admissible. In a situation where the accused…show more content… To negate the accused’s evidence, the court held that evidence of similar facts that former wives of the accused had met their death in similar circumstances was admissible. Another exception where similar fact is admissible is evidence to identify the accused or to show his participation in the crime charged. For instance, In the case of R. v. Sebeso, 1943 A.D, the court held that evidence of the proved association of the three accused in two of the three counts was admissible to rebut the alibis on the other count and that the three committed the count.
A previous consistent statement is a written or oral statement made by a witness on an earlier occasion which corresponds with the witness’ account in court. The general rule about these statements is that they are inadmissible in court. The reasons are that the statement can easily be manufactured and a resourceful witness can repeat a lie as often as the truth to a number of peoplet. In the case of R. v. Roberts (1942).where the accused was being charged with murdering a girlfriend by shooting her, two days after the shooting he had told his father what his defence would be. In his defence he wanted the evidence of conversation between him and his father to be adduced to rebut his defence but the judge disallowed it on the ground that it amounted to no more than a previous consistent statement.
The other character