The Law On Bad Character Evidence Should Be Treated With Caution

The prosecution opens their case by making a speech to the jury. He introduces himself and states that he is appearing on behalf of the prosecution and introduces the attorney appearing on behalf of the defence. The prosecution will outline each offence and the evidence the jury will hear in proving this. The prosecutions’ speech sets out the burden of proof and the standard of proof which they have to prove in order to secure a conviction in the case. This is specific to the offence and will be based on the elements of the offence necessary to show the defendant’s guilt. The prosecution’s opening statement is a summary of the case at hand and the evidence in which they intend to adduce to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant indeed committed the crime. Where the prosecution propose to adduce a certain item

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.

When questioning witnesses of a crime, detectives may choose a specific technique; one technique is the Reid Technique. The Reid Technique is a multi-step questioning method that pressures the witnesses or the accused to admit to the crime. It is used in North America. According to Professor Brent Snook, a psychologist at the Memorial University in Newfoundland, the Reid Technique is “Starsky and Hutch”, where two hot head detectives “beat up” their suspects to encourage them confess (http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/25/youre-guilty-now-confess-false-admissions-put-polices-favourite-interrogation-tactic-under-scrutiny/). This paper will examine the steps of the Reid Technique, as well as reveal substantial evidence that this technique should be banned. This technique has led to false confessions. Not only does this mean that someone has been punished that isn’t guilty, but it also means the real criminal has not been found and punished. The arguments against the use of this technique are the following:

One of the fundamental principles of the Criminal Law System is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (McSherry, 2003). By enacting punitive legislation such as the examples given above, it has been said that it is removing this Common law right from the individual (Greig, 1995). It has also been said that it creates an exception to the general principle of law that no person shall be imprisoned unless a court comprised of Judge/Jury is convinced, beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed a very serious offence. Thereby effectively allowing people to be detained without the burden of proving guilt (Keon-Cohen, 1992).

Innocent until proven guilty is a phrase that applies to our judicial system in modern times; however, when the play Doubt by John Patrick Stanley was written this phrase did not always apply. The play is a parable that makes you think about how gossip and rumors can cause havoc and potentially ruin someone’s career. In the play the rumors that are flying are rumors about whether or not Father Flynn is innocent or guilty to the crime of molesting a young boy named Donald Muller. Critics still argue whether he was innocent or guilty to the crime today, and no answer is known. However, based on the evidence in Patrick Shanley’s play Doubt: A Parable, one could conclude that Father Flynn is innocent due to the fact that he had reasonable evidence

If a defendant introduces evidence of good character, that opens the door for the prosecution to offer potentially damaging character evidence it would have otherwise been prevented from presenting to the jury.

to committing the crimes and it was not proven that the commission of these acts were not of

Till the nineteenth century the greater part of the criminal cases were discarded by jury trial. A supplication of nolo contendere in offense cases permitted the litigant to submit to conviction without confessing to blame. However nolo contendere supplications were not permitted in genuine crime cases. Until the recent 50% of the nineteenth century, both in the United States and the United Kingdom, blameworthy supplications as legitimate procedural instruments were utilized just seldom and verbosely.

It is clear that common law has developed in such a way that the prosecution has many tools which provide an advantage in the charging and trying criminal defendants. the common law has also developed in such a way that defendants are afforded various theories and rules that provide the defendant an opportunity to reduce responsibility or even avoid responsibility all together.

The causes of wrongful convictions are easy to identify: irregularities and incompetence at the investigatory, pre-trial, trial and appellate stages of the criminal justice system. More particularly, Kaiser identifies the following contributory factors, among others: false accusations, misleading police investigative work, inept defense counsel, misperceptions by Crown prosecutors of their role, factual assumption of an accuser’s guilt by actors in the criminal justice system, community pressure for a conviction, inadequate identification evidence, perjury, false confessions, inadequate or misinterpreted forensic evidence, judicial bias, poor presentation of an appellate case, and difficulty in having fresh evidence admitted at the appellate stage. Each instance of determined wrongful conviction illustrates a different combination of failures in the criminal justice system that has

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 .

“had a due process right to present and have considered by the jury all relevant evidence to rebut

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.

In the second part of the following essay I will be nominating one source of evidence that is present at the scene of a scenario. I will be discussing in my own words how Police should collate, handle and analyse the piece of evidence in a Criminal Investigation. In doing this I will be using relevant crime scene powers, NSWPF operational guidance and making reference to the Horswell (2004) reading.

in criminal law and Beckett Ltd v. Lyons [1967] 1 All ER 833 the law