Evidence of Witness Statement

licence of Witness StatementThe express that the pursuit wants to introduce at trial is the police force disceptation made by bennie which shows that he had seen Avril dealing drugs many times. This distinguish wants to be used by the pursuit to uprise Avrils involvement with the dealing of drugs as well as her involvement with the Black and reds local gang. Before the prosecution peck summon the rise, there be a series of work outs that needs to be considered and the first-class honours degree is relevance. What atomic number 50 be regarded as relevant is something that applies to the guinea pig in point affording something to the purpose and something that is legally sufficient.1 bennies establish john be verbalise to be relevant because it does withstand to the liaison in question which is Avrils drugs discourtesy.The second circumstanceor the prosecution needs to consider before adducing bennies test is the competency and compellability of bennie. In the moment stated bennie fucking be seen to be Avrils husband which puts him nether the category of a fellow. A spouse per Glover is a person who is lawfully married to the accused at the time when he or she is called to give evidence.2 In the trouble, it was seen that Bennie and Avril had recently separated. They are clam up legally married regardless of the separation particularor. It was non stated that they were split or the marriage was annulled, wherefore Bennie still cliffs to a lower place the category of a spouse. in that location is a general ascertain which shadow be found in s53(1) of the jejuneness justice and sinful cause present (YJCEA) 19993 that all experiencees are presumed to be competent4. In the application of this prescript there is a presumption that Bennie is a competent witness for the prosecution.In regards to compellability, a spouse is generally not compellable for the prosecution unless the exceptions that are set out in s80(3) of the g uard and pitiful read deed ( pace) 19845 are met. Relating the exceptions listed out in s80(3) of yard 19846 to the fall out, the type of offensive activity that Avril is world superaerated with are drugs law-breakings and as such Bennie does not fall beneath any of the exceptions which make him a non-compellable witness to the prosecution. It has been established that Bennie is a non-compellable witness which inwardness he is not legally induce to give evidence merely has the choice to do so. This shows that he foot choose to raise in court, however the prosecution can entertain Bennies police account as evidence by a indirect exception which can be found in the sinful justice Act (CJA) 2003. The human face of R v L 20097 can be used in regards to this reappearance. In this case the Witness who was a spouse could not be compelled to testify against her husband however a pre-trial statement which was a police statement was recognizeted as an exception to the hearsay rule8. correspond to LT choo hearsay evidence is an out of court statement that is universe advanced in court as evidence of the matter stated in the statement.9 indirect evidence is generally in admittible unless it falls to a lower place the exceptions in CJA 200310. For the evidence to be allowable under the witness unavailability exception expire conditions must be met which can be found in member 116 (1)(a) (1)(c) CJA 2003. It is important to note that S116(1)(c) shows that hearsay evidence can be admittible if it satisfies any of the five conditions stated in subsection 211. One of the conditions that is shown in subsection (2)(e) of the CJA 2003 relates to dread of a witness. In transaction to the young, Bennie refuses to testify in court and leading up to his refusal it was seen that he had a injure to his face. An assumption can be made that he is refusing to testify because of fear and as such the prosecution can adduce Bennies evidence under s116 as a hearsay exception provided all the conditions are satisfied. early(a) than the hearsay exception, the part for Bennie could as well make an application for a special measure direction (SMD). Bennie refuses to testify and has a contuse to the face. This brings about an assumption of fear which makes him a unguarded witness and vulnerable witnesses can make applications for SMDs. There are terzetto stand fors in which SMDs can be granted. The first stage is looking at the eligibility of the witness which can be found in s16 17 YJCEA 199912. The second and deuce-ace stage can be found in s19(2)(a) and (b) YJCEA 1999. Looking at Bennie he could be eligible for an SMD on the grounds of fear or distress about testifying13 which falls under s17 YJCEA 199914. If the courts are satisfied that Bennie meets all the stages, the application allow be successful and Bennie will be able to testify through an SMD. SMDs that are available to Bennie are screening15 which is stated in s23 YJ CEA 1999 or ikon recorded evidence in chief16 which is shown in s27(1) (3) YJCEA 1999.In conclusion, Bennie is a competent and a non-compellable witness and as such he has no legal covenant to testify in court. However, the prosecution can pass Bennies police statement through the hearsay exception of witness unavailability if he can satisfy all the conditions set out in the readying.B.The evidence that the prosecution wants to adduce are Avrils two forward convictions for thievery and two prior convictions for drugs offences involving self-command of marijuana with intent to supply. The prosecution wishes to use this evidence to prove that Avril impartted the drugs offences she is being charged with. The evidential issue that this raises is bad point of reference evidence. Bad character is delineate is s98 of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003. The severalize factors of the description are evidence of, or a disposition towards mismanage on his part, other than evidenc e which (a) has to do with the asseverate facts of the offence charged (b) is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence.17 In assessing the two previous convictions of stealing for Avril the evidence has nothing to do with the alleged facts of the current offence that is being charged. The previous offence and the alleged facts are not so closely connected as defined in the case of R v Tirnaveanu 200718. Also, it is not in relations to the investigation or prosecution of that particular offence19 which is the drugs offences. This shows that her two previous convictions for theft is a bad character evidence which can be admitted through one of the entres under s101(1)(a) (g) CJA 2003 and expanded on in s102-106 CJA 2003. The first gateway that should always be used is gateway D which can be found under s103 CJA 2003. Gateway D is the relevance to important issue amidst the defendant and the prosecution20. The prosecutions evidenc e of a defendants bad character is admissible based on its relevance to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution21. An important matter means a matter of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole22 as defined in s112 CJA 2003.Section 103(1)(a) is in regards to propensity to commove the offences of the smorgasbord that the defendant is being charged with. In the application of this provision to Avrils previous convictions for theft it could be state that she does prolong propensity for theft exclusively the crime of her previous convictions are not relevant to the matter in issue because they fall under different categories of offences. A case that relates well to s103(1)(a) is Hanson (Gilmore) 2005 23. The defendant was charged with theft of goods from a shed, and he had three previous convictions for shoplifting which were admitted on grounds for showing propensity24 the offences were similar.Section 103(1)(b) alike does not app ly to her previous convictions because the provision refers to the propensity to be dishonorable which has no obvious similarity to her previous convictions. Therefore, the bad character evidence cannot be admitted through gateway D. If this cannot be admitted through gateway D then Gateway C can be looked at which is under s101(1)(c) CJA 2003. Gateway C is the important explanatory evidence25. This gateway reflects the common-law rule which permits background or explanatory material where the account otherwise to be placed before the court would be incomplete and incomprehensible.26 This simply means in order for the jury to better understand the facts in issue the background evidence should be allowed. A case that refers to this is Phillips 2003 27. In Phillips28, the evidence of the defendants previous threats to kill his wife when he was on trial for her take were admissible as background evidence29.Referring to Avril, her previous convictions for theft cannot be allowed as ba ckground evidence to the drugs offences because they fall under different categories. Therefore, her previous convictions for theft is inadmissible under the gateway D and C.It was seen that she also had two previous convictions involving possession of marijuana and intent to supply. Her two previous convictions for drugs offences was seen to be make in the year 2011 and 2014. Her previous convictions ingest nothing to do with the offence charged. Firstly, the evidence is relevant. The previous offence and the current offence is not so closely connected because there is quite a gap between the years of her previous offence and the current offence no connection in time. It is also not an evidence of misconduct relating to the investigation or the prosecution of the offence, therefore it is a bad character evidence. Going through gateway D her previous convictions involving drugs offences show propensity to commit the kind of offence charged.30 The test for propensity was establishe d in R v Hanson.31Where the propensity to commit the offence is relied upon there are three questions to be considered. (i) Does the recital of conviction(s) establish a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged? (ii) Does that propensity make it more likely that the defendant committed the offence charged? (iii) Is it unjust to rely on the conviction(s) of the same description or category and, in any event, will the proceedings be unsporting if they are admitted?32Relating this to Avrils two previous convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to supply, her history of her past convictions does show a propensity to commit the kind of offence charged. This is because in 2011 she was convicted for drugs offences as well as in 2014 for the same crime. Avril being in possession of marijuana and intent to supply has a unfaltering similar link to her drugs offence that she is currently being charged with. It can be said that her propensity makes it more likely that she did commit the offence charged because they all share similar features which means there is a strong MO link. Similar features such as the type of offence, the possession of illegal drugs and intent to supply. It will be just to rely on her previous convictions because it shows a high possibility of reoffending based on her propensity. Avrils previous convictions meet all the Hanson criteria which means her previous convictions shows a propensity for her to commit the kind of offence charged therefore gateway D is applied.In conclusion, Avrils previous conviction for theft is bad character evidence simply it could meet the threshold for gateway D and C which shows the evidence to be inadmissible. Nonetheless, her previous convictions for drugs offences met the criteria for gateway D which means it can be admitted as bad character evidence for the prosecution.C.The evidence is Avrils vindication and the prosecution wants to adduce this evidence to prove that she committed the drug s offence that she is being charged with. The evidence is relevant because it is in relations to the issue and the drugs offence charged. The evidential issue that this raises is the admissibility of confession. Section 82(1) of the Police and Criminal demonstration Act (PACE) 1984 gives rendering to a confession. According to McAlhone and Stockdale A statement is a confession if, whether oral or written or made by conduct (e.g by video re-enactment), it is at least in part, adverse to its makers interests.33 It is important to note that confessions are an out of court statement that the defendant made and the prosecution wants to admit it for its truth. This makes the evidence hearsay and as such it is generally inadmissible but there are exceptions to the hearsay rule which is contained in two provisions.The statutory provisions that regulates the admissibility of confessions is s76 and s78 of PACE 1984. S76(1) of PACE lays out the admissibility of the confession made by the def endant as evidence against him/her. The key factors for admissibility under section 76(1) of PACE is (i) the confession should be relevant to any matter in issue and (ii) it is not excluded by the court in pursuance of s76.34 The court have a discretion to exclude a confession if it falls under the provision of s76(2) of PACE and it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession does not fall under s76(2) of PACE35.S76(2)(a) refers to a confession being obtained by burdensomeness. Section 76(8) of PACE explains what constitutes oppression but this is only a partial definition. In R v Fulling36 oppression was given the oxford dictionary meaning the oxford dictionary defines oppression as protracted cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority.37 patch Lord Lane in the case of Fulling38gave a description of what s76(2)(b) covers. He believed that the confession must be shown to be voluntary in the sense impression that it was not obtained by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage, emotional or held out by a person in authority39 s76(2)(b) looks at the unreliability of a confession, hence looking at the circumstances of anything said and done on the occasion of confession that would make it unreliable it also includes things not said and not done which could include omissions, breaches of PACE and associated Codes of Practice40. There needs to be a causal link between what was said and done in the circumstance and the confession.Relating this to the issue, Avril made a confession which could be admissible under s76(1) of PACE 1984 because the confession is relevant to the matter in issue. The second factor is the no exclusion by the courts. S76(2)(a) does not apply to Avrils case because it can be seen from the facts of the issue that her confession was not obtained by oppression there was no exercise of authority or gouge or inhuman and degrading treatment done to Avril. Since Avrils confession does not fall under op pression s76(2)(b) can be used. The first fact of the issue was that P.C. Pumpkin forgot to issue the police caution before she was hearinged. The misadventure to give a police caution is a breach of write in code C under PACE 1984 as seen in Doolan 198841. The second fact of the issue was Avrils solicitor was not called because of the confusion in the change of police shifts. The right to a solicitor for the accused is found in s56 of PACE 198442. Failure to provide access to a solicitor as needful by this provision could lead a person of low IQ who knows little about the process to confess but this whitethorn have less effect upon a person who can cope with an interview situation and is aware of his legal rights43 as seen in R v Alladice (1988)44. There is an assumption that Avril is aware of her legal rights because she has had past convictions of the similar offence, therefore her not having a solicitor has little effect on her confession.The third fact of the issue was th at Avril was not given any food and confound for 24 hours and became claustrophobic in the police cell and is also diabetic. Her confession is unreliable because she was not given proper rest45 which can also include the provision of food and drink. A police misconduct is not required. In Walker 1998 46the police were unsuspecting of the mental condition of the defendant47. The police were unaware of Avrils claustrophobia as well as her diabetes so the police misconduct in regards to this cannot be relied upon. Nonetheless code C does require the police to dish to detained person if the need for attention is urgent.Another provision that protects the accused from unsportsmanlike proceedings and unsporting evidence is s78 of PACE 198448. This provision shows exclusion of unfair evidence by the court if it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings49. A breach of PACE or the codes may lead to an exclusion, however the breach should be significant and substant ial50. It will not be appropriate to exclude a confession based on a breach which is inconsequential, for example, failure to provide a solicitor51. It was clear that there was a breach of code when the police did not give Avril access to a solicitor but based on an assumption that Avril could handle an interview situation because she has had previous dealings with police interviews from her past convictions the breach may not be substantial enough for the court to exclude it.In conclusion, Avrils confession is unreliable under s76(2)(b) of PACE which can be excluded by the court. This shows that her confession cannot be admissible under s76 of PACE. Nevertheless, it can be admissible under s78 of PACE because her confession was not unfair evidence, therefore it is highly likely the courts will not exclude this, subsequently the prosecution may adduce the evidence through this provision.BIBLIOGRAPHYBOOKSAndrew L-T Choo, test (3rd edn, Oxford University press, 2012)Christina McAlhon e and Michael Stockdale, Nutshells, Evidence in a nutshell (3rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 2002)Richard Glover, Murphy on Evidence (14th edn, Oxford University Press, 2015)CASESHanson (Gilmore) 2005 EWCA Crim 824R v Alladice (1988) 87 Cr App R 380R v Davis 2008 EWCA Crim 1156R v Doolan 1988 Crim LR 747R v Fulling 1987 2 All ER 65R v Hanson 2005 EWCA Crim 824R v L 2009 1 WLR 626, CAR v Phillips 2003 EWCA Crim 1379R v Tirnaveanu 2007 EWCA Crim 1239R v Trussler 1988 Crim LR 446R v Walker 1998 Crim LR 211STATUTESCriminal Justice Act 2003Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999WEBSITESOxforddictionary.com Oppression, https//en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/oppression accessed 15 March, 2017TheLawDictionary.org, What is pertinent?, http//thelawdictionary.org/relevant/ accessed 8 March 20171 TheLawDictionary.org, What is RELEVANT?, http//thelawdictionary.org/relevant/ accessed 8 March 2017.2 Richard Glover, Murphy on Evidence (14th edn, Ox ford University Press, 2015) p 5903 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s 53 (1)4 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s 53 (1)5 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 s80 (3)6 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 s80 (3)7 R v L 2009 1 WLR 626, CA8 R v L 2009 1 WLR 626, CA9 Andrew L-T Choo, Evidence (3rd edn, Oxford University press, 2012) p 27710 Criminal Justice Act 200311 Criminal Justice Act 2003 s116 (2)12 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s16-s1713 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s1714 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s1715 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s2316 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s27(1)-(3)17 Criminal Justice Act 2003 s9818 R v Tirnaveanu 2007 EWCA Crim 123919 Criminal Justice Act 2003 s9820 Andrew L-T Choo, Evidence (3rd edn, Oxford University press, 2012) p 25821 Andrew L-T Choo, Evidence (3rd edn, Oxford University press, 2012) p 25822 Criminal Justice Act 2003 s11223 H anson (Gilmore) 2005 EWCA Crim 82424 Hanson (Gilmore) 2005 EWCA Crim 82425 Criminal Justice Act 2003 s10226 R v Davis 2008 EWCA Crim 115627R v Phillips 2003 EWCA Crim 137928 R v Phillips 2003 EWCA Crim 137929 R v Phillips 2003 EWCA Crim 137930 Criminal Justice Act 2003 s103 (1) (a)31 R v Hanson 2005 EWCA Crim 82432 R v Hanson 2005 EWCA Crim 82433 Christina McAlhone and Michael Stockdale, Nutshells, Evidence in a nutshell (3rd edn, Sweet and Maxwell Limited, 2002) p 8234 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s76 (1)35 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s76 (2)36 R v Fulling 1987 2 All ER 6537 Oxforddictionary.com Oppression, https//en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/oppression accessed 15 March, 201738 R v Fulling 1987 2 All ER 65