GoConqr hat ein neues Design! Sag uns, wie es dir gefällt.

Mindmap

Admissibility: Criminal

j.wisbey.12 Englisch

Inhalt der Mindmap

Admissibility: Criminal

  1. Relevance

    • Similar fact or collateral evidence. It relates to something other than the case. Howden rule and Moorov doctrine are the exceptions
  2. The Best Evidence Rule

    • Must give primary not secondary if available.
      • But only if using secondary would cause prejudice, and even then sometimes they can still use it because of impracticality. Anderson v Laverlock.
  3. The Hearsay Rule

    • A witnesses an assault and then tells B, B then gives this as evidence.
      • Only primary hearsay admissible.
    • Possible reasons for using hearsay: to establish that a statement was made or to establish the truth of the statement.
    • 3 main exceptions to inadmissibility to secondary hearsay: Res Gestae, Statements by accused, statutory exceptipns
      • Res Gestae Exception is for statement made at same or similar time as offence so that it forms part of the offence. R v Gibson = satement not connected.
      • Statements by accused. Confessions, self serving, mixed.
        • Confessions = admissible
        • Normally inadmissible, but ok if led by crown. McCutcherson v HMA
        • Mixed = whole statement admissible.
        • about to be amended so that all are admissible.
      • Statutory exceptions. s 259
        • May not be a fair trial
  4. Unfairly/ Improperly Obtained evidence

    • guiding principle is fairness
    • Documentary evidence. Cannot be assumed there was a search MacKintosh v Scott.
      • If there has been a search then there must have been authority to do so or statutory authority
        • Statutory authority: need reasonable cause but need not be precise. Miller v Jamieson
    • Search Warrant.
      • Not needed when minimal invasion HMA v Baillie
        • Defects on warrant HMA v Cumming, power exceeded Burke v Wilson.
        • Sometimes urgancy applies
    • Unfair confessions
      • Brown v HMA
      • Questioning techniques Chalmers v HMA. 3 stages
        • Suspects will must actually break
        • Leading/repetetive questions count
  5. Caution

    • Stage 2 Tonge v HMA
    • Not always required
    • HMA v Gilgannon. Mental State but not always sufficient
      • Mental stress may be enough
  6. Confessions: physical state and age

    • McLory v McInnes. Raised from sleep.
    • Age: Codona v HMA.
  7. Confessions and entrapment.

    • HMA v Campbell
  8. Threats and inducement. Black v Annan

  9. Access to lawyer. Cadder v HMA

Informationen

Beschreibung
Mindmap am Admissibility: Criminal, erstellt von j.wisbey.12 am 10/12/2014.
Erstellt von
j.wisbey.12
Aufrufe
0
Bewertung

Feedback

Worum geht es?

Wie gefällt dir das neue Design?

Dein Eindruck