Mind map
Admissibility: Criminal
Map content
Admissibility: Criminal
Relevance
- Similar fact or collateral evidence. It relates to something other than the case. Howden rule and Moorov doctrine are the exceptions
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.
- Must give primary not secondary if available.
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
- A witnesses an assault and then tells B, B then gives this as evidence.
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
- If there has been a search then there must have been authority to do so or statutory authority
- Search Warrant.
- Not needed when minimal invasion HMA v Baillie
- Defects on warrant HMA v Cumming, power exceeded Burke v Wilson.
- Sometimes urgancy applies
- Not needed when minimal invasion HMA v Baillie
- Unfair confessions
- Brown v HMA
- Questioning techniques Chalmers v HMA. 3 stages
- Suspects will must actually break
- Leading/repetetive questions count
Caution
- Stage 2 Tonge v HMA
- Not always required
- HMA v Gilgannon. Mental State but not always sufficient
- Mental stress may be enough
Confessions: physical state and age
- McLory v McInnes. Raised from sleep.
- Age: Codona v HMA.
Confessions and entrapment.
- HMA v Campbell
Threats and inducement. Black v Annan
Access to lawyer. Cadder v HMA
Information
- Description
- Mind Map on Admissibility: Criminal, created by j.wisbey.12 on 10/12/2014.
- Created by
- j.wisbey.12
- Views
- 0
- Rating