Changing the way you learn

Question	Answer
what is an admission	It is a out of court statement which adversely affects the interest of the accused. It is the exception to the hear say rule.
what are formal admissions	those made in pleadings or affidavits, ( civil matter) constitute conclusive evidnece. voluntray without unduly prejudice
what amounts to an admission?	words spoken, written or conduct
Image: images__5_ (image/jpg)	It will amount to hearsay to confess to an act committed by another person which the person has not seem. SEE SURUJPAUL V THE QUEEN
WHAT AMOUNTS TO A CONFESSION?	SURUJPAUL THE QUEEN a voluntary statment of the intention or actions of the person making the statement will amount to a confession
Image: images__4_ (image/jpg)	silences is admission where the accused adopts the accusations made in his presence by his demeanour or conduct
WHICH CASE HIGHLIGHTS SILENCE AS AN ADMISSION? HINT: Mummy that is the man	R v Christie- the accused said im innocent.
How does the court determine if the statement is an accepted?	The foundation has lain proving the facts which the jury might reasonably draw inference. if the statement is made in the presence of the accused and it is excepted that an explanation should be given. His conduct, action or demeanour at the time determines how much of the statement he has accpeted.
Whether mere denial of the statement should be rejected?	rejection of the statement does not make the statement inadmissible as the jury can determine from the conduct whether the denial is believeable. THE JUDGE CAN DIRECT THAT BASE ON THE ABSENCE FACT PROVE, THE STATEMENT SHOULD BE DISREGARDED.
WHETHER ALLEGATIONS MADE BY A 3RD PARTY TO THE POLICE AND REPEATED TO THE ACCUSED IS PERMISSIBLE?	yes, as to determine the reaction of non-reaction of the accused at the time as an indictor of guilty. The jury must be warn that they should not regard what is alleged as truth of the allegations.
IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES CAN 3RD PARTY ALLEGATION REPEATED BY THE POLICE TO THE ACCUSED CAN BE AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE TRUTH, where he may not be caution?	a person is entitled to refrain from answering questions put to him, or obligated to comment on someone else accusations. However, Raviraj et al (A in warehouse of stolen goods) An innocent person would be expected to willing explain his presence. R v Chandler ( A answered some but refused to answer others) silent to some may indicate that the A has something hide. ( Whether silence amt to acceptance of what was said, if so can guilt be infer from the acceptance)
Image: images__6_ (image/jpg)	in Whiteman v AG-( where a sign in the police station was held to be insufficient communication of the right) that the person should be informed as soon as possible as to their right to an attorney and to hold communications with him. it should be done as early as possible before any "in -custody interrogation." If it is not done at this time it will not affect the fairness of the trial.
How does the court determine the admissibility of a confession?	whether the confession is voluntary, that is to whether it was obtain under oppressive circumstances
What does the Evidence Act states in relations to admissibility of confessions?	s 71- admissible if the circumstance under which it is made does not make it unlikely that the confession is true,or adversely affects the true. the age , personality, education, mental, intellectual or physical disability which the person may be subject to, if it is in response to a question, the matter the question was given. under s 70 whether the confession was obtain by violence,oppressive , inhuman or degrading condcut, threats or promises to the accused
What does the Evidence Act say as to drawing inferrence from silence?	s 76 - unfavourable inference may not be drawn from refusal to answer questions, represenation, made by a person in the course of official questioning, unless his failure is a fact in issue in the proceedings.
What is a confession?	IT is a voluntary statement made by the person charged or who allegedly committed the offence. it can be written, oral. there is no distinction between a full confession and a mere incriminating admission.
what is the standard of proof for a confession and what must be proven before it is admitted?	R v Dallas- the prosecution must prove beyound a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary as it was not obtained by fear of prejudice, jope of advantage excited by a person in authority, or that ther was on impropriety in the conduct of the person who made the statement.
what amounts to an inducement?	Telling the person that he will receive bail. but not asking them to company the police to the police station,
what amounts to oppression?	not the intention of the person. but whether it was induced by pressure or other influences, or threats or promises. R V ISEQUELLA ( the police entered the accused car with guns, the A had a fake gun ans was going to rob a bank)
What is the test to determine a person in authority?	R v Wilson ( B's house was burgled by who approach the appellants to pay for the return of his property.) B was a person in authority because he had owned the house, he had the most interest in the matter. NB where a person does not act in his capacity as a police but undercover as a friend, he does not have authority
whether the father making inducement in the presence of someone in authority would make a statement inadmissible?	R V MOORE- the son was 16 and his father told him in the presence of the police to make the statement so we can go home. the court held this was a matter to be considered in a voir dire.
What does a breach of the Judge's rule result in?	Non -observance of the Judge's Rule will not be grounds to exclude the confession unless it is involuntary. Not permiting the accused to see his lawyer will not invalidate a confession. Allie Mohammed v the State- notes that the discretion is based a breach of the constitutional right. the interest of the community and the individual and nature of the breach must be considered.
what is the procedure in proving confession is admissible?	the defence must be inform before hand SEE BURKE V R ( the D say he had help committing the murder which was not mention by the prosecution, they couldnt find the police notebook which it was written in.) The judge directed the jruy in a manner whcih resulted in unnecessary weigh being attach to police statement. held the prosecution were at fault for not disclosing that the appellant alleged statment is novel and could not be supported by documentation, and the prosecution should not have relied on it. the failure to caution the jury was a material irregularity as well as the weight attach to the confession. the evidence of the D's presence at the murder was overwhelming so the verdict was changed to manslaughter.
When must a judge hold a voir?	MITCHELL V R - IT IS THE DUTY OF THE DEFENCE COUNSEL TO ALTER THE PROSECUTION AND THE JUDGE BEFORE MAKING AN OBJECTIONS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE STATEMENT ALLEGEDLY MADE BY THE ACCUSED.
can the accused be examined about info given in the voir dire?	Wong Kam -Ming v The Queen- the excluding of confession or admission obtained by imprpoer means is unreliabile. the prosecution had to prove beyoung a reasonable doubt that it was truefully voluntary, the prosecutin can not CROSS EXAMINE ON A INADMISSIBLE CONFESSION. the co-defendant may cros examine the defendant regardless of whether confession is admissible or not.
whether the judge can change his mind as to the admissibility of a statement ?	where further evidence rises as to the voluntariness of the statement, he can rule in light of the new evidence. Only on rare occasion the judge will allow for the defence to reconsider the admissibility of the statement, as stated in R v Watson
whether the judge should can tell the jury that a voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of the statement.	the jury had done a material irregularity which could not be cured in the summing p by stating it is a matter for the jury, IN R V HOWELL THE CONVICTION WAS QUASHED
what is the role of the judge and jury in admissibility of a confession?	Walker v R - the defence counsel can later object to the voluntariness of a statement by altering the judge, who has to be satisfied of the voluntariness of the confession and direct the jury as to the effect of the threat of arrest and whether the nature of the confession was affected by it.
what is te evidential effect of a confession?	it is admissible only as the truth against the person making it
what is a mixed statement?	R v Sharp( he had made out of court statements as to why he was in the area when the burglary alarm when off, he give no evidence at the trial) Held the judge should direct the jury to the out of court admission and in part the self -exculpatory as to the truth of the matter, it is for the jury to determine whether there were lies. the judge should point out the incriminaying statements are likely to be true.
how to differentiate between a self-serving and mixed statement?	"a question asked of a party to a lawsuit or a statement by that person that serves no purpose and provides no evidence, but only argues or reinforces the legal position of that party." Pearce v R -A statement which is not an admission can be admissible to show the attitude of the accused at the time it was made. the later it is made the less wieght it will have. it is unfair to enter only the parts of the case which is against the accused interested.
whether a statement which admits for previous convictions or shows other matters reflecting on his character?	Turner v Underwood - ti is a rule of law that what a man says in relation to the charge is not evidence against him.

Next up

admission and confession

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by chanika.carringt about 10 years ago