PCLL Conversion Examination January 2012 Examiner s Comments Evidence
|
|
- Charla Webster
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 PCLL Conversion Examination January 2012 Examiner s Comments Evidence Question 1 This question was approached badly by too many students who appear not to have understood the question to advise A, S and R. Many students failed to spot this was a question on the topic of character evidence and consequently answered the question with far too many irrelevancies including not separating out the three protagonists and answering under each head as asked for. For those students who clearly understood the central issue was s.54 CPO the question was answered well. Alex: alleges that it might be Stuart who had stolen the computers. This is a case of s.54(1)(f)(iii) CPO as Alex has given evidence against a co-d in the same proceedings, and Alex will lose his bad character shield. Alex has a previous conviction for criminal damage that is spent. Can this be adduced by Stuart? Technically, yes it can, but the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance requires that the conviction should not be mentioned when spent unless justice cannot be done. Here I think the judge might deem the conviction inadmissible as it will not be required for justice to be done as it was a long time ago and for a completely different sort of offence. Alex also puts his own good character in issue by calling his Catholic priest -s.54(1)(f)(ii) CPO applies here. But given the above and considering cases such as Timpson [1993] it is unlikely that Alex's previous conviction will be adduced. He will essentially be regarded as a person of good character and he should also be able to get both limbs of the good character direction under the principles in Vye [1993] and Tang Siu Man [1998]. Stuart: The questions to Paul are an imputation on a prosecution witness -s.54(1)(f)(ii). But s.54 only applies to "a person charged and called as a witness" i.e. it only applies to Ds that give oral evidence at the trial If D's counsel attacks the character of P witnesses, but does not give evidence himself then he cannot be cross-examined on his bad character under s.54. Stuart does not have any previous convictions, but he has pleaded guilty to one of the counts on the indictment in this case. Is he still of good character? Contrast the approaches in Teasdale [1993] and Challenger [1994]. The case of Tang Siu Man [1998] would suggest that the judge should use his discretion to decide what direction to give the jury, the ultimate requirement that it must be fair and balanced. At the very best Stuart would get the propensity limb of the Vye direction as he has not given evidence. Richard: The issue here is whether Richard's comments about Paul are an imputation. An Imputation" can be any allegation of faults or vices, reputed or real e.g. witness is corrupt (R v 1
2 Wright [1910]) that the witness has committed a crime (R v Hudson [1912]), that the witness is lying (R v Jones [1923]), etc. Here I think that saying Paul would like to see him sacked implies that Paul is lying and I think this is accordingly an imputation: s.54(1)(f)(ii) CPO is engaged and P can cross-examine Richard on his previous convictions. Question 2 This was a question in 5 parts which I anticipated would be completed simply and competently with short answers. However, far too many students gave over-long and rambling answers which failed to get to the (simple) point in each section. Others clearly had no clue that Q 2(2) was a criminal prosecution or that fraud was a criminal offence. Too many students answered that this case was a matter for the civil courts! Others failed to understand that the reverse-burden was on the balance of probabilities. Otherwise it was generally answered well. 1. Normally P bears the legal burden, but in the case of a defence of insanity M'Naghten's Case [1843] establishes that where D assets that he is/was suffering from insanity it is D who has the legal burden to prove that fact. The standard of proof will be the balance of probabilities. When D bears the legal burden this is sometimes called a "reverse burden". 2. The ICAC will bear the burden of proof -Woolmington v DPP [1935]. The standard of proof will be beyond reasonable doubt as this is a criminal matter. 3. Presumptions shift the burden of proof to the other side to disprove the presumed fact. Here P would have the overall burden of proof, but by relying on the presumption of regularity D will be required to show that the lights were not operating as normal (Tingle Jacobs and Co v Kennedy [1964]). D will bear an evidential burden to rebut the presumption. In terms of the blackout, D might be trying to claim automatism -in this case D will bear an evidential burden to establish the defence and then P must disprove the existence of the defence beyond reasonable doubt. 4. This situation is similar to The Glendarroch [1894]. (Not many students will note this case) but they must set out how the burden shifts: P is essentially alleging that D was negligent in their packing of the goods and that this has caused the damage. The case held that it is for P to prove the terms of the contract and damage; D then proves that the exemption clause applies (i.e. no liability if damage caused by road conditions); but for P to then show that the proviso to the exemption clause applies (i.e. liable if D negligent). The standard of proof at each stage would be the balance of probabilities. 5. The Ordinance provides that Any person who without lawful authority etc." This phraseology comes under of s.94a CPO (Cap 221). It is not essential that students quote s. 94A for a pass mark, many will not (although those who do should be given high marks), but they must understand that where an offence provides an exception, the legal burden is on D if they wish to put themselves under that exception. So here D would have the legal burden to 2
3 prove that he did have lawful authority. The standard of proof would be on the balance of probabilities. Question 3 Again, I anticipated that this would be a fairly straightforward question and indeed the vast majority of students gave competent answers. Some of the briefest answers got the highest marks. Other, weaker answers were again too full of irrelevance or students appeared to have misunderstood the question. At this level, for student not to know that a judge must (at the very least) direct a jury on the burden and standard of proof is unacceptable. Students who described any number of obscure possible directions and failed to mention the basics were marked down hard. In a jury trial, once the judge has decided that there is sufficient evidence to go to the jury, all matters of fact are for the jury to decide, while all matters of law are for the judge. It is the judge s duty to give the jury a proper and complete direction on the law applicable and on the incidence of the burden of proof, and it is for the jury to accept this direction. The judge should sum up the evidence to the jury and may properly comment on the relative values of classes of testimony, and of the evidence given. The credibility of testimony is a matter for the jury. It is the judge s duty to ascertain the issues and so to determine what evidence is or is not relevant. Questions relating to the admissibility of evidence are questions of law and must be determined by the judge see Lewis v Marshall (1844) 7 Man & G 729 at 743. If such questions depend upon the determination of some preliminary question of fact, the judge may decide that question by himself after hearing any necessary evidence upon it (e.g. following a voir dire). This is so even though the decision of the preliminary question involves the determination by the judge of the same fact that the jury has ultimately to decide, but he may ask the jury to determine the fact. Upon this principle, for example, it is for the judge to decide whether an alleged confession is voluntary, and whether a witness sufficiently understands the nature of an oath or a child is otherwise competent to give evidence in criminal proceedings. Even when the objection is to evidence prima facie admissible, the judge should, before admitting it, allow evidence to be interposed to show its inadmissibility: Boyle v Wiseman (1855) 11 Exch 360, overruling Jones v Fort (1828) Mood & M 196; Bartlett v Smith (1843) 11 M & W 483 at 486; The State v Treanor [1924] 2 IR 193; A-G v O Leary [1926] IR 445. Before the evidence is left to the jury, the judge has to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. He must consider whether there is any evidence upon which a jury can properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the onus of proof rests. If there is no evidence either the case will be withdrawn or the jury will be directed to return a verdict of not guilty, in a criminal trial where the defendant has been arraigned. Similarly it is for the judge to determine whether it is open to the jury to draw an 3
4 inference from facts proved, leaving it to the jury to say whether or not it does. If there is a conflict of evidence, it is the jury s province to decide which evidence it prefers to accept. Directions a Judge must give are: Explain the different function of judge and jury Burden of Proof Standard of Proof Directions a Judge may give depending on the circumstances o the case. This list is not exhaustive, but the most common directions that students have been told are: Circumstantial Evidence Similar Facts Corroboration/Evidence Requiring Caution Evidence of Children Defendant's Character - Good Defendant's Character - Bad Defendant's Confession Defendant's Evidence - Effect on Other Defendants Defendant's Lies to Police and Others Hostile witness Previous Inconsistent Statement Identification Previous Consistent Statement Expert Evidence Dishonesty and the Ghosh Direction Hearsay Evidence Drugs - Money found in Possession of Defendant/Evidence of Extravagant Life-style etc Delay Alibi Automatism Self-Defence Duress by Threats and Circumstances Diminished Responsibility (Murder) Provocation (Murder) Intoxication - Self-Induced or Voluntary Question 4 In my view this was one of the more testing questions on the paper and I anticipated it might prove difficult for some. In the event, having marked all the scripts, this question appeared to split student answers. Those who had revised and understood the implications of s.22 EO did well. Other clearly did not know about this particular statutory exception to the hearsay rule and did badly. There was no middle ground. 4
5 (a) The delivery book record should fall within s.22 Evidence Ordinance (Cap 8) - documentary records compiled by a person under a duty. All the various requirements appear to have been complied with. (b) Depending on how the computer print out was generated it may be admissible under s.22 or s.22a Evidence Ordinance (Cap 8). If there was a high level of human input then s.22 is appropriate, if the print out was created by an automated computer function then s.22a is better. Note that these two sections are mutually exclusive. A further possibility is that the print out is admissible under s.17a Evidence Ordinance (Cap 8) as a negative assertion to show that 5 computers were missing. (c) If the former girlfriend came to court then the statement would be admissible, but here she seems unwilling due to being in fear. Unfortunately there is no hearsay exception in criminal proceedings that covers this situation (apart from Admissions under s.65b CPO - but D is not going to agree to this) so if she does not attend court the evidence will be inadmissible. Exceptional students may add evidence by video link for a witness in fear under s.79b CPO (Cap 221). (d) Kay is allowed to assert that Randy has previous convictions and may well have stolen the computers himself. Normally, this would be deemed to be an attack on the character of a P witness. But as Randy is dead he will not be giving evidence for the P and hence it will not be an attack falling under s.54(1)(f)(ii). Kay will not lose his previous conviction (if he has any) shield. Kay may adduce the record of Randy's convictions as evidence that Randy committed the offences. (e) This may seem to be dying declaration situation, but the problem is that dying declarations can only be used in murder or manslaughter trials, which is not the case here. Nor is this a res gestae situation, so the evidence of Randy's statement in the ambulance would appear to be inadmissible. Question 5 I have little to say about this particular question as it was done well by the overwhelming majority of students. Some of the highest scores were achieved on this question and a clear majority of students were familiar and understood the relevant authorities. This is a question on voir dire evidence. The statement made by S is clearly a confession as in incriminates him in the offence charged. It could be said that it is a mixed statement as he claims that co-d was the mastermind and this could be argued to be partially exculpatory. If it is a mixed statement then the principles in Aziz [1996] 1 AC 41 apply. 5
6 The confession was made to a person in authority, defined as anyone who (may reasonably be supposed by the accused to have or who) has authority or control over the accused or over the proceedings or prosecution against him (Deokinanan v R [1969]) A police officer is clearly a person in authority so we must consider whether the confession was voluntary or not. Inducements? Defined in Ibrahim v The King [1914], where Lord Sumner stated that the statement would not be voluntary if it was caused by fear of prejudice or hope of reward excited or held out by anyone on authority". Further considered in DPP v Ping Lin [1976] - see Lord Hailsham's guidance. In this case the fact that the police told S that D had confessed and implicated S caused S to confess, but this is probably not an "inducement" as it does not really count as fear of prejudice or hope of reward. Oppression? Oppression means "words or conduct which tends to sap, and has sapped, the free will of the accused so that he speaks when otherwise he would have remained silent." R v Priestly (1965) 52 Cr App R 1. per Sachs JA. The failure to provide a solicitor is a serious matter, but is probably not enough by itself to engage the notion of oppressive behaviour by the police. Fraud? The police lied about Dave's confession and this directly caused S to confess. This might be a possible argument here and the confession may well be excluded on this basis - Ajodhav The State [1982]. I think a further approach is to rely on the judge's residual discretion see SJ v Lam Tat Ming [2000] 2 HKLRD 431 generally.. In criminal cases the judge has discretion to exclude evidence where a confession has been obtained unfairly focusing on how confession was obtained. It states that if the confession was made in circumstances where D's fundamental right to remain silent was undermined or effectively denied by his interrogators then the confession may be excluded because it would be unfair to the accused to use the confession. It does not matter whether the confession was voluntary or not. Substantial breaches of the 1992 Rules and Directions for the Questioning of Suspects may amount to unfairness although minor breaches may not (Lam Tat Ming). Here the failure to provide legal advice (unless the denial of a solicitor really was justified-r v Samuel [1988]) combined with the lie about Dave's confession could be deemed sufficient to warrant the exercise of the residual discretion. See R v May [1952] Per Lord Goddard: "The test of the admissibility of a statement is whether it is a voluntary statement. There are certain rules known as the Judges' Rules which are not rules of law but rules of practice drawn up for the guidance of police officers; and if a statement has been made in circumstances not in accordance with the rules, in law that statement is admissible if it is a voluntary statement, although in its discretion the court can always refuse to admit it if the court thinks there has been a breach of the rules." 6
Hong Kong Evidence Law Notes
Hong Kong Evidence Law Notes 2018 1 st Edition PCLLConversion.com Copyright PCLLConversion.com 2018 Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 4 A. How to use Conversion Notes... 4 B. Abbreviations and
More informationPCLL CONVERSION EXAM June 2010 Examiner s Comments Evidence
PCLL CONVERSION EXAM June 2010 Examiner s Comments Evidence Question 1. In most criminal proceedings a court may act on the evidence of a single, unconfirmed witness. Historically, there was two main exceptions
More informationCROSS AND TAPPER ON EVIDENCE
CROSS AND TAPPER ON EVIDENCE Twelfth edition COLIN TAPPER, MA, BCL Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Oxford OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS CONTENTS Preface to the 12th edition v Extractfrom the preface
More informationIsobel Kennedy, SC Law Library
8 th ANNUAL NATIONAL PROSECUTORS CONFERENCE SATURDAY, 19 MAY 2007 DUBLIN CASTLE CONFERENCE CENTRE Isobel Kennedy, SC Law Library ~ Defence of Diminished Responsibility 1.GENERAL 8 th Annual National Prosecutors
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (ONTARIO) PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE REPORT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (ONTARIO) PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE REPORT (Criminal Code, s. 625.1) (Criminal Proceedings Rules, Rule 28) (Form 17) NOTE: 1. This form must be completed in full in all cases, and
More informationIndex. Adjudicative Facts Judicial notice, Administrative Rules Judicial notice,
Index References in this index from 900 to 911 are to sections of the Wisconsin Rules of Evidence, and references from 1 to 33 are to chapters of this book. A Adjudicative Facts Judicial notice, 902.01
More informationAmerican Criminal Law and Procedure Vocabulary
American Criminal Law and Procedure Vocabulary acquit: affidavit: alibi: amendment: appeal: arrest: arraignment: bail: To set free or discharge from accusation; to declare that the defendant is innocent
More informationPRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE REPORT (Criminal Code, s )
Page 1 of 17 NOTE: PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE REPORT (Criminal Code, s. 625.1) 1. This form must be completed in full in all cases, and signed by the assigned counsel, or a counsel authorized to bind the, and
More informationJurisdiction. Burden of Proof
Jurisdiction Queensland - Evidence Act (Qld) 1977 Commonwealth Evidence Act (Cth) 1995 Offences against the Commonwealth but tried in a State court - Evidence Act (Qld) 1977 (s79 Judiciary Act (Cth) 1903)
More informationMULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A
MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A 2010 Second Semester Assignment 1 Question 1 If the current South African law does not provide a solution to an evidentiary problem, our courts will first of all search
More informationCommon law system foundations for excluding evidence obtained illegally or unfairly and the relevant case law
Katarzyna Piątkowska Common law system foundations for excluding evidence obtained illegally or unfairly and the relevant case law Keywords: improperly, unfairly, illegally obtained evidence, admissibility,
More informationTHE EVIDENCE ACT OF BHUTAN, 2005
THE EVIDENCE ACT OF BHUTAN, 2005 The ability to call the state laws to witness must be given prime importance, without being influenced solely by what is said by the incumbents. Zhabdrung Rimpochhe THE
More informationCRIM EXAM NOTES. Table of Contents. Weeks 1-4
CRIM EXAM NOTES Weeks 1-4 Table of Contents Setup (jurisdiction, BOP, onus)... 2 Elements, AR, Voluntariness... 3 Voluntariness, Automatism... 4 MR (intention, reckless, knowledge, negligence)... 5 Concurrence...
More informationOffences 3. S300 Unlawful homicide 3. S302(1)(a) Intentional Murder 4. S303 Manslaughter 7. S335 Common Assault 9
4032LAW Exam Notes Offences 3 S300 Unlawful homicide 3 S302(1)(a) Intentional Murder 4 S303 Manslaughter 7 S335 Common Assault 9 S339 Assault occasioning bodily harm 10 S340 Serious assaults 11 S317 Acts
More informationCriminal Law II Overview Jan June 2006
Inchoate Liability Incitement Incitement is the common law offence (see Whitehouse [1977]) of influencing the mind of another whilst intending him to commit a crime. Its actus reus is the actual communication
More informationLegal Supplement Part A to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 44, No. 167, 16th September, 2005
Legal Supplement Part A to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 44, No. 167, 16th September, 2005 Third Session Eighth Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Act No.
More informationPages , Looking Back
Pages 280 281, Looking Back 1. Choose the appropriate term from the vocabulary list above to complete the following statements: a) A(n) peremptory challenge is the exclusion of a prospective juror from
More informationR v Christopher John Halliwell. Bristol Crown Court. Rulings by Mrs Justice Cox on Preliminary Issues. February and May 2012
R v Christopher John Halliwell Bristol Crown Court Rulings by Mrs Justice Cox on Preliminary Issues February and May 2012 SUMMARY TO ASSIST THE MEDIA Mrs Justice Cox has dealt with two applications by
More informationIntroduction Crime, Law and Morality. Key Principles: actus reus, mens rea, legal personhood, doli incapax.
Introduction Crime, Law and Morality Key Principles: actus reus, mens rea, legal personhood, doli incapax. Objective Principles: * Constructive-murder rule: a person may be guilty of murder, if while in
More informationCriminal Law. Text, Cases, and Materials. Janet Loveless. Third Edition UNIVERSITY PRESS
Criminal Law Text, Cases, and Materials Third Edition Janet Loveless UNIVERSITY PRESS Contents Guide to using the book Guide to the Online Resource Centre this edition Preface Acknowledgements Table cases
More informationHearsay confessions: probative value and prejudicial effect
Hearsay confessions: probative value and prejudicial effect Don Mathias Barrister, Auckland Hearsay confessions In order to raise a reasonable doubt about the accused s guilt, the defence may seek to call
More informationLEVEL 6 - UNIT 18 CRIMINAL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2014
LEVEL 6 - UNIT 18 CRIMINAL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JANUARY 2014 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key
More informationPROCEDURES FOR CORRUPTION AND MALFEASANCE CASES ACT, B.E (2016)
Tentative Translation * PROCEDURES FOR CORRUPTION AND MALFEASANCE CASES ACT, B.E. 2559 (2016) BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX; Given on the 26 th Day of September B.E. 2559; Being the 71 st Year of the Present
More informationCriminal Procedure in Hong Kong
Criminal Procedure in Hong Kong QUESTION ON WHAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN Determining which court What type of offence is it? Look at ordinance Any tariff or guideline case? Likely option? With tariffs to determine
More informationCouncil meeting 15 September 2011
Council meeting 15 September 2011 Public business GPhC prosecution policy (England and Wales) Recommendation: The Council is asked to agree the GPhC prosecution policy (England and Wales) at Appendix 1.
More informationThe learner can: 1.1 Explain the requirements of a lawful arrest.
Unit 11 Title: Criminal Litigation Level: 3 Credit Value: 7 Learning outcomes The learner will: 1 Understand the powers of the police to arrest and detain a person for the purpose of investigating a criminal
More informationCanadian Judicial Council Final Instructions. (Revised June 2012)
Canadian Judicial Council Final Instructions (Revised June 2012) Table of Contents Table of Contents...2 Glossary...4 III - FINAL INSTRUCTIONS...5 8. Duties of Jurors...5 8.1 Introduction... 5 8.2 Respective
More informationTHE COMMON LAW LIBRARY PHIPSON ON EVIDENCE SEVENTEENTH EDITION ;: THOMSON REUTERS SWEET & MAXWELL
THE COMMON LAW LIBRARY PHIPSON ON EVIDENCE SEVENTEENTH EDITION SWEET & MAXWELL ;: THOMSON REUTERS PAGE Foreword Preface Table of Cases Table of Statutes Table of Civil Procedure Rules Table of Legislation
More informationPreparation and Planning: Interviewers are taught to properly prepare and plan for the interview and formulate aims and objectives.
In 1984 Britain introduced the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 (PACE) and the Codes of Practice for police officers which eventually resulted in a set of national guidelines on interviewing both
More informationThe Honorable Society of King s Inns. Entrance Examination 2014 LAW OF EVIDENCE
The Honorable Society of King s Inns Entrance Examination 2014 LAW OF EVIDENCE EXAMINER: Ms. Ruth Cannon BL EXTERN: Mr. Patrick Marrinan SC Attached: Syllabus 2014 Reading List 2014 Examination Format
More informationBurdens of Proof and the Doctrine of Recent Possession
Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 1, Number 2 (April 1959) Article 6 Burdens of Proof and the Doctrine of Recent Possession J. D. Morton Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Follow this and additional
More informationLaw Commission. EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS A Summary
Law Commission EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS A Summary Law Com No 273 (Summary) 9 October 2001 EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS A Summary 1. Bad character may arise
More informationJury Directions Act 2015
Examinable excerpts of Jury Directions Act 2015 as at 10 April 2018 1 Purposes 3 Definitions Part 1 Preliminary The purposes of this Act are (a) to reduce the complexity of jury directions in criminal
More informationState Qualifying Exam Preparation Guide
State Qualifying Exam Preparation Guide (CJ) Exams developed in partnership with Cengage Learning. Book Information Criminal Law and Procedure Author: Daniel E. Hall ISBN-13: 9781285448817 7th Edition
More informationThis Bill would amend the Magistrate s Courts Act, Cap. 116A to (a)
Explanatory Memorandum After Page 26 2016-03-16 OBJECTS AND REASONS This Bill would amend the Magistrate s Courts Act, Cap. 116A to make better provision for committal proceedings under the Act by requiring
More informationMock Trial Practice Law Test
Mock Trial Practice Law Test NOTE: The practice law test is provided as an example and will not be updated each year. Below are sample questions that are similar to those that students may see on the real
More informationThe learner can: 1.1 Explain the requirements of a lawful arrest.
Unit 11 Title: Criminal Litigation Level: 3 Credit Value: 7 Learning outcomes The learner will: 1 Understand the powers of the police to arrest and detain a person for the purpose of investigating a criminal
More informationPRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND THE APPLICATION OF R. v. K.G.B.
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND THE APPLICATION OF R. v. K.G.B. Brian D. Williston THE ORTHODOX RULE Until recently, the "orthodox rule" dictated that prior inconsistent statements made by a non-party
More information1. The location or site where a criminal offence has taken place is called a(n)?
Canadian Law 2204 Criminal Law and he Criminal Trial Process Unit 2 Test Multiple Choice Name: { / 85} 1. The location or site where a criminal offence has taken place is called a(n)? death trap investigative
More informationSECTION 8 UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE
SECTION 8 UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE : Did X violate Y s section 8 rights when they searched? : Section 8 states that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. The
More informationPROSECUTING A REGULATORY OFFENCE:
PROSECUTING A REGULATORY OFFENCE: ASSESSING A BRIEF AND PREPARING A SUMMARY HEARING Lyma Nguyen, Barrister LLM LLB Grad Dip LP BA CLE for staff of Attorney-General s Department (NT) 29 July 2014 Overview
More informationTHE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947
THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 (ACT NO.II OF 1947) (Passed by the legislature and received the assent of the Governor General on the 11th March, 1947). An Act for the more effective prevention
More informationSIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE
SIMPLIFIED RULES OF EVIDENCE Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...3 TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Title 1, Chapter 38...3 TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I: General Provisions...4 Article IV: Relevancy
More informationThe learner can: 1.1 Explain the requirements of a lawful arrest.
Unit 11 Title: Criminal Litigation Level: 3 Credit Value: 7 Learning outcomes The learner will: 1 Understand the powers of the police to arrest and detain a person for the purpose of investigating a criminal
More informationINDICTABLE OFFENCES (PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY) ACT
INDICTABLE OFFENCES (PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY) ACT CHAPTER 12:01 48 of 1920 5 of 1923 21 of 1936 14 of 1939 25 of 1948 1 of 1955 10 of 1961 11 of 1961 29 of 1977 45 of 1979 Act 12 of 1917 Amended by *See Note
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) -AND-
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS Claim No. BVIHCV2009/0162 BETWEEN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) THE QUEEN Applicant -AND- RICKY TERRENCE POWELL Respondent Appearances:
More informationLaw of Evidence MENS REA 1. Law of Evidence
Law of Evidence MENS REA 1 Law of Evidence This subject takes you into the real world of the practice of law and is indeed an invaluable tool to any practitioner. The importance of this subject comes with
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Nov 2 2015 07:21:41 2014-KA-01098-COA Pages: 17 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO. 2014-KA-01098-COA SHERMAN BILLIE, SR. APPELLANT VS. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
More informationISSUES. Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing. Prepared by: Andrew Mason
SENTENCING ISSUES Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, 1998 Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing Prepared by: Andrew Mason Also available to members at the SCDLA Web site:
More information4. RELEVANCE. A. The Relevance Rule
4. RELEVANCE A. The Relevance Rule The most basic rule of evidence is that it must be relevant to the case. Irrelevant evidence should be excluded. If we are trying a bank robbery case, the witnesses should
More informationTHE EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT) ACT, Arrangement of Sections
THE EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2009 Arrangement of Sections Section 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Act inconsistent with Constitution 4. Interpretation 5. Section 13 amended 6. Section 15C amended 7.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Aug 21 2014 17:48:58 2014-KA-00188-COA Pages: 9 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JEFFREY ALLEN APPELLANT VS. NO. 2014-KA-00188-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationTRIAL DIRECTIONS FOR THE LOCAL COURT ADVOCATE
TRIAL DIRECTIONS FOR THE LOCAL COURT ADVOCATE A paper prepared for the Legal Aid Annual Criminal Law Conference 2014 Slade Howell 1 & Daniel Covington 2 The operation of the general principles have a significance
More information(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry,
Notes on the Evidence Act by Dr. Ajay Nathani 1 Points to ponder on the important provisions of the Evidence Act These are not notes but just summarised provisions. This will help the students to ascertain
More informationDRAFT REVISED NORTHERN CHEYENNE LAW & ORDER CODE TITLE 6 RULES OF EVIDENCE CODE. Title 6 Page 1
DRAFT REVISED NORTHERN CHEYENNE LAW & ORDER CODE TITLE 6 RULES OF EVIDENCE CODE Title 6 Page 1 TITLE 6 RULES OF EVIDENCE TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 GENERAL 6-1-1 Scope, Purpose and Construction 6-1-2
More informationEVIDENCE CHAPTER 65 EVIDENCE
[CH.65 1 LIST OF AUTHORISED PAGES 1-2 LRO 1/2008 3-8 Original 9-10 LRO 1/2008 11-22 Original 23-24 LRO 1/2008 25-77 Original CHAPTER 65 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title.
More informationEvidence. 1. Introduction. 1.1 The trial process EA ss 11, Background to The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and NSW. 1.3 Taking Objections
Evidence 1. Introduction 1.1 The trial process EA ss 11, 26-29 1.2 Background to The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and NSW Uniform Evidence Law ALRC Evidence Interim and Final Reports would be useful for interpreting
More informationThe Law on Corroboration in Fiji and Vanuatu. * Sofia Shah
The Law on Corroboration in Fiji and Vanuatu * Sofia Shah In any criminal case evidence is required to find a person guilty of an offence or to acquit the person of the alleged offence. Common law has
More information14 Guilty Pleas. Part A. Introduction GUILTY PLEAS IN JUVENILE COURT
14 Guilty Pleas Part A. Introduction 14.01 GUILTY PLEAS IN JUVENILE COURT In all jurisdictions a juvenile respondent can enter a guilty plea in a delinquency case, just as an adult defendant can in a criminal
More informationOklahoma High School Mock Trial Program RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Rule 101. Scope
Oklahoma High School Mock Trial Program RULES OF EVIDENCE ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101. Scope These Simplified Federal Rules of Evidence (Mock Trial Version) govern the trial proceedings of the
More informationEVIDENCE LAW SUMMARY
SUMMARY LAWSKOOL PTY LTD Contents THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE AND PRELIMINARY ISSUES...8 SOURCE OF EVIDENCE LAW AND APPLICATION...8 Criminal versus civil proceedings...8 General structure of the Evidence Act...9
More informationThinking Evidentially
Thinking Evidentially Writing & Arguing Powerful Motions October 17, 2013 2013 www.rossdalecle.com Presentation of Proof Plaintiff (or prosecutor) presents case-in-chief, then rests; When witnesses are
More informationPRELIMINARY INQUIRIES
PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES ) These materials were prepared byandrew Mason; of Dufour &Company law firm.saskatoon,. Saskatchewan for the SaskatchewanLegal Education Society Inc. seminar, Criminal. Law Essentials;.
More informationThe Criminal Court System. Law 521 Chapter Seven
The Criminal Court System Law 521 Chapter Seven The Feds make criminal law and procedure. Criminal Court Structure Provinces responsible for organizing, administering, and maintaining the criminal court
More informationFEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07)
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (Mock Trial Version) (updated 10/07) In American trials complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to
More informationSIMULATED MBE ANALYSIS: EVIDENCE PROFESSOR ROBERT PUSHAW PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
SIMULATED MBE ANALYSIS: EVIDENCE PROFESSOR ROBERT PUSHAW PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Editor's Note 1: This handout contains a detailed answer explanation for each Evidence question that appeared
More informationCriminal Law. Concentrate. Preview Copyrighted Material. Rebecca Huxley-Binns. 4th edition
Criminal Law Concentrate Rebecca Huxley-Binns Professor of Legal Education, Nottingham Law School National Teaching Fellow 4th edition 1 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford
More information(RSA) (RSA GG
(RSA GG 1066) brought into force in South Africa and South West Africa on 30 June 1967 by RSA Proc. R.138/1967 (RSA GG 1773) (see section 43 of Act) APPLICABILITY TO SOUTH WEST AFRICA: Section 1 defines
More informationTopic. Crown disclosure: best practice
Topic Crown disclosure: best practice History of Crown disclosure Until recent times there has been no such thing as disclosure in criminal proceedings. Although in the 18 th century the common law recognised
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Evidence And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Dustin has been charged with participating
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cr-000-vap Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Page ID #: 0 0 JOHN NEIL McNICHOLAS, ESQ. STATE BAR #0 McNicholas Law Office Palos Verdes Blvd., Redondo Beach, CA 0 (0) -00 (0) -- FAX john@mcnicholaslawoffice.com
More informationRULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003
Article I. General Provisions 101. Scope 102. Purpose and Construction RULES OF EVIDENCE Pennsylvania Mock Trial Version 2003 Article IV. Relevancy and its Limits 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"
More informationLegal Supplement Part A to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 56, No. 106, 5th October, 2017
Legal Supplement Part A to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 56, No. 106, 5th October, 2017 Second Session Eleventh Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Act No.
More informationMAINE RULES OF EVIDENCE
Last reviewed and edited December 15, 2011 Including amendments effective January 1, 2012 MAINE RULES OF EVIDENCE TABLE OF RULES ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS RULE: 101. SCOPE. 102. PURPOSE AND CONSTRUCTION.
More informationTHE COMMON LAW LIBRARY PHIPSON ON EVIDENCE FIFTEENTH EDITION
THE COMMON LAW LIBRARY PHIPSON ON EVIDENCE FIFTEENTH EDITION -^ LONDON > SWEET & MAXWELL -;* j 2000 Preface Table of Cases Table of Statutes Table of Statutory Instruments Table of Civil Procedure Rules
More informationIndex. All references are to page numbers. assault de minimis non curat lex defence, 32 police officer, on a, 7
Index All references are to page numbers. A Aboriginal sentencing principles Aboriginal women, 291 basic principles, 282 generally, 282 manslaughter, 291, 293 practical framework, 286 street gangs, 293
More informationRECORDING OF EVIDENCE.
1 RECORDING OF EVIDENCE. The primary questions are cropup in the mind of audience would be what evidence mean and who has to record such evidence and what is the purpose of recording of evidence. The term
More informationAct 2 Code of Evidence Act 2006
ACTS SUPPLEMENT No. 1 10th February, 2009. ACTS SUPPLEMENT to The Southern Sudan Gazette No. 1 Volume I dated 10th February, 2009. Printed by Ministry Legal Affairs and Constitutional Development, by Order
More informationEVIDENCE ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART II. Preliminary. Short title and interpretation. Relevancy. Relevance of facts
EVIDENCE ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I Preliminary Short title and interpretation SECTION 1. Short title and application. 2. Interpretation. 3. Relation of relevant facts. 4. Presumptions. 5. Savings
More informationUSALSA Report U.S. Army Legal Services Agency. Trial Judiciary Note. Claiming Privilege Against Self-Incrimination During Cross-Examination
USALSA Report U.S. Army Legal Services Agency Trial Judiciary Note Claiming Privilege Against Self-Incrimination During Cross-Examination Lieutenant Colonel Fansu Ku * Introduction At a general court-martial
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judges Frank and Kelsey Argued at Salem, Virginia TONY L. JONES, A/K/A LOCO, S/K/A TONY LAMONT JONES MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1434-06-3
More informationEvidence Law is a form of adjectival law (meaning procedural law; relating closely to civil and criminal procedure
Evidence Law is a form of adjectival law (meaning procedural law; relating closely to civil and criminal procedure About the proof of facts before courts and tribunals Best understood in the context of
More informationTable of Contents INTRODUCTION...17 FORWARD...23
Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...17 FORWARD...23 A...31 APPEALS District Court to Superior Court Infractions Procedures When Appealing From District Court to Superior Court Pretrial Release State s Right
More informationCriminal Appeal Act 1968
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 CHAPTER 19 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES Appeal against conviction on indictment Section 1. Right of appeal. 2. Grounds for allowing
More informationAdversary trial Key features Evaluation Review
Chapter 11 Adversary system In this chapter we investigate the main features of the trial system, the reasons why we adhere to it and the problems associated with it. We compare the operation of the adversary
More informationDELAWARE HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
DELAWARE HIGH SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL RULES OF EVIDENCE In American trials, complex rules are used to govern the admission of proof (i.e., oral or physical evidence). These rules are designed to ensure that
More informationPolice Station Advice Advising on Silence
6873 Crim Practitioners Guide 13/1/06 3:55 pm Page 1 Police Station Advice Advising on Silence by Professor Ed Cape on behalf of the Law Society Criminal Law Committee Criminal Practitioners Newsletter
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2005 BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Appellant AND ISRAEL HERNANDEZ ORELLANO Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley
More informationHicks v. State of Alabama. Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals Alex Thrasher*
Hicks v. State of Alabama Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals Alex Thrasher* The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals will primarily consider three issues in Hicks v. State of Alabama. First, the court will
More informationCRIMINAL LAW. Sweet &. Maxwell's Textbook Series. 4th edition
CRIMINAL LAW Sweet &. Maxwell's Textbook Series 4th edition Alan Reed, M.A., LL.M., Solicitor Professor of Criminal and Private International Law, University of Sunderland and Ben Fitzpatrick, B.A., P.G.C.L.T.H.E.
More informationSentencing Act Examinable excerpts of PART 1 PRELIMINARY. 1 Purposes
Examinable excerpts of Sentencing Act 1991 as at 10 April 2018 1 Purposes PART 1 PRELIMINARY The purposes of this Act are (a) to promote consistency of approach in the sentencing of offenders; (b) to have
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JOSEPH BERNARD-BANFIELD AND THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2009-01926 BETWEEN JOSEPH BERNARD-BANFIELD AND Claimant SARGEANT SOOKRAM REG NO. 9200 First Defendant THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
More informationRECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES
RECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES March 6, 2013 Christofer Bates, EDPA SUPREME COURT I. Aiding and Abetting / Accomplice Liability / 924(c) Rosemond v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 2014 WL 839184
More informationWhere did the law of evidence come from/why have the law of evidence? Check on the power of executive government (Guantanamo Bay).
INTRODUCTION: Where did the law of evidence come from/why have the law of evidence? Check on the power of executive government (Guantanamo Bay). Courts deal with serious business. The law of evidence excludes
More informationTable of Contents. Table of Cases... TC-1 Introduction...INT-1 CHAPTER 1
Table of Contents Table of Cases... TC-1 Introduction...INT-1 CHAPTER 1 Commission of the Alleged Offence Contents.... 1-i 1.1 Overview... 1-1 1.2 Statutory Interpretation... 1-2 1.2.1 Overview.... 1-2
More informationCHILDREN COURT RULES, 2018
CHILDREN COURT RULES, 2018 CONTENTS Rule Page PART 1 CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND POWERS Citation and Commencement Rule 1.1 Definitions Rule 1.2 Application of the Rules Rule 1.3 Effect of non-compliance
More informationIntroduction to Code for Prosecutors
Training Brief - 1 - Introduction to Code for Prosecutors Training Brief - 2 -. Version History - 3 - Course Title Creator(s) Introduction to Code for Prosecutors Dan Suter Version Date Reviewed By Summary
More informationBangladesh Supreme Court Bar Association Human Rights Conference Dhaka 13 October 2010
Bangladesh Supreme Court Bar Association Human Rights Conference Dhaka 13 October 2010 Bangladesh its Constitution & the International Crimes (Tribunals) (Amendment) Act 2009 By Steven Kay QC 1 The Purpose
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 16, 2008 v No. 278796 Oakland Circuit Court RUEMONDO JUAN GOOSBY, LC No. 2006-211558-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRYSTAL STROBEL NO. COA Filed: 18 May 2004
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRYSTAL STROBEL NO. COA03-566 Filed: 18 May 2004 1. Confessions and Incriminating Statements--motion to suppress--miranda warnings- -voluntariness The trial court did not err
More information