17. Evidence of character: evidence of character in civil cases

This chapter discusses the admissibility of evidence of character. A number of factors govern the admissibility of character evidence, including whether the proceedings are civil or criminal and whether the evidence relates to the character of a party or non-party. It is also necessary to consider the nature of the character evidence in question. It may relate to either good or bad character and, in either event, may constitute evidence of a person’s actual disposition, that is his propensity to act, think, or feel in a given way; or evidence of his reputation, that is his reputed disposition or propensity to act, think, or feel in a given way. Thus, the character of a person may be proved by evidence of general disposition, by evidence of specific examples of his conduct on other occasions (including, in the case of bad conduct, evidence of his previous convictions), or by evidence of his reputation among those to whom he is known. The chapter considers civil cases in which bad character designated ‘similar fact evidence’ has been admitted

15. Confessions

This chapter discusses the admissibility of confessions under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (the 1984 Act). It considers how, under s 76(2) of the 1984 Act, confessions may be excluded as a matter of law where obtained by oppression or in consequence of something said or done which was likely to render any such confession unreliable. It also considers the discretion to exclude confessions under s 78(1) of the 1984 Act; the effect of breaches of the Codes of Practice issued under the 1984 Act; the voir dire; statements made in the presence of the accused; and facts discovered in consequence of inadmissible confessions.

12. Hearsay in criminal cases

This chapter discusses the meaning of hearsay in criminal proceedings and the categories of hearsay admissible by statute in such proceedings. It considers the relationship between the hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights as it relates to hearsay; the definition of hearsay and its admissibility under the 2003 Act, including admissibility under an inclusionary discretion (section 114(1)(d)); and safeguards including provisions relating to the capability and credibility of absent witnesses, the power to stop a case and the discretion to exclude. Also considered in this chapter are: expert reports; written statements under section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967; and depositions of children and young persons under section 43 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

9. Visual and voice identification

This chapter considers the risk of mistaken identification, and the law and procedure relating to evidence of visual and voice identification. In respect of evidence of visual identification, the chapter addresses: the Turnbull guidelines, including when a judge should stop a case and the direction to be given to the jury; visual recognition, including recognition by the jury themselves from a film, photograph, or other image; evidence of analysis of films, photographs, or other images; pre-trial procedure, including procedure relating to recognition by a witness from viewing films, photographs, either formally or informally; and admissibility where there have been breaches of pre-trial procedure. In respect of evidence of voice identification, the chapter addresses: pre -trial procedure; voice comparison by the jury with the assistance of experts or lay listeners; and the warning to be given to the jury (essentially an adaption of the Turnbull warning, but with particular focus on the factors which might affect the reliability of voice identification).

8. Corroboration and care warnings

This chapter discusses exceptions to the general rule that there is no requirement for evidence to be corroborated. There are three categories of exception (i) where corroboration is required as a matter of law (speeding, perjury, treason, and attempts to commit these offences) and therefore a conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated evidence; (ii) where neither corroboration in a technical sense nor supportive evidence is required as a matter of law, but the tribunal of fact may need to be warned to exercise caution before acting on the evidence of certain types of witness, if unsupported; (iii) five cases in which corroboration is not required as a matter of law, and there is no obligation to warn the tribunal of fact of the danger of acting on the unsupported or uncorroborated evidence, but there is a special need for caution. The five cases are confessions by mentally handicapped persons, identification evidence, lip-reading evidence, cases of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and unconvincing hearsay. Identification evidence is dealt with separately in Chapter 9.

1. Introduction

Evidence is information by which facts tend to be proved, and the law of evidence is that body of law and discretion regulating the means by which facts may be proved in both courts of law and tribunals and arbitrations in which the strict rules of evidence apply. This introductory chapter discusses truth and the fact-finding process and explains how getting to the truth in court is hampered by practical constraints, the adversarial system, the rules of evidence themselves, and the fact that litigation is a human endeavour that necessarily provides scope for differences of opinion, error, deceit, and lies. The chapter also contains a brief history of the development of the law to date.

21. Public policy

The public interest in efficient and fair trials may be seen as underlying the rules of disclosure in civil litigation, whereby a litigant is obliged to make pre-trial disclosure of the documents on which he relies and the documents that adversely affect his own case or adversely affect, or support, another party’s case, even though such documents may not be admissible evidence at the trial. There is also a public interest in enabling material to be withheld where its production would harm the nation or the public service. Where these two kinds of public interest clash and the latter prevails over the former, relevant and otherwise admissible evidence is excluded at trial. Such material is said to be withheld by reason of ‘public interest immunity’. This chapter discusses the development of the modern law on public interest immunity; the scope of exclusion on grounds of public policy; and related procedural issues in civil and criminal cases.

20. Experts and opinion evidence

This chapter discusses the law on experts and opinion evidence. As a general rule, opinion evidence is inadmissible: a witness may only speak of facts that he personally perceived, not of inferences drawn from those facts. However, there are two exceptions to this general rule: (i) an appropriately qualified expert may state his opinion on a matter calling for the expertise that he possesses; and (ii) a non-expert witness may state his opinion on a matter not calling for any particular expertise as a way of conveying the facts that he personally perceived. Experts may also give evidence of fact based on their expertise. The chapter covers the duties of experts and the rules which apply where parties propose to call expert evidence

19. Evidence of character: evidence of bad character in criminal cases

This chapter begins with an introduction to the statutory framework governing the admissibility of bad character evidence. It goes on to consider the statutory definition of ‘bad character’ and to discuss the admissibility of evidence of bad character in criminal cases under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, namely: the admissibility of the bad character of a person other than the defendant and the requirement of leave; the admissibility of evidence of the bad character of the defendant under various statutory ‘gateways’, including the gateway by which evidence may be admitted if it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution; and safeguards including the discretion to exclude evidence of bad character and the judge’s power to stop a case where the evidence is contaminated. Procedural rules are also considered, as is the defendant’s right to challenge evidence of bad character.

4. Proof of facts without evidence

Facts in issue and relevant facts are treated as established by the courts only insofar as they are proved by evidence. This chapter discusses three exceptions to this general rule: (i) some facts may be presumed in a party’s favour in the absence of proof or complete proof, including marriage, legitimacy, death, the regular and proper performance of public or official acts, sanity, and negligence; (ii) a fact will be treated as established where the court takes judicial notice of it either (a) without enquiry, in the case of facts that are beyond serious dispute, notorious or of common knowledge or (b) after enquiry (usually political facts, customs, professional practices and historical and geographical facts); and (iii) a fact ceases to be in issue when a party has formally admitted it.