Jump to content

Level of proof?

Recommended Posts

Nope, neither of those statements are true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyclone,

Just explain please your view.

If a defendant or a witness  has got  ‘form’ for previous convictions involving ‘lying’  eg obtain by deception,perjury, fraud offences etc, either CPS or the Defence can make an application to get them. ‘in’  as evidence of bad character in a Trial.

Also both Pros Witnesses and Defence witnesses are able to  get ‘in’ at a Trial the fact that they are of previous good character if it’s  true. It’s  often persuasive to a jury in regard to their testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting post. I have often wondered how a person accused of a crime, Savile for instance,  can be found guilty of crimes  committed 40/50 years ago when the only evidence is the word of the alleged victim.  

 

Angel1.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Interesting post. I have often wondered how a person accused of a crime, Savile for instance,  can be found guilty of crimes  committed 40/50 years ago when the only evidence is the word of the alleged victim.  

Angel1.

1

I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying, but you have picked a bad example. Maybe someone like Paul Gambaccini, who was accused of historical sexual offences, but cleared years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Interesting post. I have often wondered how a person accused of a crime, Savile for instance,  can be found guilty of crimes  committed 40/50 years ago when the only evidence is the word of the alleged victim.  

Firstly Saville wasn't convicted as he died before any legal action could be taken.

 

Secondly, it was the testimony of his many victims that was compelling.

1 hour ago, El Cid said:

I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying, but you have picked a bad example. Maybe someone like Paul Gambaccini, who was accused of historical sexual offences, but cleared years later.

Paul Gambaccini was never charged with anything therefore had no need to be cleared. He was questioned, released and a year later the police informed him that there would be no charges. It is this case which changed the proceedure to set a time limit for charges to be brought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

 It is this case which changed the proceedure to set a time limit for charges to be brought.

There’s still  no time limit for ‘either way’ offences to be charged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 25/01/2019 at 23:55, Ontarian1981 said:

 Unless there is a court judgement proving  perjury against someone , a reputation for lying would be considered hearsay and would be inadmissible in a court of law, as would saying his opponent was of good character.

Hearsay evidence can be admitted in certain circumstances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mossway said:

There’s still  no time limit for ‘either way’ offences to be charged.

What is an 'either way' offence?

 

Since April 2017 there is a pre-charge bail limit of 28 days for police to complete their enquiries and make a charging decision.

21 minutes ago, Sheffield87 said:

Hearsay evidence can be admitted in certain circumstances. 

Only when both prosecution and defence agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. An either way offence is any offence that can be tried in the Mags Court or the Crown Ct.

What I should have said is that there’s no time limit on either way OR Indictable Only, ie offences which can only be tried in Crown Ct.

2. Whether there’s a bail time limit or not, (I’m not sure) but it’s irrevelant if any suspect is interviewed and then released RUI (released under investigation) because he/she’s then not on bail and can subsequently be charged/rearrested etc subject to certain safeguards.

3. No,

Hearsay is always admitted if both parties agree as you say.

.It’s when they don’t, one party has to make an application to get it admitted by making an application in advance of the Trial. It’s the Court which then decides. Some hearsay seems to be admitted almost automatically, for instance 999 calls because there’s case law on it.

Edited by Mossway
Verbiage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/01/2019 at 21:02, Mossway said:

Cyclone,

Just explain please your view.

If a defendant or a witness  has got  ‘form’ for previous convictions involving ‘lying’  eg obtain by deception,perjury, fraud offences etc, either CPS or the Defence can make an application to get them. ‘in’  as evidence of bad character in a Trial.

Also both Pros Witnesses and Defence witnesses are able to  get ‘in’ at a Trial the fact that they are of previous good character if it’s  true. It’s  often persuasive to a jury in regard to their testimony.

Previous convictions are actually harder to use as evidence than general character statements since they're considered to be prejudicial.

Character statements though, or evidence of behaviour (not previous convictions) are often used to establish, well, patterns of behaviour.  It's evidence of how the defendant behaves in general, and may sway a jury to perhaps give less weight to the defendant's testimony if they are demonstrated to be a habitual liar and fantasist.  And likewise for the accuser, or vice/versa, if patterns of behaviour and character are established to be habitually law abiding and honest.

Hearsay is not the same as evidence to show patterns of behaviour or character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Previous convictions are actually harder to use as evidence than general character statements since they're considered to be prejudicial.

Many defendants are aquitted simply by lying through their teeth in court. 

 

An MG 16 Bad Character Evidence File makes it much more difficult for a defendant to tell a court that they would never dream of doing whatever they were accused of when the prosecution can simply say "Yes but you were convicted of this very offence six months ago in this same court!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Many defendants are aquitted simply by lying through their teeth in court. 

 

An MG 16 Bad Character Evidence File makes it much more difficult for a defendant to tell a court that they would never dream of doing whatever they were accused of when the prosecution can simply say "Yes but you were convicted of this very offence six months ago in this same court!"

Fair enough, that's a higher level of knowledge than I have and I shall take your word for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.