Lecture 08 Evidence Analysis I

--- title: 'Lecture 08 Evidence Analysis I' disqus: hackmd --- :::info ST2502 Computer Law & Investigation ::: Lecture 08 Evidence Analysis I === <style> img{ /* border: 2px solid red; */ margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; width: 80%; display: block; } </style> ## Table of Contents [TOC] Introduction --- - evidence - legal means prove/disprove any matter of fact - in both criminal & civil proceedings, rules of evidence must be complied with when drafting affidavits & when adducing oral evidence during trial - governed by provisions of Evidence Act (Cap 97) - must be relevant & admissible ### The Evidence Act - some evidence's prejudicial effect outweigh its believable value - hence many exclusionary rules - Eg. rule against hearsay - However, the evi act is inclusive by nature & sets out all provable facts in terms of its relevancy - however, it does have exceptions to various rules but some may not be admissible - operate somewhat like common law exclusionary rules - party's lawyer must file a __notice of objections__ to contents of affidavits of evidence-in-chief of all witnesses intended to be called - during trial, these objections would be adjudicated (hear/settle by judicial process) upon judge Burden of Proof --- - court decision in very case depend on whether parties satisfied the __burden & standard of proof__ that was imposed by law on him/her - Section 103 of act - whoever asserts must bear burden of proving the facts in issue to support his assertion ### Facts in Issue - __facts in issue__ - facts which plaintiff in civil action/prosecution in any criminal proceedings __must prove to succeed__ together with any further facts that defendant/accused __must prove to establish a credible defense__ ### Legal Burden of Proof - facts in issue sometimes AKA __legal burden of proof__ - in criminal cases, this burden always remain on prosecution in relation to facts in issue throughout trial - they have to prove it - must be distinguished with evidential burden of proof specified under Section 104 of evi act ### Evidential Burden of Proof - prosecution in addition to legal burden of proof, must adduce (cite) sufficient evidence to meet the standard needed to prove the facts in issue - Eg. if prosecution's evidence is "weak", defence may submit that there's "no case to ans" at end of prosec's case - if satisfied, court must acquit/free accused as evidential burden has not been discharged by prosecution Standard of Proof --- ### Standard of Proof - Criminal - in criminal cases, when prosecution required to prove facts in issue (ingredients/elements of crime), he must do so __beyond reasonable doubt__ - if accused relies on any defences/exceptions to liability spelt out in statutes, he must prove them based on __balance of probabilities__ ### Standard of Proof - Civil - in civil cases, plaintiff & defendant must as general rule prove the facts in issue which they assert & any defences they rellied on based on __balance of probabilities__ ### Beyond Reasonable Doubt - need not reach certainty but must carry highe degree of probability - if evidence so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence "of course it's possible, but not in the least possible", the case is beyond reasonable doubt - nothing short of that will suffice ### Balance of probabilities - must carry reasonable degree of probability - but not high as required in criminal case - if evidence is such that a tribunal might say "we think it probable than not", the burden is discharged - but if probabilities are equal, then its not Circumstantial Evidence & Relevant Facts --- - oftenly, direct evidence of facts in issue not available hence parties must rely on proving facts which tend to prove facts in issue - this form of evidence, circumstantial in nature is regarded as __facts relevant to issue__ #### Example - witness made statement at murder trial that he saw accused carrying blood-stained knife at door of apartment where deceased found - prosec invites court to assume that witness is telling the truth & also infer that accused inflicted the mortal wound with his knife ### Relevant Facts - under evidence act, a fact is relevant to another when one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to part 1 of the act - part 1 of act spells out variety of general & specific categories of facts treated to be relevant - general categories covered by section 6 - 11 of act #### Sections - section 6 - facts which form part of the same transaction - section 7 - facts which are occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue - section 8 - facts which show motive, preparation & prev/subsequent conduct - section 9 - facts necessary to explain/introduce relevant facts - section 10 - facts showing things said/done by conspirator in ref to common intention/conspiracy - section 11 - facts which are normally irrelevant becomes relevant when - inconsistent with any facts in issue/relevant fact - by themselves/in connection with other facts they make existence/non-existence of any fact in issue/relevant fact hgihly probable/improbable ### Example/Illustration - accused charged with murdering X by stabbing him in X's home - evidence of passerby that he heard screams at time of murder is relevant under section 6 (part of same transaction) - fact that accused wore shirt stained by X's blood is relevant under section 7 (effect of fact in issue) - fact that accused had heated argument with X shortly before murder relevant under section 9 (explaining the murder) and section 8 (possible motive) Similar Fact Evidence --- - section 14 & 15 of act deals with situations whr accused acts/state of mind on occasions other than present one giving rise to offence charged, will be deemed relevant by virtue of their similarity ot that offence #### Example - A sues B for injuries inflicted by B's dog - the fact that dog had previously bitten X who had lodged a complaint to NEA is relevant fact - such facts are admissible as matter of law but there's judicial discretion granted to exclude its admissibility if its effect is overly prejudicial ### Rule Against Hearsay - under section 62 of evi act requires direct evidence to be given - its provided that witness who gives oral evidence must testify as to what he perceived - NOT permitted to testify to facts in issue/relevant facts perceived by others & recounted to him #### Rationale - witness cannot verify truth of facts which he has no personal knowledge of - as the person who has personal knowledge is not in court, the accuracy of his perception cannot be accessed & tested in cross-examiniation - furthermore, possibility of fabrication increased in situations of hearsay Admissions & Confessions --- ### Admissions - admissions - statement oral/documentary which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue/relevant fact - section 17 of evi act - admissions may be proved against person who made it & can be proved in both civil & criminal cases - section 21 - in criminal cases, admission may constitute a confession ### Confessions - confession - admission by accused person which states/suggest that he committed the offence - section 17(2) - several conditions must be met before confession is admissible #### Issue of Admissibility - conditions that have to be met before confession can be admitted in court - in criminal cases, accused must admit to all elements of offence that constitutes it - Eg. intention & unlawful act - confession/admission must be made voluntarily with no inducement/threat/promise - confession will not be admissible if made to police officer below rank of sergeant Corrobation --- - defined as independent evidence which implciates person accused of crime by connecting him with it - covers evidence which cfms in some material particular not only that crime committed but also accused committed it - essentially concerned with effect/weight of evidence distinct from its admissibility ### Admissibility VS Weight of Evidence - admissibility of evidence (question of law) depends on - concept of relevancy of sufficiently high degree - fact that evidence tendered does not infringe any provisions under evi act - weight of evidence - qns of fact & involves court deciding on value it would place on evidence - this value (AKA probative value) is significant in deciding whether court likely to believe evidence despite it being admissible ### When Accused Lies - when accused lies abt material matter & motive is to evade detection/fabricate defence, evidence of his lie may corrobate other evi against him - court must be cautious not to treat lie as evidence of guilt as it may be innocently motivated - Eg. to buy time for himself - task for court is to determine motive behind the lies - Eg. accused lie in course of events (before chargs brought) so that there will be an opportunity to resolve differences between persons involved - ??? Privilege --- - privilege - exceptional right/immunity given to person/class of persons - in law of evidence, certain matters are protected from disclosure in court on grounds of privilege - matters granted privilege by evi act - marital communications - legal professional privilege - privilege aginst self-incrimination - public interest priv - protecting identity of informers - statement to police in course of investigations - priv of judges & magistrates ###### tags: `CLI` `DISM` `School` `Notes`