Unlock Success with our Vibrant Criminal Litigation Mind Maps!
Are you ready to conquer your Bar Practice Course with flying colours? Look no further! These meticulously crafted mind maps are your secret weapon for acing criminal litigation, and they contain all the essential syllabus areas you ...
Presumption of Bail (s.4 BA)
Applies all the time inc. where sentencing in mag after summary trial, during 3.1 BAIL
adj e.g. for PSR: apart from: Remand - in custody/bail Offences with PARTICULAR
appealing conviction/sentence CHARACTERISTICS
when Mag convict & commit for sentence to CC.
bop - D GROUNDS FOR OBJECTING BAIL
If D INDICATES G plea in EWO before Mag at 1st hearing (e.g. in allocation)
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
& is then to be committed to CC - IF D was on bail before pbv - bail likely to
be granted (unless reasons otherwise below).
D charged w/ offence against family (associated
person)
GROUNDS WITH SERIOUS
CORE GROUNDS (C3) IMPRISONABLE OFFENCE:
OFFENCES
D NEED NOT be granted bail if there at SGFB that
TECHNICAL GROUNDS (Grounds in addition to C3)
SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS FOR this would lead to D to engage in conduct likely to
BELIEVING (SGFB): lead physical/mental injury to associated person.
Court NEED NOT grant bail where:
A. PRE-CON FOR SERIOUS OFFENCE Likely to (more lenient than C3 (D Would).
SGFB (Low, some possibility):
FTS IF D: NON IMPRISONABLE/NRPCS
CFO D ALREADY serving time in Only where D is arrested for FTS/Breach of bail
CUSTODY for another 1. Charged with MURDER, AT MURDER, under s.7
IWW
offence RAPE, SERIOUS SEXUAL OFFENCE; AND
2. Has PRE-CON for any of the above ABUSE OF CLASS A DRUGS
HOWEVER - wont apply if no real
prospect of custodial sentence D only given bail if EXCEPTIONAL Where D:
(NRPCS). D was ON BAIL (for another offence) at CIRCUMSTANCES justify. 1. Has Class A in body; AND
time of offence/breach of bail: 2. Offence relates to Class A drugs/caused
Core Grounds with MINOR offences B. MURDER or motivated by Ds dependency.
1. For indictable offence without more
2. For summary imprisonable offence - (if pre-con for serious offence - see above) Bail may only be granted where NO
Can ALWAYS rely on C3 for
IF SGFB that D will CFO SIGNIFICANT RISK that would lead to CFO
INDICTABLE.
D ONLY given bail where NO SIGNIFICANT (reverses presumption of CFO Core 3
IMPRISONABLE summary only RISK of D causing an offence LIKELY to lead
BOTH SUBJECT TO NRPCS Ground.
(incl Criminal damage <5k) to physical/mental injury (reverses
presumption)
P CANNOT object Bail on C3 at first D should be kept in custody FOR OWN Summary of grounds available for:
hearing UNLESS: PROTECTION (e.g sex offences against ONLY CC can grant bail. MG MUST commit
1. D granted bail for relevant children) to CC in custody.
Imprisonable Non-imprisonable
offence & breaches OR
2. IF D convicted for FTS on ANY C. OFFENCES WITH LIFE IMPRISONMENT
Summary Only Summary Only
previous offence.
Insufficient time/details If D was either: CFO/FTS/IWW IF
CFO/FTS/IWW IF EITHER:
EITHER:
NON IMPRISONABLE SUMMARY to make proper evaluation (only 1. Already on bail when offence committed
justifies short period in custody). - THIS 1. Previous conv for FTS
P can only rely on C3 if: and/or 1. Previous conv for
DOES NOT APPLY TO NON- 2. FTS for current offence having previously
or breach of bail re
FTS OR
IMPRISONABLE OFFENCES. been granted bail current offence; AND
1. D has already been convicted 2. Breach of bail re
2. CONVICTED in current
in CURRENT proceedings current offence
APPLY TO ALL (indict & summary only) Bail ONLY granted where NO SIGNIFICANT proceedings
(later stage) OR D is under 18 offences EXCEPT (4) - DOES NOT apply RISK that bail would lead to either:
(doesn't need to have been D's own protection
with non-imprisonable offences. 1. CFO OR D's own protection
convicted); AND 2. FTS
Insufficient time/info
D already in cusotdy
2. then breaches/fails to show D already in custody
DV
for relevant offence or has This changes the standard of proof for the DV
pre con for FTS. first two Core 3.
, XIC 13.1 The Rules Relating To The Examination Of Witnesses
Content of Q - Only RELEVANT evidence where no exclusionary rule
XX
Form of Q - Non-Leading Q EXCEPT:
Formal introductory matters RE - X P - D, D- Co-D
Facts not disputed Objectives
Allowed at judges discretion in interest of justice Elicit evidence supporting case of opposing party W
Confined to Undermine accuracy of W evidence
Hostile W
NEW matters Impeach W's credibility
Leading Q - Significantly reduced in weight
which arose
Content
HOSTILE W during XX
Admissible evidence re either
With leave of judge - put previous inconsistent (oral/written) statements to Even where P a. Fact in issue (NOT limited to facts mentioned in EIC) OR
W to prove truth. - IF proved WS was made by W - Can be XX did not b. Collateral matters of Ws credibility (e.g. lack of independence, s 100
Ask leading Q originally XIC W CJA, Non-bad character.
(only tendered Re (a) > If opposing counsel fails to PUT CASE - i.e. elements of
Counsel - to make app for leave as soon as hostility apparent - IN PRESENCE offence/defence - they are taken to have tacitly accepted the issue - CANNOT
to D for XX) - P invite a jury to disbelieve during closing speech.
of jury. Judges discretion.
entitled to RE-X
Not enough for W to just be unfavourable (i.e. give adverse evidence) -
MUST be HOSTILE (e.g. refuse to answer Q) W. Re (b) > Once W gives consistent answer on issue re credibility - NO MORE
Qs/evidence should be put to contradict this - up to jury to believe.
Counsel should call another W to contradict unfavourable W and cannot
Collateral matter re credibility must have a connection to the issues so as
attack W1 credibility - then matter for jury who to believe.
to be relevant/admissible
Court has power to ask Q (D) Previous Consistent Statement
HOWEVER - where evidence goes to something other than credibility -
CAN still be basis for further questioning.
Common law rule: NOT admissible as
PREVIOUS (WITNESS) STATEMENTS evidence (inc. evidence of reliability of
Form
W)
Leading
Judge can limit robust questions where done unnecessarily, oppressively or
Exceptions:
(A) S9: Can be improperly. Can also limit the time for Q:
read in full - Entitled/obliged to impose re repetitious questioning
Statement made as an immediate
agreed content Not the duty of counsel to put every point of a case to W - focus on
reaction to crime being committed
important
Statement made by D immediately
Entitlement to fair trial (right to xx) is not inconsistent with judicial control
(B) Memory Refresh on accusation by police in.c mixed
over the use of court rime - CA only interfere when clear that time limit
statements. - ONLY evidence of
resulted in unfairness.
(C) Previous reaction, not evidence of
1. Previous statement which
Inconsistent FACTS/truth of its content.
2. Offers significantly better recollection D can XX W - EXCEPT
Statement 'Recent COMPLAINTS' by V of
1. V - sexual offence
relevant offence - the quicker
Make oral app to judge during XIC/judge's own 2. Other 'Protected W' with specified offences; OR
Where W admits someone complains - more truth to
initiation. 3. General discretion on court where:
previously made an allegation
inconsistent W accused of lying about/recent
W MUST have either MADE statement or MUST a. Quality of evidence given by W would be diminished AND consider
statement - the fabrication of fact (rather than lying
have verified the content of document made by Views expressed by W
statement IS throughout) - can rely on previous
someone else (e.g. police) Nature of Qs likely to be asked
ADMISSIBLE as consistent statement to rebut the
Both during XIC & Re-X Ds behaviour
evidence of a matter alleged fabrication & prove what
Can memory refresh from ANY document in Relationship between D & W
stated if it relates to was said was true
which recollection recorded; inc. police note of
evidence W could b. NOT contrary to Interest of Justice
what W said. Judge should direct jury that previous
give orally (s119 Court MUST invite D to appoint counsel or appoint on his behalf a legal
W can review ws any point pre-entering box but statement NOT made by independent
CJA) rep to XX on Ds behalf.
cannot be compared with other W statement/no source - but by person that is now a W.
Should warn jury not to make inferences from D being prevented from
discussion between W pre-evidence - Could lead Failure to direct is NOT grounds for an
conducting XX
to judge to refuse to leave evidence to jury. appeal.
Same rules re previous CONSISTENT & INCONSISTENT statements.
, Does its 14.1 HEARSAY IS IT HEARSAY?
evidential value Out of court statement adduced for the truth of its content
depend on the ‘STATEMENT’: s115(2):
statement being ‘Any representation of fact or opinion
true? - YES? - made by a person by whatever means; Out of Court statement? Not made by a
Hearsay problem and it includes a representation in a (s115) person
arises. sketch, photofit or other pictorial form.’ or
physical quality
General Rule: 'Communications made by machines
relevant
Hearsay = e.g. CCTV - NOT HEARSAY (so they
INADMISSIBLE as are subject to normal rules of
admissibility - MUST be human input
evidence of any
REAL
Can include statement by conduct, Made by a person?
matter stated -
statement in other proceedings,
s114 - IF BUT
IMPLIED statements.
ONLY IF -
Questions generally NOT hearsay as
subject to ORIGINAL EVIDENCE: not relied on for truth of its content; but rather just to
not a statement.
exceptions shown
that content existed in fact (words spoken) – i.e.
below: Not intended that
intended at time of
someone believes/acts Threats alleged to form the basis of his defence of duress – don’t need to
making that someone believe the truth of the threats, just that they were made
Evidence may be as though believes Woodhouse v Hall [1980]: related to offence of D managing a brothel. CPS
believes/acts as though
hearsay for one sought to admit a statement by someone at the brothel offering sexual
purpose but not believes services for money. The CPS did not need to rely on the TRUTH of this
statement (i.e. whether the services would actually be given); the offer was
for another enough.
Repetition of a fact Where P trying to admit evidence of D LYING, unlikely to be hearsay. Want to
show D said something (which other evidence reveals is not true); D has not
already
know/common Relied on at court for some ORIGINAL made a statement of the matter sought to be proved by P (i.e. D didn’t try to
prove to people that he was lying).
Police officer’s account of what saw on the CCTV, so long as just an account
understanding by Relied on at court for truth other reason (rather than personal opinions).
the recipient is of contents (s114) e.g. shows a lie, shows state Admitting evidence of D giving no comment in interview.
Lydon – existence of some writing found at the scene of the crime (‘Sean
NOT a statement of mind rules’). Not relied on for truth of content (i.e. that Sean does rule) but simply
intending them to to show writing with D’s name was found at scene in fact.
believe something.
s.114(1) : In criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral
Conversational ‘MATTER STATED’: s115(3): evidence in the proceedings is admissible as evidence of any
Hearsay
settings will often ‘A matter stated is one to which the chapter
fall down here.
matter stated if, but only if…
applies if (and only if) the purpose, or one
Statements in a of the purposes, of the person making the
diary DO NOT statement appears to the court to have 1. Any provision of this chapter of any other statutory provision
been… makes it admissible (e.g. ss.116, 117, 119, 120, 127)
INTEND to cause
1. To cause another person to believe the
another to believe 2. Any rule of law preserved by s. 118 makes it admissible,
only admissible matter, or
if only meant for 2. To cause another person to act or a
3. All the parties agree to it being admissible, or
through gateways
private/personal machine to operate on the basis that 4. The court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to
ss114(1)(a)-(d)
use. the matter is as stated.’ be admissible.
, 15.3 Character Evidence
DONE IT BEFORE
CONTEXT
Evidence which is RELEVANT to an IMPORTANT
Leave of
Evidence constitutes: court
MATTER IN ISSUE between P & D
Important matter = matter of SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE to case as whole.
REQUIRED No requirement as to strength of evidence/its probative value
IMPORTANT EXPLANATORY Matter in issue = e.g. that D alleged to have said something in current offence, that said as
part of previous offence
EVIDENCE Includes (but not limited to) issues of PROPENSITY i.e.
Evidence that: (A) Propensity to
be UNTRUTHFUL (B) Propensity to
(1) Without it - court/jury would find it
IMPOSSIBLE or DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND
Only where
untruthfulness is
OR commit SIMILAR
other evidence in the case
OFFENCES
in issue (5) Would evidence have
(1) Is there any dispute re whether D does
Consider: an adverse effect on
AND E.g. steal from shop = indeed have previous convictions? - Voir
dishonest, but not per dire - fairness of proceedings,
se untruthful such that the court
(2) Value for understanding case as a whole Untruthfulness relates Conviction may be proved by PNC or
ought not to admit it
certificate from court where conviction took
is substantial to statements people
place and evidence that person name in (s101(3))
make (e.g. pre-con re
certificate is D (e.g. charge sheet,
fraud, pleading NG E.g. P relying heavily on BC
Leave of court REQUIRED then convicted, lying
indictments)
This creates a rebuttable presumption that D in otherwise weak case.
in interview) committed the offence Similar to s.78 PACE - also
E.g. D charged with selling drugs in PRISON - Legal burden then on D to prove on balance ONLY applies to P evidence
of probabilities that he is NOT the person to However - s101(3) is
jury would need to know D was in prison in STRONGER - if the test is
whom the conviction relate
the first place. met - the court MUST not
OR - to show previous relationship between admit rather than MAY not
(2) Do D's pre-cons establish propensity to admit.
two people.
commit offences of the KIND charged?
(3) Does that
Be careful to keep separate: (4) Would it be
Either same offence or same categories of (a) propensity make it
1. Evidence which has to do with current THEFT or (b) SEXUAL offences, or similar UNJUST to rely on
more likely that D
offence (NOT bad character); feature (e.g. comparable incidents of violence). pre-cons
committed offence
2. Important explanatory evidence (e.g. No min no. of pre-cons = propensity, but the
charged with? e.g. because
previous relationship); and more pre-cons D has the stronger case for BC
3. Propensity for this type of offence (ss. Generally - need more than 1 offence - old/facts are
Judge will answer this for very dissimilar to
(d)). HOWEVER - single conviction showing
the purpose of BC and offence charged
propensity to UNUSUAL conduct may suffice.
will then be a question (s103(3))
for tribunal of fact
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller SamanthaTurner. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $69.62. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
