Importance Of Am I Not To Hear The Evidence
Objecting Counsel: “No, Your Lordship is to hear the evidence. ”
Evidence law is a mixture of principles, rules, guidelines and discretions. Jeremy Bentham legal theorist, stated it thus; ‘The field of evidence is no other than the field of knowledge’. The law of evidence is a critical subject for any lawyer or indeed party to a proceedings, who is concerned with investigation or the conduct of trials. The law of evidence is essentially about, the facts or materials that, are admissible to prove something that is in dispute.
The John Figgis exercise took a theoretically erudite, but real-world look at how facts that, may establish evidence are employed to substantiate certain results in a law settings. …show more content…
May Wigmorean charting is the answer, though the practicalities of training jury member on the method is not lost on me. Despite the benefits, this method does not accord with my preferred way of learning and so, I doubt I would use this process again, unless of course I absolutely had to.
In terms of the narrative method, this is much more in keeping with the method of case analysis, I have become used to during my law studies and is one I find much more natural. A disadvantage of the narrative approach is the problem of a good story being chosen over a true story . I do recognise the difficulty of making objective valuations of evidence using the narrative method as clearly, when faced with the multiplicity of ‘players’ in any given scenario, it is almost impossible to find a single objective …show more content…
I recall when I read McLoughlin v O’Brien , that, my eyes, pricked with tears and that, by the time I had read the facts, I knew (almost instinctively) what the outcome should be; and whilst I lacked the level and quality of legal reasoning employed by Lord Scarman and his colleagues, I did nonetheless arrive at the same outcome, notwithstanding the prevailing case law. I have support in Phillip Brooks who argues that, ‘law needs narrative