Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
8 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
The corroboration rule |
Must be corroboration of the crucial facts (Smith v Lees) Not all facts are crucial, they are the identify of the perpetrator and each element of the offence definition (Yates v HMA) No conviction unless all crucial facts are proven (Lockwood v Walker) Corroborative evidence is evidence which supports or confirms direct evidence of the witness (Fox v HMA) |
|
|
Special ways of getting corroboration: confessions |
If the accused has confessed to the offence this still requires corroboration; a “sufficient independent check” is required: Meredith v Lees 1992 JC 127A confession by the accused which demonstrates“special knowledge” may be corroborated by proof that this knowledge was true: Manuelv HM Advocate 1958 JC |
|
|
Distress as corroboration in sexual offences |
The complainer’s distress may provide corroboration: Yates v HM Adv Distress must be witnessed: Walker v HM Adv Distress can only corroborate a lack of consent, not the acts that took place: Smith v Lees 1997 JC 73 |
|
|
The Moorov doctrine |
Two or more charges can mutually corroborate each other if closely connected: Moorov v HM Advocate REequires identification evidence for eachcharge: Lindsay v HM Adv |
|
|
The Howden doctrine |
Howden v HM Advocate - holds that even where there is no evidence identifying the accused as having committed one crime, if that crime is sufficiently similar to another which he has been proved (by corroborated evidence) of committing, he may be convicted of both |
|
|
Lawfully/unlawfully obtained evidence |
1. Search with a valid warrant - must be within the scope of the warrant (HM Adv v Turnabll) - accidentally stumbling across incriminating evidence is permitted (HM Adv v Hepper) 2. Search permitted by statute (e.g. Misuse of Drug Act) 3. Search under circumstances of urgency - reason to believe that delay might cause danger to life/property or that evidence might be destroyed (HM Adv v McGuigan) 4. Search by consent - must be cautioned they are not obliged to comply (Davidson v Brown) A confession will beinadmissible where it has been unfairly obtainedBrownv HM Adv Balancing test from Lawrie v Muir used on unlawfully obtained evidence - the interest of the citizen to be protected from irregular invasions of his liberty by authorities vs the interest of the state to secure evidence necessary to enable justice to be done |
|
|
Bad character evidence |
Previous convictions are admissible if they indicate a witness may be untrustworthy and prone to lying (Griffith v HMA) Evidence of the accused's previous convictions cannot be led by the Crown prior to a charge being proved (CPSA ss. 101 and 166) Exceptions in s.266(4) Witnesses must testify to the fact, not venture their opinion (Fraser v HMA) |
|
|
Expert witnesses |
4 important considerations in Kennedy v Cordia Services 1) whether the expert evidence will assist the court in their task 2) whether the expert witness has the necessary knowledge and experience 3) whether the witness is impartial in their presentation and assessment of the evidence 4) whether there is a reliable body of knowledge or experience to underpin the expert's advice |
