• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/16

Click to flip

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;

16 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

what is a confession

a statement against interest by the accused

hearsay

what said by any person outside of the court

Harley v Hm Adv

confessions presumed to be true

basic test of admissibility

Brown v HM Adv if unfairly obtained, inadmissible

fairness to public and accused case

MilN v Cullen

Unfairness 1 the lack of a caution

depends on stage

when do you need caution

Tonge v Hm Adv


need to do before charge,


when suspect yes but test is till fairness

Unfairness 2 when is unfairly obtained

lack of access to legal advice Art 6 requires it


Ambrose v Harris




manner of questioning


bullying, Lord adv reference 1984




intoxication other impairment


Thomson v Hm Adv, but if it appears he understands what he is saying




physical condition


Malory v Machines not fully awake

contd

suspects age


Cardona v Hm Adv




language difficulties


Hm adv v Ollson

3 Eavesdropping by Police

if intentionally place together, inadmissible


HM ADV V higgins

Jamison v Annan

generally admissible overheard saying he did it

required by statute to answer a question

LIEK ROAD TRAFIICA CT, WHO WAS DRIVING AT THE TIME






can still be unfairly obtained Styr v Hm aDV

mixed statements

statement by accused outside of court with both incriminating and exculpatory

case on this

McCUTCHEON V hm Adv sets out main rules

main tules





general rule hearsay not admissible




thus if relied on, only for purpose of showing say attitude




however if crown leads evidence on incriminating, defence can lead evidence





determining admissibility

thompson v crowe, up to court balance