Caselaw Flashcards
(16 cards)
What was found in R v Wanhalla?
Reasonable doubt is “an honest and reasonable uncertainty left in your mind about the guilt of the defendant after you have given careful and impartial consideration to all of the evidence
What did the Court hold in R v Burrows?
The party wishing to bring the evidence has the burden of showing the evidence is admissible. It is illogical to require the Crown to show admissibility beyond reasonable doubt because circumstantial facts do not have to be proved to that standard.
Admissibility is essentially a question of law.
R v Hannigan highlighted what?
That the Judge retains control of this process and may decline to admit the evidence even if all parties agree to its admission, or not allow its admission in the form agreed to by the parties
Hart v R
The statute proceeds on the basis that generally speaking evidence is either admissible for all purposes or it is not admissible at all
R v Gwaze
The Supreme Court has made it clear that rules of admissibility, including S 7 and 8, are rules of law and are not matters of discretion.
What was suggested in R v K?
It was suggested that someone’s reputation for veracity is potentially admissible under S37, but the substantial helpfulness threshold will only be met in exceptional cases
What was held in Wi v R?
That it was unlikely that permission will be granted under Section 41(2) when the only propensity evidence offered by the defendant is evidence that he has no relevant previous convictions
The Court in Rei v R clearly laid out the requirements for the admission of propensity evidence under Section 43. The evidence must what?
a) constitute “propensity evidence”
b) have a probative value “in relation to an issue in dispute” and other matters that may be relevant
c) have a probative value that outweighs the risk that the evidence may have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the defendant.
M v R - the Judge must identify what?
The Judge must identify the relevance of the evidence, outline the competing positions of the parties, and warn the jury against illegitimate reasoning processes
What was demonstrated in Rei v R?
The propensity evidence must be specific enough to allow evaluation against the issues at trial (the state of mind or acts)
What did the majority say in Mahomed v R?
The rationale for the admission of propensity evidence rests largely on the concept of linkage and coincidence
What did the court give recognition to in Vulettich in regards to propensity evidence?
That the test must be tailored to the individual case.
What was said in R v Gwaze regarding the definition of “circumstances”
The definition of “circumstances” for the purpose of hearsay evidence makes it clear that the inquiry into reliability must include not only accuracy of the record of what is said and the veracity of the person making the statement but also the nature and its contents, and circumstances relating to the making.
What was held in B v R:
Held that it “necessitates consideration of an amalgam of relevance, reliability and probative value”
What was said in R v Turner relating to opinion?
Before a court can assess the value of an opinion it must know the facts upon which it is based.
Counsel calling an expert should in examination in chief ask his witness to state the facts upon which his opinion is based.
What principles did the Court of Appeal approve in Rv Hutton?
Approved principles similar to those for experts in civil cases.
