intro to evidence Flashcards
(24 cards)
1
Q
nature of a trial
A
- In a criminal trial – the State against the person, in a civil – person vs person. The onus is on the party taking the action to prove their case to the satisfaction of the court.
- The general rule is that questions of law (including evidence rules) are decided by a judge, while questions of fact are decided by the trier of fact, either a judge or jury, depending on the case.
- District Court prosecutions have no juries; a judge decides both fact and law. In civil cases, most actions do not allow jury trials (exceptions include trespass, defamation, and wardship), so the judge decides both law and fact.
- At the end of a jury trial, the judge delivers the Judge’s Charge, giving directions on the law, the law of evidence, and summarising the evidence. The jury may accept or reject the judge’s summary of the evidence but must follow the law as directed. The judge must explain the essential elements of the offence, the burden of proof for each fact in issue, and the required standard of proof.
2
Q
Burden of proof
A
- In civil cases, the burden of proof lies with the party asserting a fact, typically the plaintiff, who must prove the contract, performance, breach, and loss. The defendant must prove any facts beyond simply denying the plaintiff’s case, such as lack of capacity or fraud.
- In criminal cases, the state must prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused does not need to prove their innocence and can remain silent without affecting their right to an acquittal if the state fails to meet its burden. The process focuses on whether the state has proven the accused’s guilt according to the rules of evidence, not on discovering the truth of the allegations.
3
Q
Standard of proof
A
- Miller v Minister for Pensions - Lord Denning defined the standards of proof for criminal and civil cases:
o Criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt): Proof need not be certain, but must carry a high degree of probability. If the evidence strongly suggests guilt, and only a remote possibility of innocence remains, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
o Civil standard (balance of probabilities): Proof requires a reasonable degree of probability, but not as high as in criminal cases. If the evidence makes the case more likely than not, the burden is discharged. If the probabilities are equal, the case is not proven.
4
Q
Evidential burden
A
- The burden borne by all parties when attempting to rely on certain evidence. The parties must satisfy the judge that there is sufficient evidence as to permit a party to have an issue left to the tier of fact (prima facie case)
- In R v Galbraith, Lord Lane C.J. stated:
1) If there is no evidence that the defendant committed the crime, the judge must stop the case.
2) If there is some but tenuous evidence (due to weaknesses, vagueness, or inconsistency), the judge must:
a) Stop the case if, even taken at its highest, a jury could not properly convict;
b) Let the case go to the jury if the evidence’s strength depends on the witness’s reliability or similar matters within the jury’s domain.
o Borderline cases are left to the judge’s discretion.
5
Q
Oral evidence
A
- Oral evidence is given by witnesses on oath in court. All competent witnesses can be compelled to testify and must answer questions or risk contempt of court and possible imprisonment. Witnesses first give evidence for their own side, then are cross-examined. They may only testify to facts within their personal knowledge; only expert witnesses can give opinions.
6
Q
Affidavit evidence
A
- Civil proceeding
- Affidavit is a written document by a witness who after having written the contents of the affidavit then swears upon it as being true.
7
Q
Documentary evidence
A
- Documentary evidence refers to the content of documents, not just their physical existence. It includes legible information, computer records, video, audio, etc. Generally, primary evidence (originals) must be produced, but judges have discretion to accept copies if the original cannot be produced through no fault of the party.
- In criminal cases, Section 5 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 allows documentary evidence if compiled in the ordinary course of business by someone with personal knowledge.
- Section 30 of the Criminal Evidence Act allows copies (secondary evidence) to be admissible.
- Carey v Hussey – the court upheld the use of a photocopy of a safety order in a domestic violence case. Kearns J. held that s.30 gives judges wide discretion to accept copies, with authentication left to the judge’s judgment. The District Judge was entitled to accept the photocopy as proof of the order.
8
Q
Real evidence
A
- Refers to items of evidence that may be presented to the court and are objectively capable of being seen and examined by it. It is not limited to physical objects; it also includes evidence from the court’s own observations and inferences, such as assessments of a witness’s credibility and demeanour, voice intonations on recordings, or the accused’s appearance compared to prior descriptions.
9
Q
Circumstantial evidence
A
- Circumstantial evidence is any fact from which a judge or jury can infer a fact in issue. For example, in People (DPP) v Lafferty, a witness saw the accused with a bloodstained knife at the door of the house where the deceased was found mortally wounded.
10
Q
Relevance
A
- People (DPP) v Shortt (No.1) – ‘all evidence must be relevant to matter in issue as the first condition of admissibility. There are exceptions to the admissibility of relevant evidence, but irrelevant evidence is never admissible’
- It is the trial judge who determines the relevance of evidence and in doing so, the starting point is logic.
- AG v O’Brien – evidence is relevant “if it is logically probative”.
- DPP v Kilbourne – evidence is relevant “if it is logically probative or disprobative of some matter which requires proof…evidence which makes the matter which requires proof more or less probable”.
- People (AG) v O’Neill – relevance as to the fact that the accused consumed alcohol was held to be irrelevant because the prosecution was not suggesting that the accused’s driving had been affected by alcohol. However, the court held that the fact that the evidence helped them trace the moves of the accused was relevant.
- Sometimes, logic alone is not enough, and common sense is needed. In R v Kearley, police found drugs in the accused’s flat and overheard calls and visits from people asking for drugs. However, the HoL ruled that this evidence was irrelevant, as it only showed the callers’ beliefs, not the defendant’s intent to supply, which was the key issue at trial.
o The minority agreed that the calls were irrelevant if used merely to show the callers’ beliefs. However, they argued that the large number of calls and visitors suggested the defendant had established a drug market and was attracting customers. This, they believed, provided evidence that a jury could use to infer the defendant’s intent to supply drugs. - The majority decision in Kearley can be contrasted with the more ‘common sense’ approach in People (DPP) v Timmons. In this case, the Gardaí found two mobile phones belonging to the accused with text messages asking for drugs. Despite the accused raising a defence of ‘innocent association’ and denying knowledge of the drugs, the CoA ruled that the texts were relevant evidence.
- People (DPP) v O’Callaghan it was stated that: “circumstances may arise in the course of a trial in which evidence of the nature in question here, or any prima facie irrelevant evidence, might become relevant”
11
Q
The Woolmington principle
A
- Woolmington v DPP – the accused was charged with killing his wife. The trial judge initially ruled that once the prosecution proved the accused fired the shot, the onus shifted to him to prove it was an accident.
o This was overruled by the HoL – the prosecution has the duty to prove the accused’s guilt. He stated: “Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt… If there is a reasonable doubt about the accused’s intention, the prosecution has not made out its case, and the accused is entitled to an acquittal.” - McGowan v Carville – the rule in Woolmington was: ‘a cardinal principle of the administration of the criminal law in this country, which has often been stated, and cannot be too often re-stated, that there is no onus on a person charged with an offence to prove his innocence, the onus at all times being on the State to prove his guilt.’
- O’Leary v AG – Costello J stated: “I have little difficulty in construing the Constitution as conferring on every accused in every criminal trial a constitutionally protected right to the presumption of innocence. Although the Constitution does not expressly mention the presumption, Article 38.1 states that ‘no person shall be tried on any criminal charge save in due course of law.’ It has long been a fundamental principle of criminal trials in this country that the accused is presumed innocent. A trial conducted otherwise would, prima facie, not be held in due course of law.”
12
Q
Exceptions to the Woolmington principle
A
- In O’Leary, the SC upheld the presumption of innocence but ruled that it is not absolute. The right may be limited if justifiable and proportionate.
- There are three exceptions to the Woolmington principle, where the prosecution is not required to prove every fact, and the legal burden is placed on the accused:
13
Q
- Insanity
A
- M’Naghten’s Case – the court ruled: “To establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the accused was suffering from a defect of reason, due to disease of the mind, such that they did not know the nature and quality of the act they were doing; or, if they did know it, they did not know it was wrong.”
14
Q
- Statutory exceptions
A
- section 15(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977
- section 18(2) of the School Attendance Act 1926
- DPP v Best – justified this shift in the burden of proof, emphasizing the common good and the child’s right to a minimum education, noting that this was within the parents’ special knowledge.
- Sections 18 and 19 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 (as amended)
- Section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996
- Sections 2 and 5 of the Offences against the State Amendment Act, 1998:
- Section 52 of the Offences against the State Act, 1939
- Section 100(2) of the Company Law Enforcement Act, 2001
- Section 81 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005
15
Q
Reverse burden and the ECHR
A
- Article 6(2) ECHR guarantees the presumption of innocence for anyone charged with a criminal offence until proven guilty by law.
- Regina v Lambert – HoL addressed the compatibility of reverse onus provisions with the European Convention. The appellant, convicted of drug possession under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, was required to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he did not know the bag contained a controlled drug. He argued that this violated Article 6 ECHR.
o The majority of HoL found that the provision could be read as imposing an evidential burden, not a legal one, ensuring compatibility with the Convention. However, the House commented that imposing a legal burden was “disproportionate” in drug cases.
16
Q
Peculiar knowledge principle
A
- Stephen’s Digest of the Law of Evidence (9th ed.): The burden of proof can shift during a case, depending on the evidence presented and the parties’ knowledge. Courts consider each party’s access to knowledge about the facts in question.
- Minister for Industry and Commerce v. Steele – a case involving a butcher, the Supreme Court applied the “peculiar knowledge” principle, requiring the accused to prove the pork content of sausages. His failure to do so led to an inference of guilt.
- R. v. Edwards – the court explained that the common law has developed an exception to the rule that the prosecution must prove every element of the offence. This exception applies to offences under laws that prohibit certain actions unless specified conditions are met, such as the person having a license or meeting certain qualifications. In such cases, the prosecution can rely on the exception, depending on the construction of the relevant enactment.
- McGowan v. Carville – the accused was charged with driving without a licence. The District Judge dismissed the complaint, ruling that the complainant had to prove the accused did not have a licence. This decision was upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court.
- In Attorney General v. Shorten, Davitt P expressed concerns about applying the “peculiar knowledge” principle in criminal cases, feeling it undermined the presumption of innocence.
17
Q
Presumptions
A
- Presumptions shift evidence, not the burden of proof. Once a fact is proved, another is presumed. If rebuttable, the other party must provide evidence to challenge it. Presumptions can be legal or factual.
18
Q
Res ipsa loquitur (The Thing Speaks For Itself)
A
- The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof in negligence cases. If the damage is caused by something under the defendant’s control and the accident wouldn’t normally happen, the defendant must prove it wasn’t due to their lack of care. For example, if a car mounts a footpath, it’s presumed to be due to the driver’s negligence.
19
Q
Presumption of accidental death
A
- Harvey v Ocean Accident Guarantee Corporation – Holmes L.J. discussed the presumption of innocence in civil cases. He stated that the death could only be reasonably explained as either accidental or intentional, with an innocent cause being presumed over a potential crime. This illustrates how the presumption against crime applies in civil actions as well.
20
Q
Presumption of death if missing for 7 years
A
- Re Bonis Doherty – If a person has been missing for seven years, and no one who would typically have heard from them during that time has done so, and all reasonable inquiries have been made with no results, the person will be presumed to be dead.
21
Q
Presumption of intestacy
A
- In Re Webb’s Estate and Re Bonis Doherty, it was established that when a person has been missing for seven years and there is no evidence of their death or their intentions, there is a presumption that they died intestate (without a will) and without issue (children).
22
Q
Presumption of Marriage
A
- The presumption of marriage includes three points: that all formal requirements were met if a marriage was intended, that the parties had legal capacity to marry, and that cohabitation and social recognition as man and wife imply a valid marriage, as seen in Mulhern v Clery
23
Q
Omnia Praesemuntur rite esse acta (presumption of validity of a purportedly official act)
A
- Martin v Quinn – accused was charged with failing to provide a urine sample to a medical practitioner. The accused argued that the doctor requesting the sample was not a valid medical practitioner. The court held that, as the individual was performing an official act, there was a presumption of valid appointment, and the accused had to provide prima facie evidence to challenge this presumption.
24
Q
Non - Rebuttable Presumptions
A
- An example of a non-rebuttable presumption of law is found in Section 41 of the Road Act 1961, which states that a certificate of blood alcohol content from a doctor is conclusive evidence of the alcohol content in the accused’s blood. This presumption is not rebuttable; once the certificate is introduced, it is automatically accepted as accurate and treated as a fact.
