Part 6 - Foundation of Evidence Law Flashcards
(5 cards)
Cadder v HM Advocate
Punched.
Admissibility and rights.
Cadder was accused of assault. Victim claimed Cadder assaulted him which he admitted to saying it was ‘self-defence’ which was enough to incriminate him. He made several incriminating statements. Cadder argued these were inadmissible as he wasn’t told about his right to have a lawyer. Evidence given without a lawyer is still admissible and it is not a requirement to have one however the accused must be informed about right to lawyer.
Moorov v HM Advocate
Sex offender/employer.
“Moorov doctrine” - underlying unity of purpose; similar in time, character and circumstance: provide mutual corroboration.
Would advertise for women to work for him. It would then be just them alone and he would assault them. There was no corroborating evidence of each incident so incidents to corroborate each other so he could be charged.
Lord Advocates Reference
Into flat for lager.
Corroboration as supporting evidence.
(Decision of 7 judges) Victims boyfriend was there and as soon as he left she claimed the accused raped her. 3 people testified that she ran out of the flat incredibly distressed. Distress can corroborate that something unpleasant happened but cannot say what. Accused claimed no physical contact or sex. Therefore, the evidence could not corroborate non-consensual sex.
HM Advocate v PG and JM
Corroboration of perpetrators identification.
Gubinas v HM Advocate
Video of sexual assault.
Jury can make up own mind about video evidence.
Complainer claimed that sexual assault was shown in video. The court said the jury have eyes and ears and can determine whether it is consensual. However, arguments around whether that is the jury’s job.
