Short Questions Flashcards Preview

Law Y4 S2 > Short Questions > Flashcards

Flashcards in Short Questions Deck (20)
Loading flashcards...

Question 1 - documentary evidence definition?

- Documentary evidence is evidence of a content within a document.
- E.g. Certificates, incident reports and call logs.
- It may also information of the description of any description which is recorded such as video recording and photography.


Question 1 - documentary evidence examples

- An example of documentary evidence is when an incident report was presented to the court stating that Donal had been involved in a fight on the yard.
- It was an incident he was involved in on the 10th of February during lunch time.
- It was a hand written official report which was the property of the school.


Question 2 - testimonial evidence - definition

- Testimonial evidence is any evidence given by a witness under oath or affirmation.
- It can be given either verbally or written.


Question 2 - testimonial evidence - example

- Donal's mother gave both oral and written evidence on the bruising on Donal's back.
- This bruising was claimed to be done by Mr Spanky.
- During cross examination the defence questioned Donal's mother about not bringing her to the doctor sooner. As she waited 3 days before consulting a doctor. Mrs Vikktimm stated that the doctor was not open during the weekend but the defence side objected to this.
- This is the type of evidence which a jury and judge hear from a witness by direct and cross examination under oath.


Question 3 - real evidence - definition.

Real evidence is anything which can be observed by the 5 senses - sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell.


Question 3 - real evidence - example

- During the mock trial Donal's jumper was introduced as evidence to prove that mr sparky ripped his jumper while pulling him back into the room.
- This is known as real evidence as you can see it and touch is during a trial.
- Another example of real evidence in the mock trial was photographic evidence of Donal's bruising which were deemed as being from Mr Spanky.
- This evidence showed that Mr Spanky was guilty of assaulting Donal but not Robbie.


Question 4 - relevence - definition.

- Evidence must be relent to be brought before the court.
- Therefore they are deemed to be facts of the issue.
- They are also facts of dispute and they must be proved in order to succeed in a claim of the court.


Question 4 - relevance - example

- the prosecution side brought forward evidence of a list of teachers on yard duty for the week in question.
- this was relevant to show which teachers were on duty in order to back up Donal's story.
- however, it was dismissed as other than Mr Spanky and the other teacher in question. The other teacher listed on the rota was not there to give evidence


Question 5 - admissibility - definition

- Admissibility is when evidence can be seen as property received by the court as a matter of law.
- It is decided by a judge but not by the jury because it is a matter of law apposed to fact.
- irrelevant information is never admissible.


Question 5 - admissibility - example

- During the mock trial the prosecution brought evidence of an attendance list with the names of all the children attending the training practice.
- This proved that Robbie was there in fact on the day in question
- The prosecution side introduced video evidence which tried to show Mr Spanky pulling Donal back into the classroom.
- however we did not have an Afridavit so it was inadmissible.


Question 6 - weight - definitions

- This is where trials are won or lost. It is a measure of the probative force of the court evidence.
- It is a question of fact and therefore it is decided by the jury in a jury trial (during deliberation in the absence of the judge)


Question 6 - weight - example

- during the mock trial the prosecution were confused on the gender of the teacher.
- The first witness Donal took to the stand and addressed mr sparky as a lady, when Robbie took to the stand he addressed him as a man. This showed an inadequacy between the statements and a lack of correspondence between the two teams.
- this led to the defence side winning and the prosecution loosing.


Question 7 - Hearsay - example

- During the mock trial the information pack (line 9-13) stated that Mrs Vikktim received a anonymous phone call stating that her child and others were abused in the hand of mr spanky.
- this was a vital piece of information which many other groups just left out but our groups (group D) decided to integrate into robbers initial statement that he was in fact the one who made the call and therefore it was no longer hearsay.


Question 7 - heArsay - definition

- Hearsay evidence occurred when a witness testified as to what somebody told her from outside of he court. This testimony is inadmissible,
- If it seeks to prove the truth of what the witness was told, but it is admissible to prove that the witness had been told such a thing.
- the person who made the statement is not in court to be cross examined which means the credibility of the witness and the weight of the evisdence cannot be tested.


Question 8 - proof beyond a reasonable doubt - definition

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the hugest burden of proof place upon the prosecution.
It is the legal standards which a prosecution must meet in order to successfully find a defendent guilty.
The accused gets the benefit of the doubt and it is the voice of reason (E.G. BIG VOICE VS LITTLE VOICE)
If a reasonable person can say that the defence may be true the state has not proved guilt - the accused gets the benefit of the doubt


Question 8 - Proof beyond a reasonable doubt - example

The proof that Mr spanky did not hit Robbie the evidence put forward was not strong enough to prove that mr spanky did assault the boys.
There was no reasonable person present to prove this either.
The doctor and mother were reasonable people to prove the marks on Donal's back were done by a person and Robbie backed up this statement


Question 9 - Proof of the Balance of probabilities - definition

The standard proof required in a civil case is known as the balance of probabilities. In other words, the plantiff in a civil case must prove the case on a balance of probabilities. It is easier to express than a criminal case. The plantiff just needs to show that it's version is more probable than the defendents version. The more improbable the events the stronger the evidence must be to prove the case.


Question 9 - proof of probable value - example.

- In the case of Beatrice Lindsay Vs M-W health board (1993) 21.R.147, the plantiff claimed that the hospital had neglected in carrying out her operation a case of the Health Board.
- In this case as the court felt she did prove that for more probable than the health boards.


Question 10 - division of tasks between judge and jury - definition

The division of tasks between judge and jury relates to questions of law which are decided by the judge alone. Questions of facts are decided by the jury. In a trial with the just the judge both will be decided by him.


Question 10 - division of tasks between judge and jury - example

- during the trial the judge answered questions of law and fact as there was no jury.
- he answered this based upon evidence proved by the prosecution and defence where they found mr spanky guilty on first count (Donal) but not second count (Robbie)