Mark and his Attacking Janet - Essay Example

Mark and his Attacking JanetBrief Introduction The case is about Mark and his attacking Janet on one night at the railway station. The evidential issues that are involved in the case:1. Anonymous phone call, - An anonymous call was made describing the situation and the attacker. The phone call is hearsay, and shall be included as evidence, as is explained in Civil Evidence Act 1995 section 1. The definition clearly states that all hearsay is included despite its status of being statement made otherwise oral evidence. 2. Pictures of Yellow Toyota Cars with Mark – this piece of evidence is included, and with respect to other cases, for example Barry George Case.

He had a large number of pictures TV presenters, and this was taken as evidence for his crime. The same can be the case with Mark. 3. The CCTV camera has captured the attacker on film, and the attacker on the film needs to be identified. The film does not have a clear picture of who the attacker was. 4. Mark is convicted for previous criminal damage as well. This would not hold well in front of the judge. Moreover, evidence from previous criminal damage could also be included in the current case when this case goes to trial. 5. Janet could not identify Mark during the parade for identity.

This signifies that Janet does not have a clear idea of her attacker. 6. Forensic evidence is not present for this case.7. All of the evidence present is circumstantial. However, the anonymous phone call can be admitted as evidence related by Ramon. 2) Subject review- For Mark, there are several laws that can be used to give advice to him. As by law, he can remain silent and not disclose his whereabouts during the night Janet was attacked. Silence is instructed by Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and CJPOA 1994 s.34 and 37. The right to silence is given to Mark, through this law.

The Right to Silence indicates that the accused does not have to answer questions during trial and hearing or before it in order to avoid self incrimination. “[…] it is not the compulsion to answer questions which creates the breach of Art. 6, but the subsequent use of the evidence so obtained. In any event, for the most part a suspect cannot be prosecuted for refusing to answer questions.” (KeyZone, Public Law) “The CPJOA allows the court to `draw such inferences as appear proper' from the defendant's silence in the following cases: failure to mention a fact when questioned, which the defendant might reasonably have been expected to mention, and which is used in his defence (at s.34); refusal to testify in his own defence in court or, having taken the oath, to answer questions without good reason (s.35); failure to account for objects, substances of marks found on his person (s.36). failure to account for being in a particular place at a given time (s.37); “(KeyZone, Public Law) The European Convention of Human Rights indicates in Article 6, subsection 3(d):“(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him” (European Convention on Human Rights) This means that Mark has the right to cross examine the witnesses that are testifying against him for the attack on Janet.

References:1. KeyZone, Public Law. Retrieved May 20, 2007 from: http://www.kevinboone.com/lawglos_RightToSilence.html2. European Convention on Human Rights. Retrieved May 20, 2007 from: http://www.kevinboone.com/lawglos_EuropeanConventionOnHumanRights.html