Evidence Law Cases Analysis - Assignment Example

Evidence Law – Discuss Evidential Issues in the following Case Scenario Introduction: This essay deals with evidence law in which a certain criminal case is discussed and the legal implications are highlighted. A comparative analysis is drawn with other similar cases. The case involves one eye witness and one informant for an incidence of armed robbery in a post office in Dover. The evidential clues have been tied to a prime suspect depending on CCTV footage as well as statements made by the informant and the witness. In this case an analysis will be done on the basis or grounds of arrest of the suspect and the viability of the evidence obtained. Case Scenario: Michel, a Frenchman, has been charged with the armed robbery of a post office in Dover. In a witness statement, the postmaster says that the robber had a distinctive French accent. At an identification parade (at which the postmaster is unable to visually identify Michel), Michel is asked to say ‘Put your hands up’. All the other members of the parade are English. The postmaster positively identifies this as the voice of the robber. Katherine is a registered informant for the police and she tells the investigating officer, DC Deed, that Michel is the robber. She also tells them to look in a local pond and they will find the shotgun. Katherine is a local prostitute and Michel has been her pimp for many years but Katherine now wishes to break away from his influence, to marry a local actor, Spencer, and settle down. As a result of that information, Deed drags the pond which is adjacent to Michel’s flat. In the pond, the police find the shotgun. There are no identifying marks or forensic evidence that would tie the gun to Michel. Despite this, Deed decides to arrest Michel. The police and the prosecution agree that it is important not to disclose Katherine’s role to the defence. DC Deed interviews Michel in the presence of his solicitor, Mole. Having consulted with his client, Mole points out to the police that there are serious doubts as to whether the police have made full disclosure of the evidence that they have against Michel and as a result, he is going to advise his client not to answer questions. Michel says ‘No comment’ to every question except at the very end of the session (which had lasted two hours), when he bursts out with the statement, ‘You English filth won’t pin this one on me, nobody’ll talk’. Over the next two days, the police conduct four more interviews with Michel, once with his solicitor present but three times without. They continually accuse Michel of being the robber. Eventually Michel cracks and signs a statement in which he admits to being the robber and to throwing the shotgun in the pond. Deed searches Michel’s flat – he finds a balaclava which is similar to that worn by the robber. The balaclava is a type sold in Tescos. There is no sign of the T-shirt but he finds detailed street maps, taken from the internet of the area immediately around the PO. He also finds a shotgun licence, now expired, but no shotgun. He also finds several books of stamps. There is CCTV evidence of a person of Michel’s height and build entering the PO with a shotgun. The robber has been seen wearing a distinctive T-shirt with the slogan ‘Blags-R-Us’ but is also wearing a balaclava that conceals his face. On the CCTV tape, the robber has a distinct limp. The robber takes cash but also dozens of books of stamps. Deed also looks at the CCTV footage and is fairly sure that the robber is Michel. In particular he feels that the limp is very distinctive with the left foot twisting inward. He is of the opinion, having watched Michel, that Michel’s limp is identical and that the robber is Michel. Deed puts the tape aside but when he comes to look for it, it has disappeared and never reappears. Although Michel is suspected of the robbery and there are two witnesses, the evidence is lost. Evidence Law – Cases and Analysis The law of evidence governs the use of testimony. The testimony could be given in the form of an affidavit or any other oral or written statement and shows other documentary material that is considered within a judicial or administrative proceeding or in a court of law as substantial evidence against a criminal or for case in a crime scenario1. Types of evidence could be related to testimony, documentary evidence, physical evidence, digital evidence, exculpatory evidence, scientific evidence and demonstrative evidence2. In this case, the postmaster’s and Katherine’s testimonies, physical evidence of the shotgun, digital evidence of CCTV footage and demonstrative evidence of Michel’s voice and distinctive limp have been considered. Murphy (1999) has suggested that closed circuit television (CCTV) surveillance methods are increasingly used in crime control techniques and the footage generated by security cameras has become and will increasingly be used as an important source of evidence in criminal proceedings. The rapid development of digital technology means that security camera footage is recorded on computer disk rather than on video tape. Murphy suggests that the more efficient automated CCTV systems implies the the merger of computer and surveillance technology that seems to have great potential for law enforcement agencies (Murphy, 1999). Howver Murphy highlights an important drawback of the system as computer stored images could be easily altered or deleted and copied. Based on the English Common law tradition, evidence must conform to certain rules and restrictions to be considered admissible. One of the primary features of evidence is that it must be relevant in that it must help the case to become more or less probable or likely and would aid in the progress of the case and decision making3. Relevance of evidence would be necessary but not absolutely sufficient in admissibility of the evidence or decision on the case. In fact relevant evidence may not even be included if it proves to be confusing or biased. Evidence forms the basis of nearly all criminal cases and decisions are based on evidence. The limitations on the admissibility of evidence may be necessary to prevent false evidence from distracting the direction of the case. The best evidence rule provides further evidence to available documentary evidence and requires certain documents to be produced for authentication4. Evidence by witness is given by direct or cross examination and the standards of persuasion are also specified. All persons identified as witnesses have legal obligation to serve as witnesses if their testimony is sought. However under certain circumstances people may be exempt from being a witness. At certain times, privilege rules can prevent a witness from giving testimony to protect confidential communications. In certain circumstances persons may be ineligible to serve as witnesses. Different types of proceedings require parties to meet the burdens of proof and if one party produces evidence that can prove a point then the burden of proof would go to the other party who would have to produce even better evidence to disprove it5. Certain information may stand as proven without introduction or support from any evidence. For example if a court takes judicial notice of any fact then the fact is conclusively proven. The exclusionary rule of criminal procedure prohibits the admission of the trial or presentation of evidence that has been gained by unconstitutional means and the evidence rule of contract law prohibits the use of evidence of contents as a written contract. The standard of proof for criminal cases on the prosecution is proof beyond reasonable doubt which means proof that will suggest a high degree of probability. The criminal standard of proof on a defendant is similar with civil standards in which a proof on the balance of probabilities is required. Rules of evidence indicate what evidence could be admissible at trial. A witness is expected to give the truth under oath and if a witness is biased or considered unreliable due to mental or physical defects, or gives inconsistent statements, evidence could be considered invalid. The witness is re-examined and cross examined by both the parties in the case6. Inman and Rudin (2002) discussed forensic evidence on the basis of some fundamental concpets that are applicable to foresinc analysis. For forensic analysis concpets of transfer, identification, individualization, association between source and target, and reconstruction are considered crucial to the analysis. Inman and Rudin suggest that a sixth concept of matter division before transfer could be used within the paradigm. Divisible matter has been considered useful in match evidence and processes pertaining to recognition, analysis and interpretation of evidence7. According to Inman and Rudin the principle of divisible matter and transfer pertain to generation of evidence before and during a crime event and once an item or fact has been recognised as evidence, the processes of identification, classification or individualization, association, and reconstruction describe the practice of forensic science and using the evidence to establish certain claims. In this particular case, the forensic evidence that could be used are DNA samples from the site of robbery and Michel’s DNA samples obtained from his home to see whether these match. In one case of armed robbery Regina v Forbes (Anthony Leroy) (2000) reported in The Times, December 5, House of Lords, the complainant was confronted by an assailant who attempted to rob him while he was obtaining cash at a cash point machine. The assailant begged for the money initially but then became aggressive and threatened to "cut him up". The complainant then escaped to a waiting vehicle which drove off; he saw Forbes, the assailant in the street. As the car passed, the complainant made eye contact with the assailant who spat towards the vehicle. The complainant immediately called the police who drove him around the streets in search of the assailant. In due course the complainant identified Forbes as his assailant. Forbes denied the accusation that he was the assailant who tried to rob the complainant and asked repeatedly but unsuccessfully for an identification parade to be held. The judgement of the case was done with reference to R v Brown [1991] Crim LR 368 where the victim of an attempted robbery also made a street identification of the appellant as her attacker not many minutes after the attack took place. No identification parade was held. In this case, the assailant Forbes was given a three year imprisonment based on the identification evidence8. There are however differences between cases where the identity of the suspect is not known and in which the identity of suspect is known. Evidential information suggests whether there is sufficient information known to the police to justify the arrest of a particular person for involvement in a suspected offence. Section 66 of 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act9 provided for the issue by the Home Secretary of Codes of Practice to govern the exercise by police officers of statutory powers has been related to the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons by police officers. Considering this section, the police can detain and question prime identified suspect Michel in this case as suggested by evidence. In a case of Post Office robbery as this case discussed the Regina v Alexander Francis Allen Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Crim 1607 could be cited for reference. The case is an appeal against conviction referred to the Court of Appeal by Criminal Cases Review Commission under section 14(4) of the Criminal Appeal Act 199510. The appellant has sought to call fresh evidence in relation to various grounds of appeal. The appellant was convicted of one count of robbery and sentenced to eight years imprisonment on 21st June 1991 and indicted with three co-accused. The robbery took place on 1st March 1990, when Mr Purvis, a Post Office employee, was robbed of a mail bag and its contents. According to eye-witnesses there were three men involved in the robbery who escaped in a blue car. Police went to a specified address that they followed and found the blue car inside the garage with its engine still warm and, upon entering the house, they found the appellant, with other associates with the proceeds of the robbery. For this case, apart from the post office victim who was attacked there two eye witness accounts that helped identify the victim giving similar descriptions of the attackers and the vehicle used. When the appellant was interviewed, he gave a series of no reply or no comment answers as in Michel’s case. Forensic evidence suggested that the appellant had the same material on his jacket as found at the scene of robbery. Yet, the appellant was allowed to appeal on the basis of an alibi and insubstantial forensic evidence11. Returning to the discussion on this case of Michel in which he seems to have confessed that he has been responsible for robbery at the post office, and the hand gun thrown in the local pond could have belonged to him, the case of R -v- Cheung (1992) 92 Cr App R 314 at 323 could be cited that suggests that “under section 76(1)(b) the onus is on the prosecution. In other words, if the challenged confession is to be admitted, the prosecution must prove to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not and might not have been obtained in consequence of anything said or done which was likely to render it unreliable”12. On the basis of the fact that the confession by Michel may have been made under force, it may be considered unreliable despite the evidence and Michel would be allowed to appeal. In another case of Regina v Aaron Bacchus Citation Number: [2004] EWCA Crim 1756, 2004, the appellant was convicted of robbery and was sentenced to a total of eight years of detention. He has appealed against his offence in which he was guilty of entering a woman’s flat and stealing her watch in 1999. The woman had seen the accused and other co accused arrive in a red motorcar and the co-accused’s fingerprints were obtained from the woman’s flat. CCTV footage was also obtained and it was accepted that the appellant was present in the robbery scene. This was possible with expert evidence of Mr. Harrow who compared items of clothing with CCTV footage at the time of arrest13. Although the appellant had maintained that he was not guilty, identification from CCTV helped the victim to present the case to the jury. However, it was decided that the identification methods using CCTV footage could not be considered as reliable evidence. Considering that the case was based on evidence that was unreliable, the appeal was allowed. In Michel’s case, evidential information by Katherine that the shotgun used by the robber could be found in the pond and was in fact found in the pond does not give direct evidence against Michel. CCTV footage which shows a limping man’s presence in the post office before the armed robbery again can be considered as unreliable evidence. The postmaster was again unable to recognise Michel but recognised his voice which may again be considered as not sufficient evidence to present the case to the jury. Deed, the investigating officer arrested and interviewed Michel, in which Michel was initially quiet with no comments on all questions asked on the issue. However with further and repeated questioning he confessed to the guilt of robbery. As seen from the other cases cited here, the prosecution has to prove it to the court that the confession as not been obtained by any means that could be considered unreliable. Again here the confession been obtained by force, the information obtained could be considered unreliable and with the absence of direct reliable evidence against Michel, there may not be a case to present to the jury and in case of any detention based on the obtained evidence and witness against Michel, he may still have the chances of appeal which could be granted. Conclusion: The case studied here is described in detail and involves a situation of armed robbery in a Post office and a Frenchman named Michel has been accused of the robbery. The witness against Michel includes the postmaster who although failed to recognise Michel, seems to have recognised his voice. Katherine, a local prostitute also suggested that Michel is the man responsible for the crime and that the shotgun that he possessed for the robbery could be obtained from the local pond in which it was found. Both the witnesses’ however present insubstantial information. The postman’s inability to recognise Michel as a person and only his voice and the fact that the shotgun was found not in Michel’s house but in the local pond, suggest insubstantial evidence against Michel. The cash was not obtained from Michel’s house but only stamps were obtained, the shirt that was worn by the robber was again not found in Michel’s home but street maps of the place in which the robbery took place and a shotgun license was also found. Deed, the investigating officer believed that the CCTV footage of the limping robber distinctively proves that the robber is Michel as Michel’s limp is identical, but the tape went missing and the important evidential information was thus lost. Despite this Deed arrests Michel, though as we have suggested by describing several similar criminal cases, with no direct evidence against Michel, it may be a difficult case for the prosecution to convince the jury that Michel has indeed committed the crime. Similar cases of robbery and post office crimes are discussed considering the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984. Some of the cases discussed here are Regina v Aaron Bacchus Citation Number: [2004] EWCA Crim 1756, 2004, R -v- Cheung (1992) 92 Cr App R 314 at 323, and Regina v Alexander Francis Allen Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Crim 1607 to highlight the typical problems of evidential information and required eye witness information. The analysis considered various clauses and aspects of evidence law to show the importance of different types of evidence in successful conviction of a suspect also focusing on loopholes in the prosecution that can keep open grounds for appeal in case of arrest and detention. Bibliography Allen, C. J. W. (Christopher J. W.) Evidence / Christopher Allen. 6th ed. London : Cavendish, 2005. Anderson, Terence. Analysis of evidence : how to do things with facts. Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1991. Heydon, J. D. (John Dyson) Evidence : cases and materials / J.D. Heydon, Mark Ockelton. 4th ed. London : Butterworths, c1996. Inman K. and Rudin N. The origin of evidence  Forensic Science International, Volume 126, Issue 1, 28 March 2002, Pages 11-16 Keane, Adrian. The modern law of evidence / Adrian Keane. 3rd ed. London : Butterworths, 1994. Ludwig Jens Concealed-gun-carrying laws and violent crime: evidence from state panel data  International Review of Law and Economics, Volume 18, Issue 3, September 1998, Pages 239-254 May, Richard, LL. B. Criminal evidence / Richard May. 3rd ed. London : Sweet & Maxwell, 1995. Murphy T. The Admissibility of CCTV Evidence in Criminal Proceedings International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, Volume 13, Number 3, 1 December 1999, pp. 383-404(22) PublisherRoutledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group Morris R. N Evidence International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, Volume 12, Number 2, 1 July 1998, pp. 279-285(7) Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group Rubin Paul H. and Dezhbakhsh Hashem The role of criminal profiling in the computer forensics process  Computers & Security, Volume 22, Issue 4, May 2003, Pages 292-298 Rogers Marc The effect of concealed handgun laws on crime: beyond the dummy variables  International Review of Law and Economics, Volume 23, Issue 2, June 2003, Pages 199-216 Stein, Alex Foundations of evidence law / Alex Stein. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2005. Uglow, Steve. Evidence : text and materials / Steve Uglow. London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1997. Zander, Michael. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 / by Michael Zander. 4th ed. London : Sweet & Maxwell, 2003. Cases: Regina v Aaron Bacchus Citation Number: [2004] EWCA Crim 1756, 2004, R -v- Cheung (1992) 92 Cr App R 314 at 323 Regina v Alexander Francis Allen Citation Number: [2001] EWCA Crim 1607 Read More