This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Law Notes Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes

Hearsay Notes

Updated Hearsay Notes

Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes

Criminal Procedure and Evidence

Approximately 325 pages

A collection of the best Criminal Procedure and Evidence notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding students with the highest results in England and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of Criminal Procedure and Evidence notes available in the UK this year. This collect...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

The Rule Against Narrative

Witness usually forbidden from referring to previous consistent statements

  • Roberts: Rs defence to murder charge was that it was an accident. He could not call his father to tell the court that, 2 days before shooting, R had told him that the gun had gone off by accident.

  • This “rule against narrative” is now subject to three common law exceptions, made wider by CJA 2003.

Common law and statutory exceptions

  • Complaints by the victims of crime – s.120(7)

    • Previous witness statements admissible of any matter stated of which oral evidence would be admissible if s.120(5) is satisfied + the witness indicates to the best of his belief that he made the statement and that he states the truth.

    • 120(7) conditions

      • witness claims to be person against whom offence was committed,

      • the offence is one to which the proceedings relate,

      • the statement consists of a complaint made by the witness about conduct, if proved, which would constitute the offence,

        • M: complaint in form of long letter typed but never sent to childline.

      • the complaint was not made as a result of a threat or promise and

      • before the statement is adduced the witness gives oral evidence in connection with its subject matter.

    • Can be admitted to prove any matter in issue in the proceedings.

    • AA: on jury directions, Laws LJ recommended that jury be told that the previous consistent statement or complaint is evidence of the truth of what was stated, but in according it weight should bear in mind that it comes from the same person who now complains in the witness box.

    • Applied in Xhabri

  • Rebutting suggestions of concoctions or afterthought – s.120(2)

    • Evidence can be adduced to show that testimony was told consistently from early on.

    • Oyesiku: CA held that s120(2) applied where prosecution alleged that Os testimony was late fabrication – defence should be allowed to adduce statement made just after offence.

    • Doesn’t seem to be any requirement that the accusation is of the concoction being recent.

    • Statements admissible as evidence of any matter stated of which oral evidence by witness would be admissible.

  • Res gestae – s.118(1), r4

    • “res gestae” are words said in circumstances in which risk of fabrication is eliminated because the circumstances are such that the mind is completely dominated by the event.

    • s.118(1) r4 allows consistent statements forming part of the res gestae to be admitted.

    • R4: statement admissible as matter stated if

a) Made by someone so emotionally overpowered by the event that risk of concoction can be disregarded

b) Accompanied by an act which can only be evaluated as evidence when considered with statement OR

c) The statement relates to a physical sensation or mental state

  • Fowkes: as shot fired, son saw man with gun and shouted ‘there’s butcher’ – ruled that the exclamation might be proved and son and police officer both testified regarding it.

  • Previous statements of a party identifying or describing a person, object or place – s120(5)

    • S.120(4) lays down condition needed + need for witness to say to the best of his belief that he made the statement and that it is the truth.

    • Then need 120(5) - statement identifies or describes a person, object or place

    • Chinn: limited to those aspects of statement identifying person, object or place and the context needed to understand it.

  • Supplementing deficiencies in the memory of witnesses – ss139 and 120(6)

    • Common law restrictive approach has been moderated –

      • Turner (Simon Paul) – sexual complainant couldn’t articulate properly in open court and trial judge allowed portions of her initial statement to be read in court and she could adopt them if she wished.

      • So allowed where tonguetied/witness composed aide-memoire/viewing statement before giving evidence if other side informed.

    • s.139 – can refresh memory from document made/verified by them if

      • State in oral evidence that the document records recollection of the matter at the earlier time, and

      • Recollection of the matter is likely to have been significantly better at that time than it is at the time of his oral evidence.

    • s.120(3) – statement made by witness in a document used to refresh memory when giving evidence, on which he is cross examined and which is therefore received as evidence in proceedings is admissible as evidence of any matter stated.

      • Pashmfouroush: so admissible to the extent that cross-exam happens.

    • 120(6) statement made by witness when the matters stated were fresh in his memory but he does not remember them, and cannot reasonably be expected to remember them, well enough to give oral evidence of them in the proceedings

      • Look at characteristics/circumstances of incident/time since in order to assess what the witness can reasonably be expected to remember (objective test)

      • Note theres three parts here (1) statement made while matters fresh in witness’ mind (2) witness does not now remember the matters related in the statement and (3) witness could not reasonably be expected to remember the matters well enough to give oral evidnce.

  • Exclusionary power under s.126 in relation to statements made otherwise than in oral evidence if satisfied that the case for excluding the statement, considering the danger that admitting it would result in an undue waste of time, substantially outweighs the case for admitting.

Evidence-in-chief delivered by video recording – s137 CJA 2003

  • Not yet in force but provides for video recording to be played as witness’ evidence-in-chief if a video-recorded statement is made. Witness does not need to have been under oath at the time.

  • Munday says this is a substantial inroad into the principle of orality that usually dominates thinking about the common law trial. Needs substantial investments before it could work.

Statements made by the accused when first taxed with incriminating facts

  • Incriminating replies when first told of incriminating facts = admissible as confession.

    • Or might be mixed statement

  • If exonerating statement made...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Procedure and Evidence Notes.