Level of proof?

[Mossway]

1. An either way offence is any offence that can be tried in the Mags Court or the Crown Ct.

What I should have said is that there’s no time limit on either way OR Indictable Only, ie offences which can only be tried in Crown Ct.

2. Whether there’s a bail time limit or not, (I’m not sure) but it’s irrevelant if any suspect is interviewed and then released RUI (released under investigation) because he/she’s then not on bail and can subsequently be charged/rearrested etc subject to certain safeguards.

3. No,

Hearsay is always admitted if both parties agree as you say.

.It’s when they don’t, one party has to make an application to get it admitted by making an application in advance of the Trial. It’s the Court which then decides. Some hearsay seems to be admitted almost automatically, for instance 999 calls because there’s case law on it.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Mossway
Verbiage

[Cyclone]

On 27/01/2019 at 21:02, Mossway said:

Cyclone,

Just explain please your view.

If a defendant or a witness  has got  ‘form’ for previous convictions involving ‘lying’  eg obtain by deception,perjury, fraud offences etc, either CPS or the Defence can make an application to get them. ‘in’  as evidence of bad character in a Trial.

Also both Pros Witnesses and Defence witnesses are able to  get ‘in’ at a Trial the fact that they are of previous good character if it’s  true. It’s  often persuasive to a jury in regard to their testimony.

Previous convictions are actually harder to use as evidence than general character statements since they're considered to be prejudicial.

Character statements though, or evidence of behaviour (not previous convictions) are often used to establish, well, patterns of behaviour.  It's evidence of how the defendant behaves in general, and may sway a jury to perhaps give less weight to the defendant's testimony if they are demonstrated to be a habitual liar and fantasist.  And likewise for the accuser, or vice/versa, if patterns of behaviour and character are established to be habitually law abiding and honest.

Hearsay is not the same as evidence to show patterns of behaviour or character.

[Top Cats Hat]

2 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Previous convictions are actually harder to use as evidence than general character statements since they're considered to be prejudicial.

Many defendants are aquitted simply by lying through their teeth in court. 

 

An MG 16 Bad Character Evidence File makes it much more difficult for a defendant to tell a court that they would never dream of doing whatever they were accused of when the prosecution can simply say "Yes but you were convicted of this very offence six months ago in this same court!"

[Cyclone]

9 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Many defendants are aquitted simply by lying through their teeth in court. 

 

An MG 16 Bad Character Evidence File makes it much more difficult for a defendant to tell a court that they would never dream of doing whatever they were accused of when the prosecution can simply say "Yes but you were convicted of this very offence six months ago in this same court!"

Fair enough, that's a higher level of knowledge than I have and I shall take your word for it.

[ANGELFIRE1]

On 28/01/2019 at 10:35, El Cid said:

I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying, but you have picked a bad example. Maybe someone like Paul Gambaccini, who was accused of historical sexual offences, but cleared years later.

I agree, a bad example. I just picked Savile because everyone must have been aware of his behavior.

 

Anngel1.

[ANGELFIRE1]

22 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Firstly Saville wasn't convicted as he died before any legal action could be taken.

 

I agree, Saville was a poor choice, and as you say he pegged before facing charges. 

 

I think it's fair to say that the numbers of his "victims" who came forward was quite surprising. Could they all be telling fibs, no. .  We can only speculate what would have happened if he had appeared before the Courts. He came over as a rather weird bloke though didn't he. 

 

Angel1.

[Top Cats Hat]

5 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Fair enough, that's a higher level of knowledge than I have and I shall take your word for it.

I do agree with what you said though, that previous conviction history is predjudicial. Which is why Bad Character Evidence is not always granted. It is usually granted in a situation where a defendant has been back to court on a number of ocassions for the same or similar offences and is able to lie when giving evidence, safe in the knowledge that his or her previous bad character will be hidden from the court.

 

By the way, Bad Character Evidence isn't simply a list of previous convictions but is anything connected with the crime being tried including number of arrests, cautions, harassment warnings, restraining orders imposed, civil action taken against the defendant. It is particularly useful in cases where intent has to be proven, where a defendant can simply say that they are a good upstanding citizen and whatever the evidence the court has seen there was no way that they intended any harm, knowing that they cannot be challenged.