Other Points on Confession Evidence

?
What happens to exculpatory parts of a mixed statement?
Statement is wholly admissible (Sharp and Aziz: as long as P is adducing it, as evidence of facts)
1 of 14
How should judge tailor his direction where there is a mixed statement?
Direct jury that incriminating parts are likely to be true, whereas excuses don't have the same weight
2 of 14
Which provision is relevant to "mentally handicapped persons"
s.77
3 of 14
What are the issues with s.77?
Vacuous, evidence falling under this provision will probably come under s.76/s.78 anyway, phrase "mentally handicapped" doesn't cover mental health issues so there is a gaping hole
4 of 14
Which provision in hearsay rules means that it might be possible for P to adduce evidence of D1's confession against D2?
s.114(1)(d) CJA 2003
5 of 14
Confession of co-accused: considered in R v Y
Confession might be admissible under s.114(1)(d) (alongside application of s.114(2) checklist) - but that this wouldn't be done due to distinction between admissions + accusations (which are less likely to be true, particularly in co-defendant cases)
6 of 14
Confession of a co-accused: problematic decision of Hayter
Voluntary out of court admission/confession made by D is an exception to hearsay rule and can be admissible against D
7 of 14
Confession of a co-accused: problematic decision of Hayter
P cannot rely on confession of D against co-accused (and trial judge must direct jury to this effect)
8 of 14
Confession of a co-accused: problematic decision of Hayter
Finding of guilt of 1 D could be used in co-defendant's case (see s.74)
9 of 14
Can a co-accused use confession of his co-D to his advantage?
Yes: s.76A
10 of 14
What are the 2 principles that s.76A tries to embody? And how does s.76A try to reconcile them?
Principles: D has right to defend himself and D has right to fair trial. Reconciling: s.76A(2)
11 of 14
Where might there be a blurring of application of s.78 and s.76A(2)(b)/s.76(2)(b)?
Where P wants to admit evidence of confessions
12 of 14
What is the difference between s.76A(2) and s.76(2)?
Different burden of proof (lower burden in former) - because standard practice is to reduce burden for Ds
13 of 14
Which case states that no discretion applies when s.76A is involved?
Johnson: s.78 doesn't apply because it is between co-Ds. Doubtful over whether s.82 could be used instead
14 of 14

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Direct jury that incriminating parts are likely to be true, whereas excuses don't have the same weight

Back

How should judge tailor his direction where there is a mixed statement?

Card 3

Front

s.77

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Vacuous, evidence falling under this provision will probably come under s.76/s.78 anyway, phrase "mentally handicapped" doesn't cover mental health issues so there is a gaping hole

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

s.114(1)(d) CJA 2003

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal Procedure and Criminal Evidence resources »