Evidence and the court

2-20 Evidence and the court. - The law of evidence lays down the principles as to how facts may be proved in court and what facts may not be proved (a). It is also prescribes standards as to the sufficiency of evidence, whether the court can judge the weight of particular evidence to be insufficient, prima facie or conclusive (b), and establishes requirements for certain classes of witnesses (c). The court has therefore the primary responsibility to satisfy itself as to admissibility of evidence and as to proof of fact which that evidence seeks to achieve.

It is the function of the court at a criminal trial as respects of admission of evidence to see that the accused has a fair trial according to law (d). The court should not wait for an objection to be taken to the admissibility of the evidence but should stop such questions itself (e). A court in a criminal trial has a discretion to refuse to admit evidence if in its opinion its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. But save with regard to admissions and confessions and generally with regard to evidence obtained from the accused after commission of the offence it has no discretion to refuse to admit relevant admissible evidence on the ground that it was obtained by improper or unfair means, for example as the result of the activities of an agent provocateur (f).

The court will concern itself to see that it admits relevant evidence (g) and it will weigh all the relevant admissible evidence before it comes to a conclusion (h). The fact that the court has once rules a written statement inadmissible will not prevent that ruling being reversed at a later stage as further evidence emerges (i).

"Where the trial is with a jury, the judge can hear argument and decide whether or not to exercise his discretion in the absence of the jury. In a trial in a magistrates' court that is not possible. When considering the admissibility of any evidence, the magistrates must know what evidence it is proposed to tender. It they decide that it is inadmissible, they will ignore it in reaching their conclusion. In the same way, it falls on them to decide whether, on account of its prejudicial effect outweighing its probative value, certain evidence should not be given. Again they will be informed of the nature of the evidence and if they rule that it should not be admitted, they no doubt will ignore it in reaching their conclusions" (j).

The court should restrain unnecessary cross-examination on matters which are not really in issue (k).

It is for the court of trial and not for examining justices to decide whether legally admissible evidence ought to be adduced (l), although in committal proceedings examining justices may treat parts of a written statement as inadmissible (m).

Return to Fire Net Home Page