LAW OFEVI

DENCENOTEANDCOURSEOUTLI
NE

1
.BURDEN&STANDARDOFPROOF

2.COMPETENCE&COMPELLABI
LITY

3.CORROBORATI
ON

4.I
DENTI
FICATI
ONEVI
DENCE

5.TESTI
MONY
i
.) Ex ami nation-I
n-Chief
i
i.
) Cr oss-Ex aminati
on
i
ii
.) Re-Exami nat
ion
i
v.) LeadingQues ti
ons
v.
) Pr eviousCons i
stentStat
ement
s
vi
.) RefreshingMemor yInCourt
vi
i.
) Unfavor ableAndHos t
il
eWit
nesses

6.;
p

7.I
LLEGALLYOBTAI
NEDEVI
DENCE

8.RELEVANCEANDADMI
SSI
BILI
TY

9.LEGALPROFESSI
ONALPRI
VILEGE

1
0.PRI
VILEGEAGAI
NSTSELF-
INCRI
MINATI
ON

1
1.SI
MILAR-
FACTEVI
DENCE

1
 BURDEN&STANDARDOFPROOF

BURDENOFPROOFI
NCRI
MINALCASES

Thegener alrul
eisthatinallcri
minalcases,thepros
ecuti
onbearstheburdenof
proofofalloftheingredi
entsoftheoffence.Theaccuseddoesnothavetoprove
hi
si nnocence.Thereasonforthepros
ecutionbeari
ngsuchaburdeni
sthat:

1)ThereisaPres
umpti
onofI nnocence-t
heaccused,
whenchar
ged,
benef
it
sfrom
thispres
umpti
onofinnocenceaspr ovi
dedforbyS.23(4)oft
heConst
it
uti
onof
Sierr
aLeone,
1991;

2)HeWhoAs
ser
tsMus
tPr
ove;

3)ThePr os
ecut
ionNormall
yHasAllt
heRes
ourcesati
tsdispos
altopr
ovethe
i
nnocenceorconvi
cti
onofanaccus
edper
son.Ther
eisno‘equal
it
yofar
ms’
;the
pr
osecuti
onhasanadvant
age.

Thel eadi ngcas eisWool mi

ngtonv.DPP;t heaccus edwaschar gedwi thmur deri
ng
hiswi fe.Headmi ttedt hathes hotherbuthi sdef encewast hathes hotherby
accident .ViscountSkankeydi r
ect edthatoncei twases t
abli
shedthats hediedasa
resultoft heaccus eds hootingher ,Wool mingtonhadt heonusofpr ovinghisclai
m
ofacci dent .Wool mi ngtonappeal edtot heCAbutt heCAdi smiss
edhi sappealand
upheldhi sconvi ct
ion.Heappeal edfurthert otheHLwher ehes ucceeded.TheHL
heldt hatt hedirectiongi venbyt het r
ialjudget hatWool mingt
onmus testabl
ishthe
accidentwast hewr ongdi r
ectionast heonusofpr oofhadbeenpas sedont othe
defencewher easi ts houldhavebeenont hepr os
ecut i
on.Theaut horit
yinSi er
ra
Leonei sKar gbov.R,aCour tofAppealdeci s
ion.TheGambi anaut hori
tyisMus a
SesayandFourOt her sv.TheSt ate.

EXCEPTI
ONSTOTHEGENERALRULETHATTHEPROSECUTI
ONBEARSTHE
BURDEN

1
)CommonLawdef
enceofI
nsani
ty

2)St
atut
oryEx
cept
ions

Theburdenofproofincri
minalcas
esdoesnotshi
ft;i
tisconstant,evenwhent he
accusedhastoprovei
nsanit
yorisrel
yi
ngonstat
utoryexcept
ions.Thisisbecause
al
lthattheaccusedhastopr ovei
stheis
sueofinsanit
y,forexampl e,butal
lthe

2
ot
heri
ngr
edi
ent
sar
etobepr
ovedbyt
hepr
osecut
ion.

I
frel
yi
ngons t
atut
oryprovi
si
ons ,
he/ s
hehasonlytoprovethedef
encewhichthey
ar
eclai
ming.Forexample,thedef enceofi ns
anit
ymus tbeprovedwi t
hinthe
M’
naght
enRulesof1843.Al
lotheringredi
ent
smus tbepr
ovedbythepros
ecuti
on.

COMMONLAW DEFENCEOFI
NSANI
TY

I
nsanityi
sacommonl awdef
enceandnotas tatutorydefence.Whentheaccused
hastoproveanissueofhi
sdefence,hemus
tpr ovei tonabalanceofprobabi
li
ti
es;
Rv.Sodeman;whent hedef
enceofi ns
ani
tyisr aisedbyanaccus edper s
on,he
doessoonabal anceofpr
obabil
it
ies
.Thepros
ecut ionmus tprovei
tscasebeyond
areasonabl
edoubt.

UNFI TNESSTOPLEAD–Undert hedef enceofins anit

y,itisquitepos si
bleforthe
judgeort heaccus edtoraiset hedef enceofunfitnesst oplead.However ,i
tismor e
commonl yraisedbyt heaccus edort hedefencewhowi llthenbeart heburdenof
provingunf i
tnesstopleadonabal anceofpr obabil
iti
es;Rv.Podol a;aGermanwho
waschar gedwi t
hmur ders pokeGer manal ltheti
me, cl
aimingunf it
nesstopleadas
hecoul dn’tunderstandthepr oceedingsinEnglish.Itis,however ,pos s
ibl
efort he
prosecutiont oraisetheiss ueofunf i
tnesstoplead.I fthepr osecuti
ondoess o,i
t
mus tprovei tbeyondar eas onabledoubt ;Rv.Rober tson.Thej udgemayal soraise
theissueofunf it
nes stoplead.

I
ns anit
yisacommonl aw excepti
ont otheWoolmingt
onrule.Iftheaccused
succeeds,
theywil
lbefoundnotguil
tybyreas
onofins
anit
yandwi l
lbedet
ainedat
anas yl
um.Ageneral
rul
ehasex cept
ionswher
easanabsol
uter
uledoesnot.

STATUTORYEXCEPTI
ONS

(
a)Ex
pres
sedSt
atut
oryEx
cept
ions

(
b)I
mpl
i
edSt
atut
oryEx
cept
ions

(
a)Ex
pres
sedSt
atut
oryEx
cept
ions

Somes t
atutesputtheburdenofpr ovi
ngcer t
ainmat t
ersuponanaccusedperson.
Forex ample,anaccus edpersonwhoi sfoundinapubl i
cpl
aceatnightwithan
offens
iveweaponwi thoutlawfulauthori
tyorr easonableex
cusewoul dhaveto
provethathehadl awfulauthori
tyorreasonableexcuse,aspr
escr
ibedfori
nS.1of

3
t
hePr
event
ionofCr
imeAct1
953.

Anot
herexampl
eisS.2(2)oft
heHomici
deAct1957-Youcanrais
ethedef
enceof
Di
mini
shedRespons
ibi
li
tybear
ingt
heonusofpr
ovingt
heissue;
Rv.Dunbar
.

UnderS.30(2)oftheSexualOffencesAct1 956,ifyouareapimpandyouare
char
gedwithli
vingonimmoralearnings
,you’
llhavetoshowthatt
hewomani
snot
aprost
it
uteandthatyouar
enotlivingoffher
.

UnderS.
2ofthePrevent
ionofCorrupt
ionAct191
6,i
fyouareacivils
ervantand
someonegi
vesyouagift
,you’
l
lhavetos howt
hati
twasnotabr
ibe.

UnderS.
30(2)oftheBil
l
sofExchangeAct1882,wherebymoneysareremit
tedf
or
l
egit
imat
epurposes,i
fyouusethismechani
s mtol
aundertr
ansact
ions
,thenyou’
ll
beart
hebur
denofs howingt
hatthet
ransact
ionwaslegi
ti
mate.

UnderS.
5oftheDanger
ousDogsAct1 991
,ifyourdogbi
tess
omeoneandyouare
char
ged,you’
l
lhavetoprovethatyourdogdoesnothaves uchami
schi
evous
di
sposi
ti
on.

UnderS.
5( 2)oftheRoadTraff
icAct1988,i
fyouar
echar gedwit
hdrivi
ngunder
thei
nfl
uenceofalcohol
,you’
l
lhavetoprovet
hatt
helevelofal
coholi
nyourbl
ood
i
snotexcessive.

UnderS.28(2)oftheLarcenyAct191 6,i
fyouai dandabetsomeonewhoi s
chargedwi
thhousebr
eaki
ngorburgl
ary,theaccus
edmus tpr
ovetheexcept
ioni
f
heistobeabsol
ved.

(
b)I
mpl
i
edSt
atut
oryEx
cept
ions

Somes tatutesprohibi
tt hedoingofcert ai
nactss ubj
ecttoprovi
sos, excepti
onsor
exempt ionset c.Forex ample,youcanbechar gedwi ththeof f
enceofdr i
ving
withoutal icence,dr
ivingwi t
houtanins urancecerti
fi
cat
eors el
li
ngs ugarwi t
houta
l
icence.I ns uchci
rcums t
ances,t
hes t
atut eimpl
iedlyput
stheburdenofpr ovi
ngt he
exceptionupont heaccus edper s
on.Becaus eofpol i
cycons i
derationsandt he
rel
ativeeas eofpr ovingyouhaveal icence,thelawcons i
dersthatyoucaneas il
y
provethatyouhaveal icence.

Onatr
ueconstruct
ionoft
hes t
atut
e,i
tisi
mpli
edthatt
heaccusedhast
oprovethe
ex
cept
ion.Thi
sisduetoS.101oftheMagi
str
ates
’Cour
tsAct1980,whi
chprovi
des

4
thatwhenanaccus edpersonischargedwi thanof f
ence, whet heri
nMagist
rat
eor
Highcour t
,andher el
iesforhisdef enceonanyex ceptiont othechargeor
exemption orpr ovis
o orex cuse orqual i
ficat
ion,t he burden ofprovi
ng that
exemptionetc.isont heaccusedperson.Forex ampl e,i
fchar gedwithposs
essing
cert
aindrugswi t
houtadoct or’
sprescri
ption,you’l
lhavet opr ovethatyouhavea
doctor
’sprescr
ipti
on.Proofhereisonabal anceofpr obabili
ti
es .

WhenDoest
heDef
endantr
elyonanEx
cept
ion,
Exempt
ion,
Provi
soorEx
cus
e?

Thebes tgui deist obef oundi nNimmov.Al exanderCowan&SonsLt d;t hiscas e

turnedont hecons t
ruct i
onofS. 29( 1)oft heFact oriesAct1 961 .Thej udges aid
thatanex cept i
on,ex empt ionorpr ovis
ocoul dbeeas il
yr ecogni zabl
ef rom t he
drafti
ngoft hes tat
ute.“ Wheneveras tatutecont ainst hewor d‘ ex cept’or‘ex empt’
ora‘ pr oviso’ whichs ays‘ providedalwayst hat’,thesewor dscl ear lys howt hatt here
i
sanex cept i
onorex empt i
onorpr ovisoi nt hes t
atute;theenact menti tselfs tates
whati tmeans .Onemus tlookatt hes tatutei ts
el ftos eeifitcont ainsanyoft hese
wor ds ;therei snos etf ormul a.Butifyous eet hewor ds‘excus e’,‘exempt ’
,‘except’
,
‘
provi dedal wayst hat’
,t hent hatisani mmedi at egui dethatt her eisani mplied
provis i
ont hatt hedef endanthast opr ovet heex cept i
on,ex empt i
onorpr oviso
becaus ethati swhathei sgoi ngtor elyonf orhi sdef ence.

However ,
therearetimeswhenonedoesnotneces s
arilyseethes
ewor ds.So,what
elsedoyoul ookfor
?Youwoul dhavetolookatthemi schi
efatwhichthestatuteis
aimedatandal solookatpol i
cycons i
derat
ions
.Whi choft herespect
ivepar t
ies
willhavetheeaseordiff
icultyi
ndischar
gingtheburden?Ifit
’
sgoingt obeeas yfor
theaccusedorf ort
hepros ecut
ion,
thentheywouldrespecti
velybeartheburden.

I
nNi mmov.Al exanderCowan&SonsLt d,anempl oyeef el
ldownandi nj
ured
himselfataf actor
y.Heal legedthathi spl aceofwor kwasnots afe;abr eachof
stat
utoryduty.Inorderfortheempl oyeet os ucceed,itwi llhavet obedeci dedt hat
theempl oyerhadcommi t
tedanof f
encebecaus eoft heal l
egedbr eachoft he
Factori
esActi nques t
ion.Thes tatutelai ddownt hedut yt hatt hewor kingpl ace
shall
,sof arasisr easonablypracticable,bemadeandkepts afef oranyper son
workingtherei
n.TheHLs aidthatiftheempl oyerhases tabl i
shedt hathehasmade
theplaceasf arashecoul d,practicablys afe,t henitisf ort heempl oyeet os how
thathehasnotdones o.TheHLwass plitinamaj ori
tyj udgmentof3: 2,rulingthat
thebottoml i
newasr efl
ectedinthewor ds ,
‘sof arasisr eas onablypr acti
cabl e’.

5
I
nGat l
andv.Metropoli
tanPoli
ceCommi ss i
oner
,thedefendantwaschargedwi th
thr
owingdirtont
hehi ghwaywithoutlawf ulaut
hori
tyorex cus
e.TheMagi s
trates’
Court
sAct1 952sai
d‘wi t
houtl
awf ulauthorit
yorex cus
e’.Theaccus
ed,therefore,
hastoproveonabalanceofprobabili
ti
esaswasl aiddowni nRv.Car
r-Br
iant
.

I
fsomebodyischar
gedwit
hdrivi
ngavehicl
ewit
houtanins
urancecer
ti
fi
cateand
hehasanexcus
e,hehast
oproveitandnott
hepr
osecut
ion;
Machinv.Ash.

Si
mil
arl
y,ifs
omebodyischar
gedwithdr
ivi
ngavehi
cl
ewi
thoutal
i
cence,
hehast
o
pr
ovethathehasanex
cuse;Johnv.Humphreys
.

Al
so,i
fs omebodyi
schar
gedwit
hs er
vingalcoholwi
thoutal
i
cence,t
heymus
t
pr
ovethatt
heyhaveal
i
cence;
Rv.Edwards.

I
nall
ofthesecas
es,t
heaccusedcaneasi
l
yprovethathehadar
ightt
odowhathe
di
dbecausehewasabl
etoprovi
detheevi
dence.

Int hecas eofR v.Edwar ds,Edwar dswaschar gedandconvi ctedf ors el

ling
i
ntox i
cat i
ngliquorwi thouthol dingalicence.Suchs alewascont rar ytoS. 160( 1
)of
theLi censingAct1 964.Edwar dsappeal edagainstt heconvict i
onont hegr ounds
thatthepr osecuti
onhadnotcal ledanyevi dencet opr ovet hathedi dn’thavea
l
icence.The St ater eplied thatwhenevera s tatute cont ains an ex ception,
exempt ion,provisoorex cuse,thebur denisont heaccus edper sont opr ovet hat
except i
on,exempt ion, provisoorex cuse.Suchwast hecas ewit ht heLi cens i
ngAct ,
andt heaccus edrelyi
ngont hem, hastheburdenofpr oof.Edwar dsl osthi sappeal
i
nt heCA.Thepr osecut i
on, however ,
mus tproveallot heri
ngredi ent sint hecas e.

Thiswasacl assi
ccasetos how thatonemustlookatthestatut
eands eethe
words contai
ned inthe enactment.When you have the wor ds ex
cepti
on,
exempt
ion,provi
soorexcuse,t
hisfall
sunderS.
101oftheMagi
s t
rates’
CourtsAct
sayi
ngthatuponsuchr
eli
ance,theaccusedhast
heburdenofpr
oof .

Thei ssuewentt otheHLi nthecaseofRv.Hunt ;Huntwaschar gedunderS. 5of

theMi suseofDr ugsAct1 971.UndertheMisuseofDr ugsRegulati
ons1 973,i
tis
providedthatS.5s hal
lnothaveef f
ectinrel
ati
ont o,interal
i
a,anypr eparat
ionof
mor phinecontaini
ngnotmor ethan0.2% ofmor phine.Att hetri
al,thedefence
submi tt
edthattherewasnocas etoans werbecausethepr osecut
ionhadadduced
noevi denceastot heproport
ionofmorphineinthepowderwhi chhadbeenf ound

6
i
nHunt ’
spos session.Thejudger uledagai
ns tthesubmis s
ion.Huntchangedhi s
pleatoguil
ty.TheappealtotheCAwasdi smis s
ed.Insupportofhi sfurtherappeal
totheHL,theaccus edrai
sedtwoar guments;(i
)Rv.Edwar dswaswr ongl ydecided;
and(ii
)onthet r
uecons tr
ucti
onoft heprovi
sionsinques t
ion,thepros ecuti
onbor e
theburdenofpr ovingthepercentageofmor phinecontai
nedi nthepowderf ound
i
nHunt ’
spos sessi
on.TheHLal l
owedt heappeal.Thereasonsgi venbyt heHLf or
all
owingtheappeal were:

1)Wheni nWoolmi ngtonv.DPPLor dSkankeyus edt hephras e“anys tatut

ory
exception”,hewasnotr ef
err
ingonlytost
atutoryex cepti
onsinwhi chPar l
iament
hadpl acedtheburdenofpr oofontheaccusedex pressl
y.Hewasal s oreferr
ingto
statut
eswher ethebur denofpr oofi
s,byimplicat
ion,ont hetruecons t
ructionof
the statute.In otherwor ds,when the Acti sinterpr
eted int his parti
cul
ar
circums t
ance,t
hepr osecut
ionhastoshowtheamountofmor phine.

2)Whenas t
atut
eplacesthelegalbur
denontheaccusedbyimpli
cati
on,the
bur
deni
sal
waysontheaccused,whet
heri
nMagi
str
ates
’Cour
tori
ntheHighCourt
.

3)Rv.Edwar
dswasdeci
dedcor
rect
ly.

4)Inthef i
nalanal ys i
s,eachcas emus tt ur
nont hecons t
ructi
onoft hepar t
icular
l
egisl
ation.Ifthelinguisti
ccons tructionofas t
atutedoesnotcl ear
lyi ndicateon
whom t heburdens houl dli
e,thecour t,incons tr
uingit
, wi
llnotconfi
nei tsel
fs olely
tothewor di
ngoft hes t
atut
e.Itwi llhaver egardtomat t
ersofpol i
cyi ncluding
practi
calconsiderations.Inpar t
icular,theeas eorot herwis
et hatther espect i
ve
parti
eswi l
lencount erifrequir
edt odi schargethebur den.Parli
ament ,gener all
y,
canneverbet akent ohavel i
ghtlyimpos edt hedutyonanaccus edt opr ovehi s
i
nnocencei nacr imi nalcaseandt hecour t
ss houldbever yslowtodr aws uchan
i
nferencefromt hel anguageofas tatute.

5)Policy,thequesti
onofcons t
ruct
ionbei ngoneofobviousrealdi
ff
icul
ty,and
off
encesi nvolvi
ngthemisuseofharddr ugsbeingamongstthemosts er
iousof
off
ences ,anyambigui
tyi
nt hest
atut
es houldber es
olvedi
nfavoroft
heaccus ed.
Fortheser eas
ons,t
heappealwasall
owed.

COMMONLAW DEFENCES

Thegener
alr
ulei
sthatt
hedef
endantoranaccus
edper
soni
nacr
imi
nal
cas
edoes

7
nothavetoprovehisinnocence.Thepr osecut
ionbearstheburdenofprovi
ngal
l
theingr
edient
si nthecr i
minalcas e.However ,when an accused r
eli
eson a
commonl awdefence,
theevidenti
alburdentoprovethatdef
enceliesonhi
m.

Not ethati tisnotal egalburden;itisonlyanevi dentialbur

den.Allhehast odoi s
tor ai
set hef oundationforthatdefencet obecons i
dered.Oncehehasl aidenough
foundat i
onf orthatdefence,thent hepr osecuti
onhast hedutyofdi s
pr ovi
ngthat
defence.Buti ft
heaccus eddoesnotr ais
e/relyont heburden,thent hatdefence
willnotbecons i
deredatall.E.g.i
ft heaccus edreli
esont hecommonl awdef ence
ofacci dent ,theaccusedhast olayt hatfoundationwi thpri
mafaci eevidencefor
thedef encet obecons i
dered.Oncet heaccus edhasdonet hat,thepr osecut
ion
thenhast hedut ytodisproveitsoi tdoesn’tsucceed.

Si
tuat
ionswher
ethi
scanhappen-

1
)Def
enceofPr
ovocat
ion;
Manci
niv.DPP,
(1942)
.

2)Sel
fDef
ence;
Rv.Lobel
l
,(1
957)
.

3)Dur
ess
;Rv.Gi
l
l,

4)Dr
unkennes
s;Kennedyv.H.
M.Advocat
,(1
944)
.

5)Non-
Ins
aneAut
omat
ism;
Brat
tyv.A-
GforNor
ther
nIr
eland,
(1963)
.

6)Al
i
bi;
Rv.Johns
on,
(1961
).

Ifanaccus edrel
iesonanyofthesedefences,heonlyhastheevidenti
alburdento
rai
sef oundati
onf ort
hem.Ift
heprosecuti
oncannotdispr
ovet hesedefencesthen
theaccus eds ucceeds.Whentheevi dent
ialburdenisont heaccus edinany
cri
minalcas e,thes t
andar
dofpr oofisonabal anceofpr obabil
it
ies.Itisthe
prosecuti
onwhowhendi s
provi
ngthedef encehast odos obeyondr easonabl
e
doubt.

STANDARDOFPROOF

Whatisthest
andardofpr
oof?Thes t
andardofproofi
sthedegr
eeofcogency
r
equi
redofevi
dencetos
ati
sfyt
helegal
burdenofpr
oof.

I
ncriminalcas
es,theprosecut
ionmustproveallt
hei
ssuesf
orwhi
chtheyhavet
he
l
egalburdenbeyondreasonabledoubt
.Thisisknownasthecr
imi
nalst
andar
d;t
he
8
hi
ghes
tst
andar
d.

However,inex
cept
ionalcaseswhereanaccus edpers
onbear
sthel
egalburden,
suchaswi tht
hedefenceofi nsani
ty,heonl
yhast oproveitonabalanceof
probabi
l
ity;
amuchl
owers tandar
d;Rv.Carr
-Br
iant
,(1
943).

Thecas ethatdis
tingui
shesthecriminalst
andardfrom t
hecivils
tandar
disMill
erv.
Minist
erofPens i
ons ,(
1947).Theci vi
lstandar
dofpr oofisonabal anceof
probabi
li
ti
es;amuch l owers tandardthan thecr i
minalstandard.Ther
ei sno
questi
onofpr oofbeyondreasonabledoubtincivi
lcases.

Thecr iminalst
andardisbeyondreas
onabledoubt.LordDenningsai
d,“Itneednot
reachcer tai
ntybuti tmus tcar
ryahi ghdegreeofpr obabil
i
ty.Proofbeyond
reasonabledoubtdoesnotmeanpr oofbeyondas hadow ofadoubt .Ifthe
evidencei ssos t
rongagainstamanast oleaveonlyar emotepossibil
i
tyinhis
favor,whichcanbedi smissedwithas ent
ence,ofcourseiti
spos s
ibl
ebutnoti n
thel eastprobabl
et hecas eisprovedbeyondr eas
onabledoubt.Andnot hi
ng
beyondt hatwil
lsuffi
ce.
”

Onstandardofpr oofi
ncivi
lcas es,
LordDenningcomment ed,“Thatdegreeiswell
-
set
tl
ed.Itmus tcarryareasonabledegreeofprobabil
it
y;notsohighasi srequi
red
i
nacr i
mi nalcase.Ift
heevidencei ssuchthatthetri
bunalcans ay“wet hi
nkitis
moreprobablethannot”,t
hebur denisdis
charged.Butift
heprobabil
i
tiesareequal
,
i
tisnot.
”

“BeyondReas onableDoubt”-Judgeshavef ounditdi

ffi
cul
tatt
imestoexplai
nt he
phrase“beyondr easonabl
edoubt”.I
t’
snotenought ous et
hephras
es uchas“you
mus tbes at
isf
ied”,butitmustbeacceptabl
et osay“youmustbesati
sfi
eds othat
youares ureofguilt
”;Rv.Summer s,
(1952).

Not
e,however
,thati
tist
heef
fectoft
hes
ummi
ngupt
hatmat
ter
s;

Rv.Wal t
ers,(
1969).I
nthatcas
e,thejudgeli
kenedthestandardtothedegreeof
certai
ntyrequi
redinmatt
ersofi
mpor t
anceinthejur
y’
sownaf fai
rs.Thecour
ts ai
d
thatitwasunnecessar
ytoovers
tret
chthemeaningof“BeyondReas onabl
eDoubt”
.

I
thasbeensai
dt hatamodeldirect
ionofwhatajudgeshoul
ddir
ectajur
ywast he
di
rect
iongi
veninRv.Fer guson,(1979)
.Here,t
hejudgetoldthej
urythatthey
“s
houldbesat
isf
iedbeyondreasonabledoubtsot
hatyouaresur
eoftheaccus
ed’s

9
gui
l
t”.

COMPETENCEANDCOMPELLABI
LITY

Thegener alrulei sthatallcompetentwi tnessesareal socompellabl

e.However ,
thisisnotanabs ol
uterul
eass omewi tnes sesarecompet entbutnotcompel l
able.
E.g.SovereignsandHeadsofSt at
e;theyar epr otectedbys overei
gnimmuni ty.
Diplomats,officersofinternat
ionalorganizati
ons,infants,mental
lyhandicapped
persons,j
udgesi ncas estheyarepresi
dingoverandt hewifeofanaccus edperson
areallcompet entbutnotcompel l
able;
ex cepti
onst othegeneralr
ule.

However,theycanwai vethatimmunit
yandthenoncethey’
vewai vedit
,theywi l
l
betr
eatedl i
keanyot herwitnessandbesubj
ecttocrossexaminati
on.Awi tnes
s
whoiscompet entandcompel labl
emustcometocourtandtesti
fyifhehast odo
so;i
ftheydonot ,theywillbei ncont
emptofcourt
.Theymi ghtalsobefinedor
i
mprisoned.

Witness
eswhoar ecompet
entandcompellablegenerall
ygivetheirevi
denceorall
y.
Butbeforetheydoso,t
heymus ttakeanoat h.Chri
stiansares wornontheBi bl
e,
Mus l
imsares wornontheQu’ranandJewsar es wor nont heToaort heOld
Testament.Ifonedoesnotwi sht o bes wornr el
igious
ly,theycanmakean
aff
irmati
on.

Theyall
,however
,havet hesameef f
ect;onceyou’
vebeenswornorhavemadean
aff
ir
mation,
ifyouli
ewhi ls
ttest
if
ying,you’
llbegui
l
tyofper
jur
y.Notethatyoucan
al
sogiveunswornevidence;us
uall
yi nthecaseofchi
l
drenanunswornevidencei
s
notanoath.

I
nter
pret
ersandTransl
ators-General
ly,i
nter
preter
sdonothavet otakeanoath
t
heyareonlyus
edwhent hewitnessdoesnotunderstandt
hel
anguageofthecour
t.
I
nSierr
aLeone,t
helanguageofthecourti
sEnglis
h.

Competence-Whenwes ayawi
tnes
siscompet
ent
,wemeant
hathei
sabl
eto
tes
tif
yorgiveevi
dence.

Compel
labl
e-Compell
ableref
erstotheex
pect
ati
ont
hati
fawi
tnes
siscal
l
edt
o
comeandtest
if
y,t
heyareboundtocome.

1
0
 EXCEPTI
ONSTOTHEGENERALRULE

1)CHI LDREN AND I NFANTS– Atcommonl aw,achi l

dmaybes wor
ni nany
proceedings;providedthatheors heunders
tandsthenatureoftheoathandt he
obli
gationtot el
lthet r
uth;Rv.Brasi
er(
1779).Buti
fthechil
ddoesnotunderstand
thenatur eoftheoat h,heors hemaynotbes worn.Gener
all
y,i
tincl
udeschi
ldren
ofveryt enderyears;ages8-1
0.

Insuchcas eswherethechil
di savict
im,youmayt akeunswor nevidence;
thefact
thatthechil
dcannotgiveevidenceisnottheendofthemat t
er.Therearestatut
ory
guides;S.38(1)oftheChil
drenandYoungPer son’
sActprovidesthatifachildof
youngt enderyearsdoesnot,intheopini
onoft hecour
t,underst
andt henatureof
theoath,thenthatchi
ldwil
lgiveunswornevidence.

Thus,whenachi
ldiscal
l
edupontogi
veevi
dence,t
hecourtmus
texami
newhet
her
thechil
dunderst
andsthenatur
eoft heoath;i
fhedoes ,hemaygivesworn
evi
dence.Ifhedoesnotbutissi
gni
fi
cant
lyint
ell
i
gent
,thechi
ldcangi
vesworn
evi
dence.

Thi
shaspresent
edsomedi f
ficult
ies;t
ryingtoseeifchi
ldrenunder
standthenature
oftheoat
h.Itwasmor eorles sareli
gioustestthatwasus edbutthelawasi tis
now i
sas ecul
artes
t.I
twasdeci dedint heall
-i
mportantcaseofRv.Hayes ;the
ess
enti
alel
ementofthistes
ti sasf ol
lows-I ndeter
miningwhetherachildshould
beswornornot,t
hecourtmus tdecide

1
)Whet
hert
hechi
l
dhass
uff
ici
entappr
eci
ati
onoft
hes
olemni
tyoft
heoccas
ion.

2)Theaddedr
espons
ibi
l
itytot
ellthetr
uthwhi
chi
sinvol
vedi
ntaki
nganoathover
andabovethedutytotel
lthetruth,whi
chisanordi
nar
ydutyofnormalsoci
al
conduct
.

I
notherwords, (
1)Doesthechil
dunderst
andtheserious
nessoftheoccas
ion;why
s
heist her
et esti
fyi
ng?and;(2)Theadditi
onalresponsibi
l
ityoftel
l
ingthetrut
h
i
nvol
vedintakinganoath.Thi
stestgover
nschil
drengivi
ngevidencei
ncourt
.

Thereisnol ai
ddownaut hor
ityfor“tenderyears”andsoitisupt othecourtto
decidewhetherachi l
ds hould gi
ves worn orunsworn evi
dence.Veryyoung
chi
ldrenshouldgeneral
l
ynotbecal ledupont ogiveevi
dence.E.g.I
nthecaseofR
v.Wal l
work,(
1958);agir
loffive(5)yearswasal l
owedtotesti
fy.TheCAs ai
dthat

1
1
i
twasundes i
rabl
etocallagi
rloff
ivetotesti
fyandt hati
tisonl
yinex cept
ional
ci
rcums
tancesthatachi
l
dofsuchtenderyear
ss houl
dbecall
edtotes
tif
y.

I
nWr i
ghtv.Ormrod;achi
l
dageds i
x(6)wasall
owedtogiveevidence.TheCAsai
d
thati
twasnotr i
ghttoal
low hert
odos o;chi
l
drenbel
ow eight(8)shoul
dnotbe
all
owedtotes
tif
y.

Thelawisthatchi
ldr
enbeloweight(8)shouldnotber egar
dedasbeingcompetent
totest
if
yunlessyoucanpr oveot her
wise.Nor mall
y,chi l
drenundereight(
8)are
consi
deredtobet ooyoungtot akeanoat h,whi l
et hoseoverten( 1
0)yearsare
consi
deredtobeoldenough.Thewat er
shedliesbet weent hetwoages;10,1
1,and
12yearoldshoul
dbeall
owedt ogiveswornevi dence.

Thebot t
om li
nenow mightbetheHayesTest.I
ns i
tuati
onswheret
hechil
disof
tenderyear
sandtheysati
sfyt
heHayesTest
,theyshouldbeal
lowedt
otes
tif
y.

2)PERSONSOFDEFECTI VEINTELLECT– Thegener alruleist hatpers

onsof
uns
oundmi ndordefect
iveintel
l
ect,whoar enotcapableofunder st
andingthe
nat
ureoftheoathandofgivi
ngrati
onalevi
dence,
arenotcompet entwit
nes s
es.I
t
i
sforthecour
ttodeci
dewhethersuchapersoniscompetentornot.

Previousl
y,thetestwaswhet herthewitnessunderst
andst henatur
eands ancti
on
oftheoat h;Rv.Hi l
l,(1851)
;thewi t
nes
swasani nmateofal unat
icasyl
um who
sufferedfr
om delusionsthathehadnumer ousspir
itsaroundhim whotalktohim.
However ,medicalevidencewasgi venthatthewitnesswascapabl eofgivi
ngan
accountofanyt r
ans act
ionofwhi chhewasaneyewi tnessandthejudger ul
ed
thathewascompet ent.Thi
sruli
ngwasuphel dbytheCA.

Nowadays,
however,
thet
esttobeappl
i
edt
oident
if
yper
sonsofdef
ect
ivei
ntel
l
ect
i
sthesecul
art
estofRv.Hayes.

Therewasalsothecas
eofRv.Bel l
amy,(
1985);i
nthiscase,awomanagedt hi
rt
y-
thr
ee(33)butwithamentalageoften(
10),wasall
owedbyaj udget
otest
if
yand
theCAr ul
edthatsheshoul
dnothavebeenallowedtot est
if
ybecauseshecould
notsat
isfyt
heHayesTest.

So,t hetesttobeus edasr egar

dst hecompetenceofment al
l
yhandi capped
pers
ons i sthe Hayes Testand thatis whet
hert he pers
on has s uffi
ci
ent
appreci
ati
onofthes er
iousnes
soft heoccas
ionandar eali
zat
iont hatheors he

1
2
mus
ttel
lthet
rut
hwhenheors
hehast
akent
heoat
h.

Ther
eareti
meswhenmedicalevi
dencehastobebr oughti
nors
ought
.Buti
fthe
wit
nessi
scompl
etel
ycr
azy,youdonotcal
lthatwi
tnessatal
l.

OTHERTYPESOFWI
TNESSES

DEAFANDDUMBWI TNESS–Thegener alruleisthatadeafordumbwi tnes

sis
competentprovi
ded:(1)hecanbemadet ounderstandthenat
ureoftheoathand
(2)t
hroughsignl
anguage,hecanunder
standques t
ionsandgi
veanswers.Thi
scan
bedonet hr
oughaninterpr
eter
;Rv.Rus
ton,(
1 786).

WI TNESSESWHO AREDRUNK OR UNDER THEI NFLUENCEOFDRUGS– The

generalr ul
eisthats uchwi
tnesseswil
lbeall
owedtot es
tif
yprovi
dedthewitnes s
understandst henatureoftheoathandhi si
ntel
l
ectisnotimpair
ed;Rv.Pai nes,
(1987);here,thewitnesswasbroughttocour
ttotest
ifyandhewass odrunkt hat
hecoul dnotunder st
andtheproceedi
ngs.Thecasewasadjour
nedunti
lhegotout
ofhisdr unkenstupor.

Ther eares omesit

uati
onswhenawi t
nesshasbeens wor nandwhil
eattempt
ingt o
gi
veevi dence,hestart
st ogivet heimpress i
onofbei ngi
ncoher
ent,ofunsound
mi ndorofbei ngunablet ocommuni cate.Here,thejudgeshoul
dstopt hematter
anddecl arethatthewitnessisi ncompetent;Rv.Whi t
ehead.Thewitnessshould
stepdownandt hejudges houl
dcont i
nuewi t
ht hecas
eanddi r
ectt
hejurytoi
gnor e
al
l thetesti
monyoft heincoherentwitness.

I
nt hecas eofRv.St r
et t
on,(1986);theCAs ai
dthatat rialjudgehasdi scret
iont o
al
low a t ri
alto continue wher e a wi tness who was epi l
eptic and ment all
y
handicappedandhavingbeencr oss-exami nedforsomet ime, becamei llandcoul d
notgiveevidencefurt
her .Andal s
o,whenmedi calevidences howedt hati twoul d
beundes i
rabl
eandunf airtohavethewi tnessbackintot hewi tnessbox .Inpractice,
i
fthei ncapaci
tyistempor ar
y,thej udgemayadj ournt heevi denceoft hewi tness
untilt
heincapaci
tyisover .I
fiti
sapr olongedincapacity, i
twoul dbebet t
erfort he
witnesstobes t
ooddown.

Final
l
y,t
her
earesi
tuati
onswhereawi t
nes
sbecomessoovercomewi
themot
ion
thatt
hebes
tthi
ngi
sf orthecour
ttoadj
our
nthematt
erunt
ilt
hewit
nes
sget
sover

1
3
t
hatemot
ion.

DIPLOMATSANDCONSULS– Di plomatsandCons ul
s,byvirt
ueoft heVienna
Convention,areus uall
ypr ot
ectedfrom beinginvol
vedinthelegalprocessinthe
countri
esinwhi cht heyserve.Theycannei t
herbes uednorcantheybecompel l
ed
totesti
fyincivi
l andcriminalcases
.Event houghtheyarecompetentt
odos o,
they
are,however,notcompel l
able.

Theycan,however,waivetheiri
mmunityanddeci
det otest
if
yi ftheydodesi
reto
dosoandoncet heydos o,thei
rimmunit
yissuspendedfort hatperi
odandthey
maybet r
eatedli
keanyot herwit
ness;
theycanbes ubj
ectedtocr oss-
exami
nat
ion
andal
ltheotherr
ulesthatotherwit
ness
eshavetocomplywi th.

Thi
salsoappl
i
estothosewhoworkf
ori
nter
nat
ionalor
gani
zat
ionsl
ikeUNAMSIL
et
c.Theyarecompetentbutt
heyar
enocompel l
abl
e.However,t
heycanals
o
waivei
mmunit
yift
heychooset
o.

HeadsofSt ate-Theyar eallcompetentbutnotcompell

able.Theyalsohavethe
optionofwai vingthei
rimmunityi
ftheysodes i
re.Somecountri
eshaveaprovisi
on
i
nt heirConstit
utionthatt
heHeadofSt atecannotbesuedorber equi
redt
ot est
if
y
whiles t
il
linoff i
ce.TheSier
raLeoneCons t
it
uti
on,however,doesnothaves ucha
provisi
onbutundert heoldCommonLaw Rul es
,theHeadofSt at
ecannotbe
compel l
edtot estif
y.

Bankers-Bankerscannotbecompel ledtotest
ifyincas esi
nwhi chtheyarenot
part
ies.Theyarecompetentbutnotcompel l
abl
ewhent hebankisapar t
ytot hat
act
ion.S.6oftheBankersBooksEvi denceAct1 879pr ovi
desthatcopi
esofentries
i
n bankers’booksar es ubjectto cer tai
ns af
eguards.Theyar eadmi ssi
bleas
evi
dence oft hei
rcontentst o pr
ot ectbank personnelf r
om the unnecessary
i
nconvenienceofeitherpr ovidi
ngt heor igi
nal
sofs uchbooksorappear ingas
wit
ness es
.

Abankerorof fici
alofthebanks hallnot,i
nanylegalproceedi
ngst owhichthe
bankisnotapar ty,becompel
labletoproduceanybanker’
sbookst hecont
entsof
whichcanbepr ovedunderthi
sAct ,
ortoappearasawi t
nesstoprovethematters
,
tr
ansacti
onsandaccount st
hereinrecorded,
unl
essbyor derofajudgemadef ora
speci
alcause.

1
4
Judges-Judgesarecompetentbutnotcompel
l
abl
eincr
imi
nalcas
est
otes
tif
yin
matter
swhichtheyhavepr
es i
dedupon.

COMPLEXEXCEPTI
ONSTOTHEGENERALRULE:
COMPETENCE&
COMPELLABI
LITYOF:

ANACCUSEDPERSON–Thegener alrul
eisthatanaccus
edpersoni
nacr i
minal
tr
iali
sani ncompet
entwitnes
sfort hepros
ecuti
on.Ontheotherhand,heisa
competentwit
nessi
nhisowndefence.

Anaccus
edpersoni
nSi
err
aLeonedoesnotneces
sar
il
yhavet
otes
tif
yandhas
thr
ee(
3)opt
ions-

1)Hecangot
othewi
tnes
sboxandt
est
if
yonhi
sownbehal
fjus
tli
keanyot
her
wit
nes
s.

2)Hecanremainint
hedockandmakeanuns
wor
nst
atementf
orwhi
chhecannot
becr
oss-
examined.

3)Hecans
ayt
hather
eli
esont
hes
tat
ementt
hathemadet
othepol
i
ce.

SPOUSEOFTHEACCUSED–Asagener alrul
e,t
hespouseofanaccus
edper
sonis
anincompetentwit
nes
sf ort
hepros
ecut
ion.However,t
hes pous
eiscompet
ent
andcompell
ablei
ncert
aincas
es-

1
)Cas
esf
all
i
ngundert
heEvi
denceActof1
877.

2)Char
gesofvi
olenceagai
nstt
hems
elves
.

3)Char
gesofs
exual
off
encesagai
nstt
hei
rchi
l
dren.

4)Char
gesofi
njur
ytot
hei
rli
ber
tyorheal
th.

5)Cas
esofTr
eas
on.

As a generalrul
e,t
he spous
e ofan accus
ed per
son i
s compet
entbutnot
compell
abl
easawi t
nes
sf oraco-
accus
edchargedwit
hherhusbandwhenthe
husbandconsents
.

Ther
eare,however
,except
ionstothi
srul
e;wher
eshecant
est
if
yforaco-
accus
ed
wit
houtt
heconsentofherhusband-

1
5
1
)Onchar
gesofvi
olenceagai
nsther
sel
f.

2)Char
gesofi
njur
ytoherl
i
ber
tyorheal
th.

3)Sex
ual
off
encesagai
nstt
hei
rchi
l
drenorher
sel
f.

4)Tr
eas
oncas
es.

I
SSHEACOMPETENTWI TNESSFORTHEACCUSED?– Asagener alr
ule,t
he
spous
eoftheaccusedisacompet
entbutnotcompel
l
abl
ewi
tnes
sfort
heaccused.
Theexcept
ionst
othisare-

1
)Onchar
gesofvi
olenceori
njur
ytoherheal
thorl
i
ber
ty.

2)Cas
esofTr
eas
on.

3)Sex
ual
mis
conductagai
nstChi
l
dren.

Note-wi t
htheGener
alRul
e,t
heyarecompet
entbutnotcompel
l
abl
ebutf
ort
he
Except
ions,t
heyar
ecompet
entandcompel
l
abl
e.

CO-ACCUSED–Asagener alr
ule,eit
heroftheco-
accusedi
scompetentbutnot
compellabl
e.Theonlywayinwhi cheit
hercanbeus edasawi t
nes sforthe
prosecuti
oniswhen-

1)TheProsecuti
oncandecidenott
opr
oceedwi
tht
hewi
tnes
s’scas
eorent
era
nol
lepr
osequi(donotpr
oceed).

2)ThePr
osecut
ionof
fer
snoevi
denceagai
nstt
heco-
accus
ed.
st
3)TheWi
tnesscanpl
eadgui
l
tyandbes
ent
encedwhi
cht
akeshi
m outoft
he1
cas
ecompl
etel
y.

Ther
ear eti
meswhent heprosecuti
on’
sbes twitnes
sisonet hatt
heyhavecharged
and sometimesthey tur
n Crown’switnes s
.So,i ftheyar eto be used asa
competentand compel l
abl
e wi t
ness,they mus tbe t aken outoft he case
complet
ely.Theco-
accusedcantesti
fyintheirowndefence.

Atcommonl aw,adi vor

ceds pous
ewasasi ncompet
enttot es
tif
ytomat t
ers
occur
ri
ngduri
ngthemar r
iageasonewhohadnotbeendivor
cedasinthecas
eof
Monroev.Twi
stl
eton,
(1802).

1
6
Thecommonl awrulesti
llappli
ess ubjectt
omodi fi
cat
ionbyt heCriminalEvi
dence
Act,1898andtheEvidenceAct ,1877.Theses t
atut
ess t
atethatthewor ds‘
husband’
and‘wife’
mustbet akentoi ncl
udeaf ormerhusbandorwi fetest
if
yingtomat ter
s
occurri
ngdur
ingthemar ri
ageasi nt hecaseofRv.Al gar,(
1954).

When a witnesscomest ot he witnessbox ,gener

all
y he shoul
d answerall
quest
ionsputtohim.Ift
heyrefusetoans wer
,theycoul
dbegui l
tyofcontemptof
court
.Thereare,however,certai
nins t
anceswher ethewitnesscanr efus
et o
answeronthefol
lowingt
wogr ounds-

1
)Ifhi
sanswertothequest
ionwil
lleadt
oincr
imi
nat
ionofhi
msel
forhi
sspous
e;
t
herul
eagai
nsts
elf
-incr
imi
nati
on.

2)Hecanref
usetoansweronthegroundoflegalprivi
l
egei ftheans
werhe’
s
suppos
edt
ogivei
nevi
dencei
scover
edbylegal
profes
sionalpr
ivil
ege.

Thedeci
s i
ontorefusetoansweri
snothisorhers;t
heywil
lhavetos
howgrounds
andthejudgewillhavetofi
ndoutwhetherinfactthos
egroundswi
lli
ncr
imi
nate
youoryourspouse.

Note-Ifthewitnes
sisadi plomatandhaswaivedthei
rimmunit
y,theyar
ethen
cross
-exami
nedandt reat
edl i
keanyotherwi
tness.Nos peci
alr
ulesappl
yonce
theyhavedeci
dedtotesti
fy.

CORROBORATI
ON

Thegener alrul
ei sthatonewi tnessissuf
fi
cientt
ot esti
fyforaconvict
ion.I
n
practi
ce,however,i
tisus ual
l
yneces s
arytohavesupport
ingevidencet
oprovean
i
ss ueeventhoughas ingl
ewitnes
si ssuf
fi
ci
enttodoso.

Theclassi
cDef i
nit
ionofCor roborati
onwasgi veninRv.Bas kervi
l
le,
(1916),
where
i
twass ai
dt hatcor r
oborati
onmeanss upporti
ngorconf i
rmingevidencewhich
i
mplicat
est he accused int he offencechar ged i
n a mat eri
alparti
cular
.Itis
i
ndependentevidencewhi chimplicat
estheaccus edasdes cri
bedabove.Itmustbe
i
ndependent,admi ssi
ble,credibl
eandi tmus timplicat
et heaccus edandi na
materi
alpart
icul
ar.Inones entence,i
tmeanss upport
ingevidence.

EXCEPTI
ONS–Ther
eareinst
anceswhencor
robor
ati
oni
srequi
redasamat
terof
l
awandasamat
terofpr
acti
ce.

1
7
Corr
oborati
onrequi
redasamat terofLaw -Whencorroborat
ionisrequi
redasa
matteroflaw,i
fthereisnocor
roborati
onofthechar
gef orwhichtheaccusedi
s
char
ged,thecasemus tbedi
smi
ss ed.

Cor
roborat
ionrequir
edasamat terofPract
ice-Whencor r
oborationi
srequi
redas
amatterofpract
ice,ther
eneednotbecor r
oborat
ionbutthejudgehasthedutyof
war
ningthejuryofthedangersofact
ingonuncorrobor
atedevidence.

WHATFORMSDOESI T(CORROBORATION)TAKE?–Thegener alf

ormi ttakesi
s
tohavetheevi
denceofas econdwi
tnes
s.Itusuall
yconsist
sintheevidenceof
anotherwit
nes
s.However,att i
mes
,cor r
obor
ation can be i
nthe form ofa
document.

Itcanal s
ot aketheform ofbloods tai
nsont heclothesorbloodt est
s,urine
sampl esors emenetc.Theseareal lcons i
deredt obef or
msofi ndependent
evidence.Evenl i
escoul
damountt ocor r
oborati
on;Rv.Lucas .However,thefact
thats omeone fail
stot est
if
yi s notcor roborat
ion.The evidence mus tbe
i
ndependentbutal soadmiss
ibl
eevidence.Itmustalsobecredi
ble.

WhenCor
robor
ati
oni
srequi
redasamat
terofLaw

1)Per
jur
y,aspres
cri
bedbyt hePerj
uryAct
,191
1;youcannotconvi
ctanyoneof
per
jur
yunles
sther
eiscor
roborat
ion.

2)Treason,aspres
cr i
bedbyt heStat
eOf f
encesAct
,1963;youcannotconvi
ct
anyoneoftreas
onunlessther
eiscor
robor
ati
on.

3)Ex
ceedi
ngt
heSpeedLi
mit
;ther
emus
tbecor
robor
ati
on.

4)Aff
il
iat
ionProceedi
ngs
;E.
g.i
famani
sdenyi
ngt
hathei
sthef
atherofachi
l
d,
youcancorrobor
atebyDNA.

5)El
ect
ionOf
fences;peopl
echargedunderel
ect
oralof
fencescannotbeconvi
cted
unl
esst
hechargeiscorr
oborat
ed.

6)Uns
wor
nEvi
denceofaChi
l
d.

7)Cert
ainSex
ualOf
fencesvi
olat
ingt
heSex
ualOf
fencesAct
,1956;Sect
ions2-
4
and22-
23.

I
nal
loft
hes
ecas
es,i
fther
eisno cor
robor
ati
on,t
hecas
ewi
l
llaps
e.When
1
8
cor
roborat
ioni
sr equi
redasamat t
erofl
aw,t
hequest
ionofwhet
herevi
dence
amountstocor
roborat
ionornoti
sonef
ort
hej
uryt
odeci
de.

S.7oftheSex
ualOffencesAct,1956dealswit
htheprocur
ementofwomenf
ort
he
purpos
esofpros
tit
utionorforunlawf
ulsexuali
nter
cour
se.

Notethatthisrequi
rementofcorrobor
ati
ondoesnotappl ytorape.Forexceedi
ng
thespeedli
mi t
,thecourt
sall
owt hespeedometerofthepoli
cecarascorr
oborati
on
toshow thatthes peedi
ngoccur r
edasi nthecaseofNi chol
asv.Penny;(1952).
Theuns wornevidenceofchi
ldr
enmus tbecorrobor
ated.

Theunswornevi
denceofonechi
l
ddoesnotcor
robor
atet
heuns
wor
nevi
denceof
anot
herchi
l
d.

I
fanotherchi
ldhast
ocor
robor
atet
heuns
wor
nevi
denceofanot
herchi
l
d,i
tmus
t
becor
roborat
ed.

WhenCor
robor
ati
oni
srequi
redasamat
terofPr
act
ice

When cor robor

ati
on isr equired as a matterofpr act
ice,t here need notbe
corroborati
onbutthej udgehast hedut yofwar ni
ngthej uryoft hedangersof
acti
ng on uncorroborated evidence.Thismeanst hati
ft hej urybel i
evesthe
credibi
li
tyoftheevidencebef oret hem,theycangoaheadandpas saverdi
ctof
convicti
onoracquitt
al,providedthatthewar ni
nghasbeengi vent othem.Iti
sf or
thejuryt odeci
dewhatwei ghttogi vetheevidenceandwhati nferencestodraw
fromi t
.

I
fthewarni
ngisnotgiven,
itwi
l
lbeagroundf
oranappealandi
tismos
tli
kel
ythat
t
heappealwoul
ds ucceedandt
heconvi
cti
onwil
lbequas
hed.

I
nWhatCi
rcums
tancesi
sCor
robor
ati
onr
equi
redasamat
terofPr
act
ice?

1)Wher ethemat t
erisregardingt
hes wornevidenceofchil
dren.Whenchi l
dren
gi
ves wornevidence,t
hejuryhastobewar nedbyt hej
udgeaboutt hedanger
sof
convict
ingwit
houtcorroborat
iononthatevi
dence;thej
udgeiswar ni
ngthejur
yt o
approachtheswornevidenceofthechi
ldwithcareandcaut
ion.

2)Complai
ntsi
ns omeSexualOffences.Therearesomesex
ualoff
encesforwhich
somepeoplehavecomplainedandt hej ur
ys houl
dbewarned.Apartf
rom those
caseswher
ecorrobor
ati
onisrequiredasamat terofl
aw,
insexual
casesgeneral
ly,

1
9
thejurymustbewar nedoft hedangerofconvi ct
ingont heuncor roborat
ed
evi
denceofthecompl ai
nant.Thisisbecaus ether
earetimeswhens omewomen
makeupacompl ai
ntofr apebasedons pit
e,fantas
yorneurosi
setc.Therear eal
so
i
nstanceswherethecompl ainanthascons entedtosexandi sthenas hamedt o
admitit
.Thecomplai
nantmayt el
lafal
s estorywhichisver
yeasyt ofabricat
ebut
ext
remelydi
ff
icul
ttorefute.

3)EvidenceofAccompl i
ces.Whenanaccompl i
cetestifi
esagai nstsomeonewho
commi tt
edacr ime,t hewar ningmus tbegi venast heaccompl icemi ghthavehi s
ownmot ivenott ot el
lthet ruthandt hedangeri sthathemi ghtimpl i
catethem
falsel
y,minimizehi sowncul pabi l
i
tyandex aggeratethatofot herssot hathemi ght
haveal ights entence.Theref ore,thel
aw t akesthevi ew thatawar ningmus tbe
givenwhenanaccompl icegi vesevidencef orthepr osecuti
on;Davi esv.DPP,
(1954).(Notet hatt hisdoesnotappl ywhenhegi vesevi denceagai nstaf ellow
defendant).Thedef i
niti
onofaccompl i
ce,fort hepurpos esoft hiscasewasgi ven
byLor dSi mmonswher ehel aiddownt hr
ee( 3)cl
assesofper sonstober egarded
asaccompl i
ces-

1
)Par
ti
est
otheof
fencechar
ged.

2)Recei
ver
sasaccompl
i
cesoft
het
hievesf
romwhomt
heyr
ecei
vegoods
.

3)Par
ti
estootheroff
encescommitt
edbyt
heaccus
ed,evi
denceofwhi
chi
s
admi
ssi
blet
opr
ovetheoff
encechar
ged.

TheWar ni
ng-Thereisnopr escr
ibedformulaforthewar ni
ngbutthej
udgemus t
warnthejuryclear
lyoftheriskofactingont heevidenceofanaccompl ice.He
mightsaytothem t
hataninnocentpersonmaybeconvi ctedontheevi
denceofa
pers
on/wit
nesswhoi snott
ell
ingthetr
ut hbecaus
ehei ss ervi
nghi
sowninterest
.

Thewar ni
ngmus ttaket
hef or
m ofwor dsusedwhich,i
nplainl
anguage,conveys
theser
iousnes
soft heri
skinvolvedandwhi l
etheword‘danger
’doesnothavet o
beused,iti
sdiff
icul
ttothi
nkofabet terex
pressi
onwhichconveysthenecessary
for
ce.

TheRuleinDavi
esv.DPPdoesnotappl
ywhenanaccomplicei
stesti
fyi
ngforthe
def
ence;Rv.Prager
.Seeal
soRv.Bagley,(
1980)andRv.Loveri
ge.I
tisalsothe
dut
yoft hej
udgetodir
ectt
hejur
yastowhatevidenceamount
stocor r
obor
ati
on.

20
Thejudgewil
ltel
lthej
urywhatevi
denceamountst
ocorr
obor
ati
on,andoncet
hat
’
s
beendone,i
fther
e’snocor
robor
ati
on,thati
svi
rt
ual
lyt
heendofthatcas
e.

Whent hej udgeisdi r

ectingthej ur
yoncor robor
ation,hemus ttel
lthem that
corr
oborationmeansindependentevidencewhi chdoesnotcomef rom t
hewi t
ness
andwhi chi mpli
cat
est heaccus edpersoni ns omemat er
ialparti
cul
arandal so
confi
rmst hati
twasheors hewhocommi ttedtheoffence.Thej udgeshoul
dpoint
outtot he evidence whi ch,i
ft he j
ury accepts,iscapabl e ofamounting to
corr
oborationandthendi r
ectthejurythati
tisf ort
hem todeci dewhetheritdoes
confi
rmt hewitness
’sevidence.

Anot herform ofcorroborati

oni sli
es;whenanaccus edper sontell
slieswhi l
e
test
ifying,
itispossi
bleforthatli
etoamountt ocorroborati
on.Theques ti
onis,Can
LiesAmountt oCorroborati
on?Yes ,provi
dedcertaincondi ti
onsarefulf
il
led;The
Rulei n R v.Lucas ,(1981),CA;in certai
n ci
rcums tances,when awi tnessis
test
ifyingincour tandhet el
l
sal i
e,itispos si
blef ort hatli
et o amountt o
corroborati
onandi nordertobecapabl eofbeingcor roborati
on,four(4)cri
teri
on
havet obes ati
sfi
ed-

1
)Thel
i
emus
tbeadel
i
ber
atel
i
e.

2)Thel
i
emus
trel
atet
oamat
eri
ali
ssue.

3)Themot
ivef
ort
hel
i
emus
tbear
eal
i
zat
ionofgui
l
tandaf
earf
ort
het
rut
h.

4)Thel
i
emus
tbecl
ear
lys
hownt
obes
uch.

MutualCor r
obor
ati
on -I fa child gi
ves unsworn evidence,she cannotbe
corr
oborat
edbyunswor nevidence.Shecanonlybecor r
oboratedbysomebodyor
anotherchil
dwhogi vess wornevidence.Ands o,t
herecani ndeedbemut ual
corr
oborat
ion,pr
ovi
dedt hattheuns wornevidenceiscompl iment
edbys wor
n
evi
dence;DPPv.Hester,
(1973).

Compl
ai
ntsofWomenwhohavebeenas
saul
tedSex
ual
l
y

I
fagi r
l/
womancompl ai
nstot hepol i
cethatshehasbeensexuall
yassaul
ted,can
thatcomplai
ntamountt o corroborat
ion?No,byi t
self
,thatcomplaintcannot
amounttocorroborat
ion;i
tisnoti ndependents
othatitsat
isf
iesthedefi
nit
ionof
i
ndependencegiveninRv.Bas kervi
ll
e.

21
InRv.Whi tehead,(1929),thejudges ai
dt hatthecompl ai
ntoft hegir
lcannotbe
cor
robor at
edbyher s
elf,otherwise,i
tisonlyneces saryforhertorepeatherst
ory
some25t imest oget25cor roborati
ons.Int hi
scas e,t
hegi r
lcomplainedtoher
mothers omet imeafterall
egeds exualassaulthadtakenplace;t
hemot hert
esti
fi
ed
butthecour tsreject
edt hisevidenceasnotbei ngindependentbecauseshewas
onl
yr epeati
ngwhatherdaught erhadt ol
dher .

Buti
tdoesnotmeant hats uchevidencei
sus eless;itamount
stocons i
stencyand
maybeadmi ss
ibl
einevi dencethus;Rv.Chr i
stie,(1
91 4)
;her
e,thequest
ionar ose
astowhethert
hecompl aintamountedtocor r
obor at
ion.Thecourts
aidno, butthe
compl
aintwasadmiss
iblet oshowcons i
stency.

Di
str
ess
edcondi
ti
onofWomen

Isthedi st
ressedconditi
onofawomanaf t
ers hehasbeenr oughedupenought o
amountt ocor r
oborati
on?Thedi stress
edcondi t
ionbyi tselfcannotamountt o
corrobor ati
onbecaus eiti
snotindependentinaccor dancewi ththeRv.Baskervill
e
standar d;Rv.Redpat h,(
1962);
here,alit
tl
egi rl
wass exuall
yas saul
tedandwasi na
rd
dist
r essedcondi t
ion.Unknownt othegirl
,herdi s
tresswasobs er
vedbya3 par ty
r
d
andt hecourtall
owedt he3 par t
yt otest
ifyast othegirl
’
scondi ti
on,ast
hisf i
tthe
definiti
onofi ndependentgi
veninRv.Bas kervi
ll
e.

InRv.Chauhan,( 1981),thevi
cti
m oft heall
egeds exualassaultwasobserved
runningf rom t
her oom wheresheandt heaccusedhadbeenpr esent
.Hereagain,
an independentper s
on had observed herrunning fr
om t her oom.Thej udge
r
d
dir
ect edthejurythattesti
monyofa3 par tyast othedist
ress
edcondi t
ionofthe
compl ainantcoul
dbet reat
edasindependentand, t
heref
ore,admi s
sibl
e.

InRv.Dowl ey,(1983),acons i
derableperi
odoft i
mehadel apsedbet weent he
r
d
all
egedr apeandt heobs er
vationoft hecompl ai
nantbyt he3 par t
y.Thegi r
lhad
r
d
walkedf oronemi lebutwasobs ervedbyt he3 par ty.Thecour tall
owedt hat
evidencetoamountt obeingindependentbyt hestandardofRv.Bas kervi
l
le.This
wasqui tecont rovers
ialasthet i
meel aps
edgavet hegir
lenought imet ohave
fabri
catedherdi st
ress.Dowleyappeal edandt heCA s ai
dthatt heywoul dnot
i
nterferewiththedecisionoftheHighCour tjudge.

I
DENTI
FICATI
ONEVI
DENCE

22
Engli
shlawaswel lasSier
raLeonelawhass uff
eredal otofmis
car r
iageofjusti
ce
becauseofimproperident
ifi
cat
ioninthepast.Alotofpeoplehavebeenwr ongl
y
convict
edbecauseofidenti
fi
cati
onwhi chwaswr ong,andinEnglandt hes
ituati
on
hadbecomes obadt hatacommi ss
ionwass etuptolookatthewhol equestionof
i
dentifi
cat
ionevi
dence.

I
nt hecaseofRv.Tur nbull
,(1977),t
heCAi nEnglandl aiddowncer tai
nguidel
i
nes
rel
atingtoevidenceofal l
egedlymi st
akenvi s
uali dentif
icat
ionoft heaccused
person.Themi st
akenidenti
fi
cationoftheaccus ed,es pecial
l
yi ncasesofvisual
i
dent i
fi
cat
ion,mayberegardedast hegreates
tcaus eofwr ongfulconvi
cti
onsand
theguidel
i
neslai
ddowni nthiscas eweredesi
gnedt omi nimizethisdamage.

Thes eguidel
inesdonotappl yinallcasesofvi sualidentifi
cat i
on;theyonl yappl y
whenevert hecas eagainstanaccus edper sondependswhol l
yors ubstantial
lyon
thecor r
ectnes sofoneormor eidentifi
cati
onsoft heaccus edwhi chthedef ence
all
egest obemi st
aken.I.
e.ifthereisothermor ecompel li
ngevi denceagai ns tthe
accused,Rv.Tur nbulldoesnotappl y.Thegui del
inesgi veni nRv.Tur nbullonly
applywhent heques t
ionofidenti
fi
cationisindispute.Identi
ficationevidencedoes
notneedcor roborat
ionbutt herearet i
meswheni dentif
icationi sli
nkedupwi th
corroborati
oncas es.Theguideli
neslaiddowni nRv.Tur nbullare-

1)Whent hecaseagainsttheaccuseddependswhollyors ubs

tanti
al
lyont he
corr
ect
nessoftheident
if
icati
onevi
dence,t
hetr
ialj
udgemustwarnt hejur
yabout
thespeci
alneedforcaut i
onandpoi ntoutt
ot hem thedangersofr el
yi
ngon
i
denti
fi
cat
ionevi
dence.

2)Hemus ttellthejur
ywhyther
eissuchaneedforcauti
onandpoi
ntouttothem
thatther
ear etimeswhenami st
akenwit
nessorwitnessescanbeconvinci
ng.
Thereisnopar t
icul
arfor
mul
awhichthej
udgehastouse.

3)The j udge mus tt

hen go on to di
rectt he j
uryt o examine cl
osel
ythe
ci
rcumstances under which the i
dent
ifi
cat
ion was made.E. g.wherethe
i
denti
fi
cationevi
denceisofgoodquali
ty(
alongobs ervat
ionoftheaccusedbyt
he
wi
tness)
, wastheviewobst
r uct
edbypass
ingtr
af f
ic?

4)Ifi
twasacleardayandthelightwasgood,theni
tcanbeleftt
othejur
yto
deci
dewhet
hert
heident
if
icat
ionwasgood,
aftert
hewarni
nghasbeengi
ven.

23
On t heotherhand,wher et hei dentif
icat
ion evidenceisofpoorqual i
ty,(f
or
ex ample,
af leet
inggli
mpseori fitwasdar kandt hewitnesscouldn’
tseetheperson
clearl
y,ort herewast oomucht raff
icpas s
ing,ors omanypeopl ewalkinginthe
road),thejudges houl
dwi t
hdrawt hecas efrom thejurybutthereisapr ovi
so;he
shouldwi thdraw thecas eunl esst her
ei sot herevidencewhi chs upportsthe
cor r
ect
nessoft heidenti
fi
cati
on.

Whent hereisothers upporti

ngEvi dence-Whatcons ti
tutes“ others upporti
ng
evidence”?DNAevi dence,li
estol
di ncour torot hertesti
fyingwi tnessescanal so
amountt o“ot
hers upporti
ngevidence” .Forins tance,onei dentifi
cati
onwi tness
cans upportanother.Evidenceoft heaccus ed’sas soci
ati
onwi thot hersuspects
whohavebeeni dentifi
edorevi dencet hatt hei denti
fi
cationwi t
nes scorrectl
y
i
dent i
fi
edanothers uspectseenwitht heaccus edatt hemat erialtime;allofthese
exampl esconst
it
ute“othersupporti
ngevi dence”.

Thereisals
ot hepos sibi
li
tythattheaccus ed’
sfail
uretotestif
yiscapabl
eofbeing
support
ingevidence.However ,thes upport
ingevidencedoesnothavet omeetthe
techni
calstandardofcor roboration.So,ifanyoft heseot hert
ypesofevidence
exist
sandcans uppor tthecasef ortheprosecut
ion,thentheTurnbul
lgui
del
i
newi l
l
begivenandt heevidencewi l
lbel eftwi
ththejur
yt oconsider.

I
tisforthetri
aljudget oidenti
fytothejuryevi dencewhi
chheconsidersiscapable
ofsupporti
ngthei denti
fi
cationevidence.Ifthereisanyevi
denceorcircumstances
whichthejurymi ghtt hi
nkwass upportingbutwhi chdidnothavet hequalit
yof
suppor
tingevidence,thejudgehast otellthem.

Oneci r
cumstancewherepeopleusuall
ychall
engeidenti
fi
cat
ionevidenceiswhere
theyclai
mt ohaveanalibi
.Fal
seali
biscouldbeputforwardandthejuryshoul
dbe
remindedthataccusedpeopl
earecapableoft el
li
ngli
es,orwil
lfabri
cateevi
dence
toexonerat
ethems el
vesandtheTurnbull
guideli
neshoul
dbegiven.

Outsi
deoforcompl imenti
ngTurnbull
,thereareothertypesofident
if
icat
ionsucha
photographsoravideorecordi
ngoftheof fendercommi t
tingtheof
fence.Butthen
thejudges houl
dwar nthejuryofther i
skofmi stakenidenti
tyandofthes pecial
needforcaution.

Atti
mes,t
her
eisal
sovoiceidenti
fi
cati
onbutt her
eisnosuchrul
et hataTur
nbul
l
gui
del
ines
houl
dbegivenforvoiceident
if
icat
ion.InRv.Hers
ey,(1998),t
women

24
wear ingbal
aclavahelmet srobbedas hop.Ther obberylastedf i
fteenmi nut
esand
i
nvol vedal otoftalki
ngbyt her obbers.Thes hopkeeperrecogni zedt hevoiceof
oneoft herobber
sasal ongs tandi
ngcus tomer.Avoi ceidentifi
cationparadewas
heldatwhi chelevenvol unteersandt heaccus edr eadapas sagef rom abook.A
voirdi r
e(tr
ialwit
hinat ri
al)washel dandanex pertgaveevi dencet hatthetwelve
voiceswer etoomanyandal mos tallt
hevol unteershadavoi cepi tchhigherthan
theaccus edpersonandt hati twasonl ytheaccus edwhohadr eadt hepassagein
awaywhi chmades ense;theaccus edwasconvi cted.

TESTI
MONY

Testi
monyi sapr
ocesswhichwit
nes
sesgothroughi
nbot
hcivi
landcr
imi
nalcas
es;
theproces
softhetr
ial
.Therear
ethr
ee(3)St
agesinaCi
vil
orCri
minal
Case:
st
1 St
age-Ex
ami
nat
ion-
In-
Chi
ef.

2ndSt
age-Cr
oss
-Ex
ami
nat
ion.

3rdSt
age-Re-
Exami
nat
ion.

EXAMI
NATI
ON-
IN-
CHI
EF

Thepurpos
eofExaminati
on-I
n-Chi
efi
sforthepar
tycal
l
ingthewi
tnes
st otakethe
wit
nessthr
oughhi
sevidenceandextr
actf
actswhi
charefavor
abl
etohiscase.

Usuall
y,Ex
ami nat
ion-
In-
Chiefiscommencedbyeit
hertheprosecut
ioni
nacri
minal
caseortheplaint
if
finacivilcase.I
tisus
ual
l
ycommencedbyhewhoas s
ert
s;t
he
part
ywhobr oughtthecases t
art
swi t
hExami
nat
ion-I
n-Chi
ef.

Youaregener
all
ynotpermi
tt
edt oas
kl eadi
ngques
tionsinEx
aminati
on-I
n-Chi
ef
butther
eareexcept
ions
.A leadi
ngquesti
onisaques t
ionwhichsuggest
st he
desi
redans
wer.

Examinati
on-I
n-Chiefisnots uppos edt obelong.InExaminati
on-I
n-Chi
ef,t
hereare
ti
meswhenwi t
nes sesforgetwhatt heyhavetos ayorti
meswhent heymightneed
torefres
ht hei
rmemor y.Refreshingt hei
rmemor yisus ual
lyallowedpr ovi
ded
cert
ainconditi
onsar emet .Wi tnes sesar eal
lowedtorefreshthei
rmemor yasit
mayhavebeenal ongt i
mes incet hei nci
dentoccur
red.

I
nEx
ami
nat
ion-
In-
Chi
ef,i
fiti
sacr
imi
nalcas
e,i
tmeanst
hati
t’
sthepr
osecut
ion

25
wit
nessest
hattesti
fy.I
naci
vi
lcas
e,wi
tnes
sess
uppor
ti
ngt
hepl
ai
nti
ff
’scas
ewi
l
l
betheone’
stes
tif
ying.

Wit
nes
s esgener
all
ys houl
danswerallques
tionsputt
ot hem andiftheyrefus
e,
t
heymaybehel dincontemptofcour
t.Thewi t
nes
smus tspeakthet
ruthbecause
t
heyaresworntospeakthetr
uth.

Ther
earethree(
3)except
ionswher
ethewi
tnes
sisnotboundt
oans
werques
tions
;
i
ftheanswerconcer
ns-

1
)Legal
Prof
ess
ional
Pri
vi
lege.

2)Sel
f-
Incr
imi
nat
ionofYour
sel
f/
Spous
e.

3)Ont
hegr
oundsofPubl
i
cInt
eres
tImmuni
ty/
Mat
ter
sofNat
ional
Secur
it
y.

However
,ifthewi
tnes
sdoesdeci detowaivethei
rpri
vil
ege/i
mmuni
ty,t
heywi
ll
t
henbet r
eat
edli
kear egul
arwi
tness.Theonl
ywi t
ness
est hatwi
l
lbeall
owedt
o
t
esti
fyar
ethosewhoarecompet
entandcompell
able.

Notethatajudgehasadi
scr
eti
ont
ocallar
elevantwi
tnes
sinacri
minalcasei
fthe
pros
ecutionfail
stodoso;Rv.Oliva.Hes houl
d,however
,us
et hatdis
cret
ion
spar
ingl
y.

I
nci
vilcas
esbetweentwopeopl
e,ajudgehasnos
uchdi
scr
eti
on;
hecanonl
ycal
l
awi
tnesswit
htheagr
eementofbot
hpar t
ies
.

WitnessesthathavebeencalledforExami nat
ion-
In-
Chiefcannotbecalledforthe
defence.Also,ifyouareawi tnes
scal l
edf orExaminati
on-I
n-Chi
efpurposesand
your ef
uset ocomeandt est
if
yvoluntari
ly,youcanbes ubpoenaed.Ifyoudisobey
thesubpoena, youwil
lbeguil
tyofcontemptofcour t
.Then,youwi l
leit
herbef i
ned
orimprisonedast hes
ubpoenaisacourtor der
.

Apar tyinExami nation-

In-
Chiefmus tensurethatallhi
swi tnessesarecall
edbef ore
theendofhi sowncas easi ti
snotus uall
ypos sibl
etocal lwit
nes s
esaf t
erhehas
clos
edhi scas e.Butt hejudgehasadi screti
ontocommi tawitnesstobecal l
edif
theneedar is
es ,evenaf t
ertheendofEx ami nati
on-In-
Chiefont hegroundst hatthe
needf orthatwi t
nes scouldnothavebeenf oreseenorant i
cipat
edear l
ier;Rv.
Scott.Butthi
sdi screti
onbyt hejudgeisalsoexercisedsparingl
y.

26
Met
hodsofEx
ami
nat
ion-
In-
Chi
ef

1
)Gener
all
y,bygoi
ngt
othewi
tnes
sbox
,bei
ngs
wor
nandt
est
if
ying.

2)ByVi
deoEvi
dence.

3)ByLi
veTel
evi
si
onLi
nk.

4)Anonymous
ly,
Behi
ndaScr
een.

Al
loft
hes
ear
eus
ual
l
ydonef
oryoungorvul
ner
abl
ewi
tnes
ses
.

Ex
ami
nat
ion-
In-
Chi
ef,
however
,doeshavei
tsl
i
mit
s-

1
)Theques
tionsas
kedmus
tber
elevant
.

2)Theques
tionscannotbel
eadi
ngques
tions
.

Leadi
ngQuest
ions-Leadi
ngquesti
onsarenotpermit
ted.Theseusual
l
yar esuch
quest
ionswhi
chsuggestt
hedesi
redanswer.However
, t
her
eareexcept
ionstothe
rul
e-

1
)Pr
eli
minar
yMat
ter
s-Name,
Addr
esset
c.

2)Mat
ter
snoti
ndi
sput
e.

3)Byagr
eementwi
thyouropponentorwi
thyouropponent
’
scons
ent
.

4)Wi
tht
hel
eaveoft
hej
udge,
ift
hewi
tnes
shasbeendecl
aredahos
til
ewi
tnes
s.

Thereas onwhyl eadi

ngques ti
onsarenotpermitt
edisbecauseiftheywer etobe
permit
ted,itwoulddestroythewholepurposeoftheExaminati
on-I
n-Chi
ef,becaus
e
thewitnes smus t,ingeneral,gi
veevidencef r
om hisper s
onalknowl edge.He
shoul
dt ell
thecourtwhathes aw,heardorwhathedid.Hes houlddos ot
os upport
thecas eoft hepar tycall
inghim aswi t
ness
.Thewi t
ness’
st esti
monyi snot
supposedt oberehearsed.

Fori
l
li
ter
atewi
tnes
ses
,youneedani
nter
pret
eri
nal
anguaget
heyunder
stand.

Thel
awalsofr
ownsuponpaymentofawi
tnes
stogoandt
est
if
y;i
fyoudos
o,you
ar
eperver
ti
ngt
hecauseofj
ust
ice.

Unf
avor
abl
eWi
tnes
s-I
nthi
sscenar
io,t
hewi
tnes
sisnots
ayi
ngwhatyouwant

27
them tosay;notcomi ngupt oproof.I
tcouldbebecaus eoftheageofthewi t
ness
becausethey’
vef orgot t
enetc.Ifyouarealawyerandyouhaveawi tnes
swhoi sn’
t
comi nguptopr oof,thereisnot hi
ngyoucandoabouti tbecausealthoughthe
witnessi
sunf avorable,themos tyoucandoi stostoptheexaminat
ion-i
n-chi
efand
l
ett hewit
nessgoorf inishyourexaminat
ion-i
n-chi
ef.

Contrar
yt othisi
st heHosti
leWi t
nes s-Inthi
sscenario,yourownwi tnessturns
hosti
letoyou.Asagener alrule,apartyisnotal
lowedt oimpeach/dis
creditt
heir
ownwi tness.I
naHos ti
l
eWi t
nes sscenari
o,i
nst
eadofs ayingwhattheysaidbefore
onr ecord,thewitnessiss ayings omethi
ngdiffer
ent;beinghos t
il
e.Thisi sa
probl
em ashehasahos ti
l
eani mus;hehasdecidednott otellt
hetrut
handnott o
supporthisownsideanymore.

I
fthi
shappens
,ther
ear
ecer
tai
npr
ocedur
als
tepsyoumus
ttake-

Befor
et r
eat
inghim ashos t
il
e,show hi
ss t
atementt hathemadebefor
e.Ifhe
conti
nuesst
ill
,youmus tapplytothejudgef oryourwi t
nes
stobecons i
der
ed
hosti
l
e.Youneedtheleaveofthej
udgefort
hatwi t
nesstobecons
ider
edhost
il
e.

I
tisnotenough t os ayt hatthewitnessi shos ti
l
ebecaus ehisevidencei s
unf
avor
ablet
oyou; hemus tbeprovedhost
il
ei nthatheisunwill
i
ngtotel
lthetruth.
So,t
her
eisadisti
ncti
onbet weenanunfavorablewitnessandahos t
il
ewitness;an
unf
avor
ablewit
nessisf or
getful
.Ahosti
lewitnessisrecal
cit
rantandnotwill
i
ngt o
gi
veevi
dencetorei
nforceorbackuphisori
ginalstat
ement.

I
fthejudgegr
ant
sleavef
orawi
tnes
stobedecl
aredhos
til
e,t
hent
her
ear
ecer
tai
n
t
hingsyoucando-

Youcanas kt hewi t
nesswhet herhehadmadeaper sonals t
atementwhichis
i
nconsistentwithwhathei snows ayi
ngi
ncourt
.Ifheacceptsthathedid,
youmay
cros
s-examinehi m upont hats
t atement
.Ifhedeniesthathemadeas t
atement
,
youcanpr oducet hestat
ement,s howhimthestatementandtenderthestat
ement
i
ncour tt
odi scredi
thi
m.

Wi
thanUnf avorabl
eWi
tnes
s,youcanal
wayst
ryt
oseei
fyoucanj
ogt
hat
wi
tnes
s’smemory.

Wit
haHosti
leWi
tnes
s,t
hewi
tnes
smayhavebeenbr
ibed,i
nti
midat
edori
str
ying
t
oprot
ects
omebody.

28
Evenwithawit
nesswhom yous us
pectisbei
nghost
il
e;youcantrytoseeift
hey
willr
efr
esht
hei
rmemor y.Ift
heypers
istinnotmat
chingthei
ror
iginals
tat
ement
,
thenyoumakeanappl
i
cationtot
hecourt.

CONSEQUENCESOFAJUDGEDECLARI
NGAWI
TNESSHOSTI
LE

1
)Itmeansyoucandi
scr
edi
thi
m.

2)Youcanal
soas
khi
mleadi
ngques
tions
.

3)Youcanaskhi
m whetherhe/shehasmadeas t
atementi
nthepas
twhi
chi
s
i
ncons
ist
entwi
thwhathe/
sheisnows ayi
ngi
ncour
t.

4)Ift
heyadmi
tto(3)
,thatal
sodi
scr
edi
tshi
m.I
ftheydeny,youcanas
kfort
he
st
atementt
obepr
oduced.

5)Thestatement
,iftender
ed,doesnotbecomeevi
dencei
nthecase;i
tcanonl
y
damagehiscredi
bil
i
ty.I
.e.t
hestat
ementi
snotevi
denceoft
hetr
uthofit
scont
ent
s.

REFRESHI
NGMEMORY

Ther
earecer
tai
nci
rcums
tancesunderwhi
chyoucanr
efr
esht
hememor
yofa
wit
ness
.

Generall
y,wi t
nessesshouldnothavepr obl
emswhent heyar ecall
edt otest
ify.
However ,t
herearetimeswhent het i
megapbet weent heperiodwhent heinci
dent
happenedandt heti
meyouar ecalli
ngt hatwi t
nesstot est
if
y,i ssolongthatthe
wit
nes sforgetssomeoft hefact
st hattheyar etotest
ifyabout .I
twouldbewr ong
toexpectthewi tnes
st otest
ifyfr
om memor y.So,whatyous houlddoistomake
anappl i
cati
ont othecour tf
orleavet oal l
ow thewitnes stor efr
eshhismemor y
fr
omadocumenti nthecourseoftesti
fyingfromt hewitnessbox .

Somewi tnes
s eswil
lneedas si
stancefr
om thecourti
ftheyhavet
ogiveaccurat
e
andreli
ableevidence.Andt hej udgewil
lall
ow suchwitnes
sestoref
reshthei
r
memor yincour tbyal l
owingt hem tolookatdocument sinordert
oans wer
ques
tionsinthewitnessbox
.

Bef
orethej
udgeal
lowsthatappl
i
cat
ion,
cer
tai
ncr
it
eri
ahavet
obef
ulf
il
led;
allf
our
oft
hesemustbecompli
edwith-

1
)Cont
empor
anei
ty-Thedocuments
houl
dhavebeenmades
ubs
tant
ial
l
yatt
he
29
sametimeast
heoccur
renceoft
heeventt
owhi
cht
hewi
tnes
sisr
equi
redt
o
depos
e.

2)Aut
horshi
poft
heDocument-Thedocuments
houl
dhavebeenmade/
ver
if
iedby
thewi
tnes
sormadeunderhi
ssuper
vis
ion.

3)TheDocumentshoul
dbeproducedt
otheCour
tandt
hepos
sibi
l
ityofcr
oss
-
exami
nat
ionmi
ghtari
sefromt
hat.

4)Theneedt
oPr
oducet
heOr
igi
nal
.

Contemporaneity-Thisisaques ti
onoffact.E.
g.s i
xmonthswouldbet ool
onga
ti
me;notcont emporaneous.InBurroughv.Martin,(
1809)
,amarinerwasall
owed
torefr
eshhi smemor ybyreferencetotheship’
slogbookcompil
eds oonaft
ert
he
eventsrel
atedther
ein.

I
nA-G’
sRefer
ence(No.
3of1979)
,apol
i
ceoff
icerwasal
l
owedtorefr
eshhi
s
memor
yfrom not
escompi
l
edatat i
mewhenthefact
sweres
til
lfr
eshinhi
s
memor
y.

Author
shipoftheDocument-Thecas
eofBurroughv.Mart
inshowsthatt
he
documentneednothavebeenmadebythewi
tnesshi
msel
f.Her
e,thel
ogbook
wasmer el
ysuper
vis
edbyhi
m.

TheDocuments houl
dbePr oducedtot heCourt-Awi t
nesshasbeenal l
owedt o
ref
reshhi smemor yast oadat ebyr efer
ri
ngtoanar ti
cl
ewhichappear edi na
news papercont
emporaneousl
ywi tht
heevent stowhichhewasr ef
err
ing;Dyerv.
Best.Af t
ert
hewi t
nesshastest
ifi
edbyl ooki
ngatthedocumentandrefreshinghis
memor y,thedocumentmus tbehandedt otheothersi
detoenablehi
mt oinspect
i
t,andi fhesodesi
res
,cross-
examinethewi t
nesswit
hregardt
oitscont
ent s.

Whencross-ex
ami ningonadocumentus edtoref
reshmemor y,thecross
-examiner
shoul
dbever ycar ef ulaboutr efer
ringtopart
soft hedocumentwhi chdonot
dir
ect
lyrel
atetothes ubject-
matteronwhichthewitnesswast est
if
yingabout.I
fit
doesref
ertopar t
swhi cht hewitnesswasnottest
if
yingabout,thenthedocument
wil
lbecomeevi dencei nthecas e.Anditmeanst hatevi
dencewhi chwouldnot
havebeenadmi ssiblei nchief,andwouldnothavebeenf avorabl
et othecross-
exami
ner,i
snowl eti n.

30
Theneedt oPr oducetheOr i
ginal-Gener all
y,thedocumenthast obetheor i
ginal
.
Butithasbeenhel dthatawi t
nes smayr efr
eshhi smemor ybyanybookorpaper ,
i
ncludingacopy,i fhecanaf t
erwar dss weart othef actfrom hi
sownpr esent
recol
lecti
on.InMaugham v.Hubbar d,(1828),awi tnesswascal l
edt oprovet he
recei
ptofmoney.Bei ngunablet orecol l
ectthi
sf act,hewass hownanuns tamped
recei
pts i
gnedbyhims el
f.Hes aidthathehadnodoubtt hatherecei
vedthes umof
moneyort heamounts t
atedinther eceiptbuthes aidhecouldnotrecoll
ecthaving
dones o.I
twashel dthatthi
swass uffici
entevidenceoft hepaymentinspit
eoft he
prohi
biti
onont heuseofuns t
ampedr eceiptsincivil
lit
igati
on.

Thet ypesofwi t
nesseswhogener all
yref
reshthei
rmemor yar epoli
ceof f
icers.
Theygener al
lyasktor ef
reshtheirmemory.Theyusuall
yhavenot ebooksandat
thes ceneofanyacci dent,they’
l
lrecordwhattheys aw.Ins omecas es,poli
ce
offi
cerswoul dli
ket or efr
esht hei
rmemor ybyr eferr
ingtot heirnoteswhi l
e
test
if
ying.Ifthei
rori
ginalnoteshavebeenus edbyt hem tomakemor edetail
ed
stat
ement s
, t
henthos
enot escanal s
obeus edasamemor yr
efr
eshingdocument.

Eveniftheori
ginal
notesar
elost
,ifamor
edetai
l
edsetofnot
eshasbeenprepar
ed,
thepoli
cemancanus eiti
fhecans howt
hati
twasmadefrom t
heori
ginal
notes
;R
v.Cheng,(1
976).

Ther
ei snoobj ect
iont oapoliceoffi
cercons ult
inghisnotesbeforetest
if
yingi
n
cour
t.Further
,t hef actthatapol i
ceof f
icert ooknot esimmedi at
elyaft
eran
i
nter
view orotheroccur r
encedoesnotmaket hem evidenceinthecase.Eveni
f
thepoli
ceoffi
cers tatest
hathet ooknotes,thenot ebookits
elfdoesnotbecome
evi
dencebecaus eoftheruleagai
nstsel
f-
corrobor at
ion.

Ift
wopol i
ceof ficersareconduct i
ngani nvesti
gation,t
her eisnoobjecti
ont othem
coll
aboratingovert hepreparati
onoft heirnotes.InRv.Mi ll
s,apoli
ceofficerwas
all
owedt orefres hhi smemor ybyr efer
ringtonot estakenf r
om at aperecording
madebyhi m ofani ncr
iminati
ngconver sati
onbet weent wopris
onersintheircell
.
Thepol iceof ficerhear dt heor i
ginalconversationandt apedi tandt hecour t
all
owedhi mt or efr
es hhi
smemor ybynot eshetookf rom thetaperecording.This
part
icul
arcas ehast wopur poses;itcanbeus edt or efr
eshmemor ybypol ice
offi
cers
.

Fi
nal
l
y,apr
osecut
ionwi
tnes
smayr
efr
eshhi
smemor
ywheni
nthewi
tnes
sboxby

31
ref
err
ingtoas t
atementwri
tt
enoutbyapol
iceoff
icertowhom hegavei
tshor
tl
y
aft
ertheevent
stowhichitr
elat
es;
Rv.Mul
li
ns,(
1848).

PREVI
OUSCONSI
STENTSTATEMENTS

Thegener alr
uleist hattheprevi
ouscons is
t ents t
at ementmadebyaper s
ons imil
ar
tohistesti
monyi ncourtisnotadmi s
sible,especi allyincri
minalcas es.Youar enot
evens upposedt or efertoitandt hefactt hatyou’ vesaidsomet hi
ngpr evioust o
whatyou’res ayingnow meanst hatyouar ej ustr epeat
ingyours elf
.Thef actthat
youhaves ai
di ti
nt hepas tandaresayingi tnowdoesnotmeanyou’ res tati
ngt he
trut
h;Rv.Rober ts
,(1942);here,
Robertswaschar gedwi t
hmur derandhehads aid
tohisf at
hert hatthes hootingwasacci dent al.Hewant edtor epeatori nt roduce
thatsames t
atementbutt hecourtrefusedt oadmi titasthes tatementwass elf
-
servi
ng.

Ther ul
e,however
,isagener
aland notan abs
olut
erul
e.Thef
oll
owi
ng ar
e
excepti
ons-

1)ResGes tae-Ift hes tatementformspar tofther esgest

ae,thenitcouldbe
cons ider
ed an ex ception t o the general rul
e,meani ng ifit was made
cont empor aneous
lywi t
ht heinci
denttowhichitrelates,i
twouldbeadmi ssi
blein
evidence.However ,
allitcandoi stopr ovethecons i
stencyofthemakerwhenhe
givesevi denceincour tbecaus ethewor dsform partoft heresgest
ae.I
.e.ifthe
wor dsarepar tofthestor yortheissue.

I
nRv.Fowkes ,alsoknownasTheBut cher ’
sCas e,amanknownas“ t
hebutcher”
waschar gedwi thmur der.Thes onoft hedeceas edgaveevi dencethatheanda
poli
ceof f
icerwer esit
tingi nar oom wi thhisf atherwhenaf aceappearedatt he
windowt hroughwhi cht hefatalshotwast henf ir
ed.Attri
al,
hegaveevi denceand
saidt hatt hef acehes aw wast hatof“ thebut cher”.Thecour tallowed his
test
imonyt os ayhow hehads houted“ there’sbutcher”whent hefaceappear ed
andthepol iceoffi
cerwhohadn’ tseent hef acewasal l
owedt odeposet othefact
thatthes ons houted“ther e’
sbutcher”.Thiss tatementwasal l
owedbecaus eitwas
i
ns t
ant aneousandcont empor aneousand, ass uch,partoftheresgestae.

2)Negativi
ngFabricati
on-Ifiti
sall
egedwhenawi t
nessistes
tif
ying,especi
all
y
duri
ngcross-ex
aminat i
on,t
hatiti
sar ecentconcoct
ion,ort
hatthewi tnesshad
fabr
icat
edthes t
ory,thatwi
tnesscanrebutt
hataccusati
onbyshowingt hatheor

32
shehadmadeapr eviouss tatementt osomeoneel setorebuttheall
egat i
on.Sucha
previ
ouss tat
ementwi llbei ntroducedincour ttor ebutthes ugges t
ionthatwhat
he/sheissayingisaf abr i
cation.Theclas s
iccas eil
lustr
ati
ngthiswasRv.Oyes i
ku,
(1971);t
heprosecut i
onal l
egedi ncr oss
-examinationoft heaccused’swife,thatshe
hadi nvent
edpar tofhers tatementaf t
erconf err
ingwi thherhus band.However ,
shetoldthecourtt hats hehadmadeacons is
tents tat
ementtohers oli
ci
torbefore
speakingwithherhus bandi nj ai
l.Thatstatementwasal l
owedi nevidence.

Also,i
fdef encecounselal
l
egesthatapoliceoff
icerisfabr
icat
inghi
stest
imony,
thenthatcanber ebut
tedbythepoli
ceoffi
cerbyputti
nginevidencehi
snotebook
toshowt hathehadmades uchas t
atementpri
ort
ot hecase;Rv.Benj
amin,
(1913)
.

3)Compl aintsbyVicti
msofaSex ualOff
ence-Onchar gesofsexualoff
ences,t
he
ter
msoft hecomplaintmadebyt hevict
im maybothbenar r
atedbyt hevict
im or
thepersont owhom i twasmade.Butbef orethetermsofthecompl aintcanbe
admiss
iblei ncour
t,(2)condi
ti
onsmustbesati
sfied-

(a)Thecomplai
ntmus
thavebeenmadeatt
heear
li
estoppor
tuni
tyt
hatr
eas
onabl
y
present
edi
tself
.

(
b)Itmustnothavebeenmadei
nres
pons
etoanyi
ndi
ctmentandi
tshoul
dbe
madevol
unt
ari
ly.

Iftheset wocondi tionsar emet ,thenthetermsoft hecompl aintcanbeadmi s si

ble
i
ncour ttos how t hecons i
stencyoft heconductoft hecompl aintwi ththes tory
tol
dbyt hewi tnessi nt hewitnes sbox;Rv.Lil
lyman,( 1896);onachar geofi ncest
withagi rlagedf i
ve,t hegir
lwasnotcal ledtot esti
fybutt hegr andmot herwas
call
edt ot esti
fyt opr ovethet ermsoft hecompl aintmadebyt helittl
egi r
l.The
cour theldthatthegr andmothers houldnothavebeencal l
edtot esti
fybecaus et he
gir
l hersel
fhadnott es ti
fi
ed.Thegi rls
houldhavebeencal l
edtot esti
fyf i
rstandt he
grandmot hers ubs equent l
y.Si ncetherewasnot es
timonyoft hegi r
l,therei s
nothingwi thwhi cht hes t
atementcanbecons i
stentwi th;
Rv.Wal l
wor k.

4)StatementsmadebyanAccus edpers ontot hePol

ice-Itistheregul
arpractice
ofthepr os
ecuti
ont ogiveinevi dences t
atementsmadebyt heaccusedt ot he
poli
ceatanyt i
me,even t hough theses tat
ement saref avorabl
et o him (the
accused)orar es el
f-
servi
ng.Thes es elf
-ser
vings t
atementsdo notcons ti
tute
evi
denceoft hefactstat
ed,unles
st heyarepr ovedaspartofaconf es
sion,butif

33
theaccusedgi
vesevidenceatt
hes amet i
me,andt othesameeffect
,hecanr el
y
onthes ames tat
ementsaspr oofofcons i
stency.Whethert
heaccus edgi ves
evi
denceornot ,hisoutofcour tstat
ementst ot hepoli
ceareadmi ssi
bleas
evi
denceofhisreact
ion,whi
chispartofthegeneralpi
ctur
ewhichthejuryhast o
consi
der.

5)Ident i
fi
cationoft heAccus ed-Whenawi t
nessisaskedaboutt hei denti
fi
cati
on
ofanaccus edper s
on, hi
sans werwillofteninvol
vethedirectorindirectproofofa
previouss tatementofhi s.Suchas t
atementwi llnotonl ybei dentif
icat
ionbut
woul dalsof orm partofther esgestaeaswast hecaseinRv.Fowkes .Butusually,
hisidentif
icationwoul dhavet ak
enplacel ongaft
erthecrimehasbeencommi t
ted.
Butthel awal lowst hewitnesst ogi
veevi denceofhispreviousidenti
ficati
onoft he
accus edandt heci r
cums t
ancesi nwhi chi twasmade.E. g.i
twasdonei nan
i
dent i
ficati
onpar ade.Thisiss otoens urethattheidentifi
cati
onbecomesmor e
rel
iablewheni tisalsomadei ncourt.

CROSS-
EXAMI
NATI
ON

Thisi st hes econds t

agei nacr i
minaltri
al,aft
erexami nati
on-in-chi
ef.Oncea
witnesshast akenanoat hinacr i
minalcaseandhast estif
iedi nex aminati
on-in-
chief,hecanbecr oss-
examinedbyt heoppos i
ti
onevenifthewi tnesshasgi venno
evidence-in-chief
.However ,thereareti
meswhent her
eisnooppor t
unitytocr oss-
exami nebecaus ethewi t
nesshasdi edorthewi t
nessistoodi st
ressedt ocont i
nue
withevidence- in-chi
efands oi ti
sincomplet
e.Theevidencegi venbys uchpeopl e
i
ss til
ladmi s s
ibleinlawbuti tcarri
esnowei ghtasamat teroff act.Ther easoni s
becaus et heyhavenotbeent est
edbycr oss-
examinat
ion.Ins omeex tr
emecas es,
i
fthei njus t
iceistoogreat,t
het ri
alwil
lbeabandoned.

Firs
t,itmus tbenotedthatifawitnesshastestif
iedi
nex aminati
on-i
n-chief
,fail
ure
toex aminehi m orherwil
lbetakenasaccept anceofthewi tness’
sevidence;Rv.
Fenlon.But ,t
hatdoesnotmeant hatcouns
els houl
dcross-examineever ywitness
whot es
tif
iesast hewit
nessmi ghtnothaves aidanyt
hingi nexamination-
in-
chief
thatisadver s
eordetri
mentalaboutcounsel
’scli
ent.

34
Secondl
y,t
her
earecert
ainethi
calr
ulesandconductaf
fect
ingcros
s-examinati
on.
I
tisthedut
yofcouns
eltobehavepr
of es
sional
l
yandfai
rwhencross-
examining;

(
1)Youmus
tnotchal
l
engeanypar
tofawi
tnes
s’sevi
dencet
hatyouknowi
str
ue.

(
2)Youshouldonl
ychal
l
enget hewi
tnes
s’st
est
imonyi
fyouknow i
tisunt
rueor
r
unscont
rar
ytoyouri
nst
ruct
ions.

(
3)Youmus
tnotputanyal
l
egat
iont
othewi
tnes
sthatyoudonothavet
heans
wer
f
or.

(
4)Yous
houl
dbef
ear
les
sbutf
airi
ncr
oss
-ex
ami
nat
ion.

(
5)Youmus
tnotbeof
fens
ive,
rudeandmus
tavoi
dunneces
sar
yti
mewas
ting.

(
6)Goeas
ywi
thyoungchi
l
drenorvi
cti
msofs
exual
off
ences
.

(
7)Bef
airt
opol
i
ceof
fi
cer
sex
cepti
fyouknowt
heyar
etel
l
ingbl
atantl
i
es.

(
8)Avoidunneces
sari
lylongcross-
examinat
ion;itcanputt
hej
uryt
osl
eep,l
ose
t
hei
rint
eres
torengendersympathyfort
heaccus ed.

(
9)I
fyouknowyouhavenot
hingel
set
osay,
sitdownands
hutup.

(
10)Tr
yt obepolit
etothecour
tandthejudgeasthiswil
lhelpyourcase.Tobe
r
udewil
lalwaysputyoui
nabadli
ghtandwil
lnotenhanceyourreput
ati
on.

(11
)Treatjudgesandmagi st
rateswit
htherespectt
hatt
heydeser
ve.Say“
mylord”
and“yourlordshi
p”.Thiswil
lenhanceyourreput
ati
onwit
hthebenchandyou’
l
lget
mutualres
pectf r
omj udgesandmagistr
ates
.

(
12)Ajudgeormagist
rat
ewil
lal
soprotectawit
nes
swher
eneces
sar
y,par
ti
cul
arl
y
wher
etheyarepr
otect
edbycert
ainpr
ivil
eges
.

Youar enotboundtocros
s-examineawit
nes
sifhehasnotsai
danyt
hingadver
se
to yourclient
.I.
e.ifattheend oft heexami
nat
ion-
in-
chi
ef,t
her
ei snothi
ng
unfavorabl
e,donotcr
oss-
examine.

ThePur
pos
eofCr
oss
-Ex
ami
nat
ion

1
)Tos
uppor
tone’
sowncas
e.

35
2)Todi
scr
edi
tthewi
tnes
s,i
fneces
sar
y.

3)Todamageordes
troyt
heopponent
’
scas
e.

I
tcoul
dbeal
loroneoft
heabove.

Theques t
ionsaskedincross
-examinati
onmus tberelevantandadmissi
ble.I
fiti
s
i
rrel
evantorinadmiss
ibl
e,itwil
lnotbeal l
owed.i faques t
ionthathasbeenasked
wasruledtobeinadmissi
blei
nex aminat
ion-i
n-chief
,iti
salsoinadmiss
ibl
eincross
-
examinat
ion.

Itis al
so a pr operf unct
ion ofcross-examinati
on to dis
credi
ta wi t
nessi n
appropri
atecases .Ther
earealsocir
cums tanceswhereyouhavet obeverycaref
ul
whenex amining;forexample,i
fthesubj
ecti spromi
scuous,youcanexplor
ethisin
cros
s -
examination,ifneces
s ar
y.Thiscouldbedonei nr apecasestoes t
abli
sha
patt
ernof_ _
__ _
_ _
_ _
_orasregardsconsent.

Ifsomebodymakesafals
eall
egat
ionofrape,youcanrai
sethishabi
tproperl
yin
cross
-exami
nat
ionast
hiscanshowthats
hecons ent
edandlat
erregr
ett
edit.

Two(
2)TypesofCr
oss
-Ex
ami
nat
ion

1
)Cr
oss
-Ex
ami
nat
iont
otheI
ssue.

2)Cr
oss
-Ex
ami
nat
ionast
oCr
edi
t.

1)Cros s
-Examinati
ont ot heIssue-Thi swi llbedes i
gnedtoel i
ci
ts t
atements
concerni
ngt hefactsinissueorr el
evanttot heiss
uewhi charefavorabl
et othe
cross
-examiner’
scas e.I
fcross-
exami nat
ionisconductedonbehalfoftheplaint
if
f
ortheprosecutor,i
tissubjectt
oar ul
eofpract i
cethattheevi
denceonwhi chthe
cross
-examiningpartywishestor el
yons houldnormall
ybei nevi
dencebeforethe
cl
oseoft hatpart
y’scase.

Accordi
ngly,
itisonl
yinunusualci
rcumst
ancest
hatthecr
oss-ex
amineri
sall
owed
toputinques ti
onsaboutmatter
sconcerni
ngwhichhiswit
nesseshavenotsai
d
anyt
hinginchief.

Excl
usi
onaryrul
esapplyi
ncross-
ex aminat
ionjus
tast heydoinexaminati
on-i
n-
chi
ef.Forexample,t
hehearsayrule;questi
onsthatwouldamounttohear say
wouldnotbeall
owedi
ncross
-examinati
onjustastheywoul
dnoti
nex aminat
ion-
in

36
-
chi
ef.

Excl
usionar
yr ul
esnotallowedinex aminat
ion-
in-
chiefarenotal
l
owedincross
-
ex
ami nati
on.Cross-
exami
nationtotheissueobtainsstat
ementsf
avor
abl
etothe
cr
oss-examiner’
scasebyquesti
onsputtothewitness.

2)Cross
-Examinati
onast oCredi
t-Ast henamei mpli
es,cros
s -
examinat
ionasto
credi
tistodiscreditthewitness.Forexample,aski
nghi m abouthisprevi
ous
convi
cti
ons,i
fanyorwhet herhe’
sal i
aroruntr
ustwort
hy;youaretryi
ngtodest
roy
hi
scredi
bil
i
tysot hatthej
urywill
nottakehisevi
denceseri
ousl
y.

Acommonf orm ofcross

-examinat
ionastocreditinvol
vesaskingawitnes
sabout
hi
sprevi
ousconvicti
ons.However,youcanonl yas kawi t
nes swhohast est
if
ied
abouthi
sprevi
ousconvi ct
ionsbutiftheaccusedgoest ot hewi t
nes
sboxasa
wit
ness,
heisprotect
edifbeingaskedaboutpreviousconvi
ctions,
byS.1(f)ofthe
Cri
minal
Evi
denceAct .

Notethatalawyerhasmor elat
it
udewhenhei scros
s-ex
ami ni
ngawi tnesst
han
whenhei sbeingexamined-
in-
chief
.Forexampl
e,incross-
examinat
ion,youcan
askl
eadingquest
ionswhichyoucannotdoi
nexaminat
ion-
in-
chief
.

You can also as kthe witnes

s whet herhe has made a pr evi
ous st
atement
i
nconsistentwithhistesti
mony,whet herhehasacr i
minalrecor
d,isbiasedor
whetherhehasbeengui lt
yofdi sr
eputableconduct.Youcanevens ugges
tt ohim
thathei saliar.Butthatdoesnotmeant hatyouhaveal i
censetoas kt hes
e
questi
ons fri
volousl
y because you are cross-
examining hi
m;you mus thave
support
ingevidence.

Howeverl ati
tudealawyerhasincr oss-
examinat
ion,thejudgehasdiscreti
onto
di
sallow questi
onsifhethi
nkstheyar eprej
udici
al.Iti
scont r
arytoprofessi
onal
et
iquettef ora lawyerto putdispar
aging quest
ionst o a wit
nessunlesshi s
i
nstructi
onsgivehimreas
onablegroundsforsupposingthatt
heyarejus
tif
ied.

Over-
ri
gorouscr
oss-ex
ami nat
ionmaybackf ir
eagai nstthecross-
exami nerbecaus
e
i
tcanarousethesympathyoft hejudgeorthejury.Somet i
mest hejudgemayeven
stopyou.However,
dependingont henatureoftheof fenceandt hefactsyouhave
befor
eyou,youmaywel lbeallowedtoifiti
sneces sary;t
reasoncaseset c.

Youmus
tal
sobecar
efulwi
thpol
i
ceof
fi
cer
swhencr
oss
-ex
ami
ningbecaus
ethey

37
havetheuseoft heirpoli
cenoteswhent esti
fyi
ngandaccusati
onssuggesti
ngthat
thepoli
ceofficerislyingorfabr
icati
ngar enotlookedatfavor
ablybythecourt.
Judgesals
otendt os ympathi
zewi t
ht hepoli
cewhent heyar
etest
if
yingandsoany
unsubst
anti
atedaccus ati
onsarelookedatasbeingsomewhatunprofess
ional
.

PREVI
OUSI
NCONSI
STENTSTATEMENTS

Atcommonl aw,itwasper missi

bletoas k,i
ncr
oss-examinat
ion,aboutpr
evious
i
nconsi
stentst
atements.However,thi
shasnowbeenr epl
acedbys ect
ions4and5
oftheCr i
minalProcedureAct1 865.Thisnow governsques t
ionsofprevious
i
nconsi
stentst
atementsincr
iminalcases
.

Ifawitnessisaskedwhetherhehasmadeapr evi
ousi
nconsi
stentstatement,he
caneit
herans weryesorno;ifhedeni esit,t
henyoucanputt hatstatementin
evi
denceagainsthim.Ifthi
sisdone,thatcanweakenhistest
imonyorwhathe
sai
dinevidence-
in-
chi
ef,wit
hveryl
it
tl
ewei ghtornowei
ghtwhatsoever.

If,
forexample,t
hewitnesstell
sthepoli
cethathes
aws omebodyparti
ci
pati
ngina
cri
me,t henwhenhegoest ocourt,hesayshesaw nosucht hi
ng,t
henhe’l
lbe
askedifhemadeas tatementdiff
erentt
owhathenow clai
ms .Ifhedeni
es,t
hen
theevidenceagai
nsthims howshe’sali
ar.

TheFundament
alDi
ff
.bet
weenX-
Ext
oCr
edi
t&t
oIs
sue

The mai n diff

erence between cr oss-examinati
on tot he i s
s ue and cr oss
-
examinati
onast ocr edi
tisthatawi t
nes s’
sans werst
ocros s-examinati
ont othe
i
s s
uemayal waysbecont r
adictedbyot herevidenceputbyt hecros s-
examiner.On
theotherhand,ans wersincr oss-exami nati
ont ocredi
tar eus ual
lyfi
nal.This
meanst hatnoevi denceinr ebutt
alwi llbeper mitt
edbycal l
ingot herwitnesses
.
Thereare,however,Excepti
onst otheFinal i
tyRule-

1)Previ
ousInconsi
stentSt
atement
s-Ifawitnes
sdeni esthathe’
sprevi
ouslymade
as t
atementinconsi
s t
entwithhistes
timony,thes t
atementmaybepr ovedby
anot
herwitnessundersect
ions4and5oftheCriminalProcedureAct1865.

2)I
fawi
tnes
sdeni
est
hathe’
sbeenpr
evi
ous
lyconvi
cted,t
heconvi
cti
onmaybe

38
pr
ovedbytheproduct
ionoft
heappr
opr
iat
edocument
sunderS.
6oft
heCr
imi
nal
Pr
ocedur
eAct1865.

3)BiasorPar ti
ality-Gener all
y,whenwi t
nessestestif
y,t heyar es uppos edtobe
i
ndependentandt os peakthet ruth.Butt hefactisthatmos toral loft hem know
oneorot heroft hepar t
iesort heyhaver easonstof avorones i
de.Thi sdoesnot
neces sarilyamountt obi asbuti fawi tnesswhopur portst obeani ndependent
witness ,buti si
nr eal
it
yconceal ingt hetruenatureofhi sr elationshipwi thoneof
thepar ties ,
t hent hewitnesscanbeas kedaboutt hatrelations hipandi ftheydeny
i
t,ther el ati
ons hipcanbepr oved.Thecl assi
ccas edeal i
ngwi t
ht hiswast hatof
Thomasv.Davi d,( 1
836);inanact iononabi l
lofex change,t hepl ainti
ffcall
eda
witnesst ot esti
fyonhi sbehal f.Shewast hegirl
fr
iendoft hepl ainti
ff.Whenas ked
whet hers hewast heplaint
iff
’smi stres
sundercr oss-exami nat i
on,s hedeni edthat
shewas .However ,t
hecross-exami nerwasal l
owedt ocal lwi tnessest opr ovethat
,
i
nf act,s hewashi smi s
tress.

In Dunn v.As l
et,(1838)
,the wit
nes
swasas ked whet
herhe had pr
evi
ousl
y
quarrel
ed wit
h one oft he par
ti
esand he denied.Wit
nes
seswere call
ed t
o
contradi
ctt
hatstatement.

InRv.Mendy,(1976),thedefendant’
shusbandwass eental
ki
ngt ooneofthe
wit
nessesast
heyemer gedaftergivi
ngthei
revidencei
ncourt
.Whenhewentt o
tes
tif
y,hewasaskedaboutthisincross-
examinati
onandhedeniedit
.Rebut
ti
ng
evi
dencewascal
ledtos howthathe,infact
,spoketothes
ewitness
eswhenthey
emergedfr
omcourt.

4)AWi tness
’sBadReputat
ionforVer
aci
ty-Af
terawitnesshasgi
venevidence,
theopponentofthepart
ycall
inghi
m maycal
lanot
herwitnes
stoswearthatthe
reput
ati
onoft hefi
rstwit
nessasal i
ari
ssonotor
iousthatheoughtnottobe
beli
evedonoath.

5)ThePhys
ical
orMent
alCondi
ti
onoft
heWi
tnes
s-I
nthecas
eof

Tooheyv.Met r
opol
it
anPoliceCommi ss
ioner
,theaccus edwer echargedwith
assaul
ti
ngaboyof16withi
nt entt or obhim.Theboy’scasewast hatt
heaccused
haddemandedmoneyandci garettesandt hattheyt ookhim upanal leyand
assaul
tedhi
minthecour
seofs earchinghim.Thedefenceoftheaccusedwasthat
theyfoundthi
sboyinas tateofhys ter
iaexacerbat
edbydr inkandt heywere

39
helpinghi m home.Thecas ewentasf arast heHLandt heyhel dthatt heaccus ed
shoul dhavebeenal l
owedt ocal lapol i
ces urgeont os how t hattheboywasi na
hyst ericalcondi ti
onwhenbr oughtt ot hepol i
ces tation.Al so,thathes mel l
edof
dri
nkandt hatt hedr i
nkwasl iablet oex acerbatehys t
er i
a.Theyar guedt hatt he
surgeon’ sevi dencewasi rrel
evantt ot heis suebecaus eitas si
stedint her es
olution
oft heques ti
onwhet hertheal l
egedas saultaccount edf ort hehys teri
aorwhet her
thehys teri
a account ed fort heal legati
on ofas sault
.Thei mpor tanceoft his
decis ioni stoes tabli
shthepr i
nci plethatapar tycancal lawi tnesst oimpugnt he
rel
iabi li
tyofanopponent ’swi tnessonmedi calgr ounds .Forex ampl e,thati n
appr opr i
ateci rcums t
ances,awi tnessmi ghtbecal l
edt os weart ot hef actthata
previ ouswi t
nes shadi mpairedvi si
onori mpairedhear ingwhi chr enderedhi s
evidenceunr eliable.

THESHI
ELD

Whenanaccus edper sonischarged,(i

)Hecanr el
yons tatementsmadet othe
poli
ce,(i
i
)makeanuns wor
ns t
atementfrom thedock,or(i
i
i)gotothewitnessbox
andtesti
fyonhisownbehal f
.Ifheex er
cis
esopt i
on(i
ii
),hehascertai
nprotect
ion;
S.1(f
)oft heCr
iminalEvi
denceAct1 898provideshi
m withas hi
eldagai
nstcross-
examinati
ontocredi
t.

Thisshiel
disespeci
allyval
uablet oanaccus edper s
onwhohasbeenpr eviousl
y
convi
ctedor_ _
_____
__ _
__hims el
f.Notet hati tisonlytheaccus edwhohast hi
s
prot
ecti
onwhent est
ifyi
ng.Ther easonhei sgi venthisprotecti
onisbecauseifhe
wast r
eatedasanyot herwitness,counself ort heprosecuti
oncoul dal
waysas k
him questi
onsabouthi sprevi
ousconvi ctionsandpas tof fences
.Andt hej ur
y
mightbetooreadytoinfert
hathewasgui lt
yoft hecri
mechar gedbecausehewas
theki
ndofpersonwhowoul dcommi tsuchcr imes .

Thegener aleff
ectofS.1(f)ist hattheaccusedisliabl
etobecr oss-exami
nedon
hisrecordifhet hrowshiss hieldaway.How canhet hr
ow thes hiel
daway?I f,
whenhei sgi vi
ngevidence,hes t
art
st otesti
fyabouthisgoodchar act
erorcas t
s
i
mput ati
onsonawi t
nessforthepr osecut
ionorthedeceasedvict
imoft heoffence,
thenthes hi
eldwillbecastasideandhewi llbeaskedaboutpreviousconvicti
ons
orprevi
ousconduct .

40
 RE-
EXAMI
NATI
ON

Oncecr oss-
examinat
ionofthewit
nes
shasended,hemayber e-
examinedbythe
part
ycal l
i
nghi m.Re-
exami
nati
ondeal
swi
thissuesmadei ncross-ex
aminat
ionand
att
empt stor epai
ranydamagedone.Leadi
ngques tionsarenotal l
owedinr e-
examinati
on,justast
heyarenotal
l
owedi
nexami nat
ion-i
n-chi
ef.

Af
terapartyhascl
osedhi
scros
s-ex
ami nat
ion,andi
tisnow neces
sar
yforr
e-
ex
aminat
ion,
ther
ear
etwobasi
cpri
nci
plesthatyoumustbegui
dedby-

1
)Ift
her
ehasbeennocr
oss
-ex
ami
nat
ion,
ther
eisnor
ightt
ore-
exami
ne.

2)I
fincr
oss-
examinat
ionnot
hinghasbeens ai
dwhi
chi
sadver
set
oyourpar
ty’
s
cas
e,t
her
eisusual
l
ynoneedforre-
examinat
ion.

Notethatre-examinat
ionisconfi
nedt omatt
ersari
si
ngoutofcr os
s-ex
ami nati
on.
I.
e.apartywi l
lnotbeall
owedt ore-
ex ami
neawitnessonamat t
erorissuewhi ch
didnotcomeupi ncr oss
-examinat
ion.Youcannotint
roduceanynew mat terin
cros
s-examinati
on.

WhatisRe- Examinati
on?Ifawi tnesshasbeencr oss-
ex ami nedbytheot hersi
de,
andyouar enots ati
sfi
edwi t
ht heans wersgivenort hewayhehasans wered
quest
ionsputbyt heprosecut
ion,younowhaveanoppor tunit
yinre-examinat
ion
toaskhi mt oclarif
ycertainthi
ngsf r
om cross-examinationort oex pandonan
answergivenort ocloseanyhol esorgapsf r
om cross-exami nati
on.Butthereare
rar
ecircums t
anceswhenyoucani ntroduceanew mat teri nre-
examinationbut
youneedt hel
eaveoft hejudge.

Therear
et i
meswhenaj udgemayal low r
e-ex
ami nat
ionofawi t
nessonmatters
aboutwhichhisl
awyerhasfor
gottentoaskhim,s ubjecttotheothersi
dehaving
theri
ghttocross-
exami
nehim again.Al
so,inre-examinati
on,awi t
nes
scouldbe
all
owedtorefr
eshhismemoryf
romacont empor aneouss t
atement.

Ajudgehasdi scr
eti
ont oall
owapar tytorecal
lawi
tness,orhecanal
l
owaparty
togiveevidenceinr ebut
tal,eventhoughhehascl os
edhi scaseorthej
udge
hi
ms el
fcancallawitnessinacas e.

I
nallt
hreecir
cums
tances
,iti
samat
ters
ubj
ectt
othedi
scr
eti
onoft
hej
udgeand
ar
enotmatt sasofr
er i
ght
.

41
1)Recall
ingaWi tness-Itsomet imeshappenst hatapar tydes i
restorecal
la
witnes
sei t
herbecausether
ei ssomet hi
ngwhi chhehasf orgott
ent oaskhim or
becauseofs omeunfor
eseencontingency.Iti
snecessaryt
oobt ai
ntheleaveoft
he
j
udgeandhehascompl et
ediscret
ionwhet herhewil
lgivel
eaveornot .

2)Applyi
ngt ogiveEvidenceinRebutt
alaf
tercl
osi
ngyourcase-Thepowerto
al
low fur
therevidencetobecal l
edbyapar tyaft
erhehascl os
edhiscasei
s
exer
cis
edver ys pari
ngl
y.Thef ol
l
owingarecir
cumstanceswherethi
scoul
dbe
doneatthediscr
etionofthej
udge-

a)Whentheevidencerelat
estoamat er
ialasopposedtoapur el
yf ormalpoi
nt,
the
j
udgewil
lonlygi veleavetocallit(evi
denceinr ebut
tal
)ifitrelatestoamat ter
whi
chtheprosecutorwasunabl etoforesee.I
thasbeens ai
dt hatthemat t
ermus t
beonewhichnohumani ngenui
tycouldhaveforeseen.

b)Therear eal sotimeswheniti

samatterofaf ormalomi ss
ion.Forex ample,ofa
purel
yf ormalomi s
s i
onwhi
chacourtwil
lallowtober emediedevenaf tercloseof
thepros ecution’
scas ewouldbeacas einwhi cht hepr osecutionhasf ai
ledt o
provethatt heleaveoftheDPPhasbeenobt ai
ned,whens uchal eaveisneces sary
beforethepr osecuti
onwasbegun.Forex ample,tr
eas onispr osecutedwi tht he
consentoft heDPPort heAttor
neyGeneral(TheFiat).Casesagai nstt heOf f
icial
SecretsActores pi
onage

c)Whenthejudgehimsel
fcall
sawi tnes
s ;
inacivi
lcas e,thej
udgehasnopowerto
cal
lawi t
nesshimsel
fwithouttheconsentofthepar ties.However
,hedoeshave
thepowertodos oi nacr i
minalcaseiftheinterestofj ust
icesorequi
res
;Rv.
Harr
is,(
1927).I
tispurel
yamat terofjudi
ci
aldiscretionwhichisexerci
sedver
y
spar
ingl
yandcanrarel
ybechallengedsuccess
full
yonappeal .

Butifthej udgedecidest ocal lawit

nes sonhi sown,hemus tnotappeart obe
supplementingthepr osecuti
on’scase.Althoughawi t
nes scalledbythej udgeis
notcros s-
examinedint hefullsens
e,thejudge,aft
eras kingthewi t
nessques t
ions
,
wouldal l
owbot hpartiestoal s
oas kthatwitnessquestions.Nowi tnes
smayever
becal l
edoncet hejudgehass ummedupt othejury,eveni fthejuryaskedf ora
part
icularwitnes
stogi veevidence.

42
 THEPRI
VILEGEAGAI
NSTSELF-
INCRI
MINATI
ON

I
tisadeeplyrootedpr i
ncipleoft hecommonl awt hatnoones houl
dbeobl i
gedto
i
ncrimi
natehimselfoutofhi sownmout h.I
tmeanst hatawit nessi
snotboundt o
answeranyques t
ionsi nacr i
mi nalorcivi
lcas eort oproduceanydocumentor
thi
ng,i
ftodos o,wouldint heopi nionofthejudge,haveat endencytoex posehim
orhisspous
et oanycr iminalchar ge,penal
tyorf or
feit
urewhi chthejudgeregar
ds
asreas
onablyli
kelytobepr eferredors uedfor;Bl
untv.ParkLaneHot el Lt
d,(1
942);
afundamentalpri
ncipleinEngl ishcr i
minallaw isthatawi tnessisnotboundt o
answeranyquesti
oni ncri
mi nat
inghi morhiss pouse.

Theprivi
l
egeisnotabs ol
ute;ithasex cepti
ons
.Thepr i
vil
egebelongstot he
wit
nesswhoistesti
fyi
ngandmus tbecl
ai
medbyt hatwit
nesswhenheistest
if
ying.
Wherethepri
vil
egei snotclai
med,incri
minati
nganswersremainadmiss
ibl
eand
maybeus edi
ncriminalpr
oceedingsagai
nstthewit
nessi
nfutur
e.

Thisprivi
legedoesnotapplytoanaccusedpersonwhenheist
est
ifyi
ng.Whenyou
aretes ti
fyi
ngasawi t
nessandt helawyeras ksyouaques t
ionwhichcould
i
ncriminateyouoryours pouse,t
helawgi vesyouthepr
ivi
l
egenottoanswerthe
questi
onorpr oducethatdocument
.

Gener
all
y,t
hewi t
nessshouldclai
mt hepri
vil
egeoryourl
awyerand/ort
hejudge
advi
sesyounotto.Thispr
ivi
legeusual
lyappli
esi
ncrimi
nalpr
oceedi
ngsalt
hough
i
tcanalsoappl
yincivi
lpr
oceedings.

Whenanaccus
edi
sgi
vingevi
denceonhi
sownbehal
f,undert
he

CriminalEvi
denceAct1898,hecannotr
efus
etoanswerques
tionsbecaus
eoft
he
tendencytoincr
imi
natehimastotheoff
encechar
ged.

Thepri
vil
egecoversanswersandmateri
alwhichar
ereasonabl
yli
kel
yt oexpos
e
theper
sontocr
iminalchar
gesorci
vi
lproceedi
ngsf
orapenalt
yorfor
fei
ture.

Not
ethatt
heprivil
egedoesnotex
tendt
oques
tionst
endi
ngt
oex
pos
ethewi
tnes
s
t
oanycivi
ll
iabi
l
ity.

Noteal s
ot hatt
hepri
vil
egeappli
eswhenevertheanswertendstoincri
minat
e
regar
dlessofwhet
hert
hequest
ionisdi
rect
lyr
elat
edt
othesubjectmat
ter
.

43
Note,furt
her
,thatthest
atementbyt hewit
nes
sthattheanswerwil
ltendto
i
ncriminat
ehimisnotexclus
ive.Thecour
tmustcons
iderwhet
hert
hereisany
reasonabl
epr
obabil
i
tyoft
hisresul
t.

I
nthecaseofAT&TIstelLtdv.Tull
y,theHLdeci
dedthataper
soncoul
dnotr
ely
onthepr
ivi
l
egeagai
nsts el
f-
incr
imi
nati
ontojust
if
yref
us i
ngt
oobeyacourtor
der
di
scl
osi
ngdeal
i
ngswithcertainmoneysandass
ets.

EXCEPTI
ONS

1
)Doesnotappl
ywhenanaccus
edi
stes
tif
ying.

2)Undercer
tai
nst
atut
es,youcannotr
efus
etoans
wereveni
ftheans
wer
swi
l
l
i
ncri
minat
e.

OPI
NIONEVI
DENCE

Thegeneralr
ulei
sthatwhil
stevi
denceofafacti
sadmi
ssi
ble,
evi
denceofopi
nion
i
snot.Therearet
wo( 2)r
easonsf
orthi
srul
e-

1
)Theopi
nionofawi
tnes
sinat
ri
ali
sgener
all
yir
rel
evant
.

2)Ifwi tnes
seswer eal
l
owedt ostat
etheiropini
on,theywouldbeus urpingthe
functi
onoft hejudgeandjurytodraw infer
encesf r
om thefactsstated.So,
basical
ly,wit
ness
esarenotal
lowedtost
atethei
ropini
onintest
imony.

Ex
cept
ionst
othi
srul
e-

1
)Ex
per
tWi
tnes
ses
.

2)Opi
nionofNon-
exper
tWi
tnes
ses
.

Gener
ally,whenwitnes
s esareaskedtotes
tif
y,theycanonl ytest
if
yast owhat
theysaworwhatt heyknowwi t
hinthei
rownper s
onalknowledge.I
fthiswer ethe
casealltheti
me,court
sofl awwouldbedepri
vedoft heviewsofcertainex per
ts
who shouldhelpt hejudgeandj uryonmat ter
sbeyondt hei
rcompet enceor
knowl
edge.

Ex
per
ts-Youcancal
lex
per
tsi
nthear
easofs
cience,medi
ci
ne,ar
chi
tect
ure,

44
engineeri
ng,handwri
ti
ng,ball
ist
icsandment alcondi
ti
onsofpeopl e.I facase
revolvesaroundsuchi s
sues,itisusual
lynecess
arytocal lwi
tnesseswhoar e
expertsint hos
epar ti
cul
arf i
el
ds.Ifcall
ed,theyareal l
owed to giveopini
on
evidenceinmatter
sthatarebeyondtheknowl
edgeofthejudgeandthej ur
y.

How Cour tsofLaw l ookatt heopini

onsofEx per t
s-I nRv.Char d,(
1972) ,Chard
waschar gedwi t
hmur derandhewant edt ocal lapr i
sondoct ortotes t
ifyonhi s
behalftosayt hatthedef endantwhowaschar gedwi t
hmur derhadnoti ntended,at
thetimeoft heof fence, tocommi tmur der;hehadnomensr ea.Thej udger efused
toallow thepr isondoct ort otest
ifyasanex pertbecaus eitwasnotamat ter
needingex perttestimony.I tdidnotaffecthisment alcondit
ions otherewasno
needt ocallanex pertt os howifhehadmensr eaornotorhowt heaccused’smi nd
operatedatt hemat erialtime.Itwasamat t
erfort hejudgeandj urytodecide.

I
nR v.Jef f
ries,(1997),Jef f
ri
eswaschar gedwithpos s ess
ingdr ugswi ththe
i
ntentiont os upplythem.Att hetri
al,adetectiveconstabl
egaveevi dencethat,i
n
heropi nion,certainli
stsfoundatt hedef endant’
sfl
atr el
atedtot hes al
eofdr ugs.
TheCA hel dt hatt hi
sevi dences hould nothavebeen admi tt
ed becauset he
detecti
ve- cons t
ablewasgi vingheropiniononwhet hert hedefendanthaddr ugsin
hispos ses s
ionandi twasnotneces s
aryf orhertoexpressanopi nionont hi
sissue.
Further,thats ol ongast herearemat terswhi chaj udgeandj urycandeci deon
thei
rownwi thoutanyhelp, exper
ttesti
monywasunneces sary.

Not
ethatex
per
ttes
timonyi
sonl
yadmi
tt
edoncer
tai
ntopi
csandnotonal
ltopi
cs.

I
nRv.Ander son,(1972),thedef endantwasaccus edofobs ceni
tywherethetest
forobscenit
ywaswhet herthemat er
ialwoulddepr aveandcor r
uptthati
ndi
vidual
.
I
twass aidthatthedeci si
onast owhet heranar ti
cl
ewoul ddepraveorcor r
upt
somebody was s omet hing thatr equir
ed ex per
tevi dence.Expertevi
dence is
admitt
edwheni tconcer nsmat tersbeyondt henormalcompet enceofthecourt.I
f
i
tiswithinthecourt
’
sex perience,experttesti
monyi snotneeded.

I
nRv.Si lcot
t,theabil
i
tyofthewi tnesstotellthet
ruthwaschallenged.Thecourt
sai
dt hatyoudi dnotneedex pert
st otel
lifsomeone’slyingort
elli
ngthetruth.On
thecont r
ary,i
nt hecaseofFolkesv.Chadd,thequestionconcer
nedwhatcaus eda
harbortos il
t.I
twasdeci dedthatex per
topinionevidencewouldbeneces saryto
determinethis.

45
Whoi sanEx pert
?Itisnoteas
ytodeter
mi newhoqualif
iesasanex pert.Thereare
somecas eswher esomeonecanbeconsideredasanex pertfrom t
heirex per
ience
ands ki
l
lacquiredovertheyears
;Rv.Sil
verlock,(
1894)
;her e,asolici
torwhohad
studi
edhandwr it
ingasahobbyf ormanyyear sgaveex pertopi
nionevi denceon
handwrit
ing.

Asagener alrul
e,ex pertsaret hosewhohavef or
malt r
aini
nginaparti
cul
ar
di
scipline.However ,itisnotj ustsuchpeoplewhoareusedasex per
tsbythe
court
s .InRv.Oakl ey,(1979),theevidenceofapol
iceoff
icerwi
thmanyyears
experiencewi t
hr oadacci dentswasal l
owedasexpertopi
nionevi
denceonthe
possiblecauseoft heaccidents.

Thecat egor
iesofexpert
sar enotcl
osed;theyarestil
lopen.I
nmat t
ersconcerning
forei
gnl aw,fori
nstance,youwi l
lneedex per
topinionevidence.Theex per
twi l
l
giveevidencebasedont hefact
sass eenbyhi m.Buthecanevengi veopinion
evidenceons omethi
ngel se,
wherehehasnoknowl edgeofthef act
sbuti sbasing
hisopiniononfact
sr el
atedtohim byotherexpert
sorbymat er
ialwrit
tenbyot her
experts.

Whenanex pertt
esti
fies
,alotofweightwi
llbegi
ventohistest
imonybutthej
ury
i
snotboundt oacceptit
.Heisonlyther
etoassi
stthej
uryastheydonothavethe
knowledgeorcompet encethathehasonthesubj
ect.I
tisf
orthejury,
however
,to
deci
deiftheywi l
laccepthi
sexpertt
esti
mony.

Ther eares it
uationswher etherear eexpert
sonbot hsidesandi tisupt othej uryto
decidewhi cht oaccept .InRv.Char d,(1
972) ,thedef endantwaschar gedwi th
mur derandt hedef ences oughtt ocallaprisondoct or.Ther ewasnodef enceof
i
nsani t
yordi minishedres pons i
bil
i
ty.Thedoct or’
sopi ni
onwast hatt herewas
nothingwr ongwi t
ht hedef endant’
sment als t
ate.However ,thedef encewant ed
thi
sdoct ortot esti
fythatinhi sopinion,atthet i
meoft heof fence,thedef endant
hadnoi ntentiontocommi tmur der.Thejudger efusedtoal l
owt hatevidence.The
courts aidt hatitwasani ssuewhi chthejurycoul deas il
ydeci de;therewasno
needf oranex perttodecideact usreusandmensr ea.

Thepurposeofexpertevi
denceistoprovidethecourtwi
thinfor
mat i
onoutsi
deof
thejudgeorthej
ur y’
sexperi
ence.Iti
sf orthecourttodecidewhet herornota
part
icul
arpoi
ntrequiresexpertevi
dence.Ift hecourtdeci
dest hatitdoesnot

46
requi
reexper
tevidence,thent
hepointi
nques
tionmus
tbepr
ovedwi
thoutt
he
admissi
onofexpertopi
nionevi
dence.

Thebot t
om li
nei sthats ol
ongasi tisani
ssueoutsi
deoftheex per
ienceor
competenceoft hejudgeorthej ur
y,theywi
l
lall
ow exper
tevi
dence.Thecour t
shoul
drefrai
nfrom acti
ngonitsownasanex pert
.Ifex
pertopi
nioni
sneces s
ary,
theni
ndependentwitness
esmus tbeasked.

Inacas ewheretheiss
uewaswhet herdefecti
vetyreswereus edornot,
thejudge
andjurytr
iedtoadjudi
cateonthatis s
uewi thoutexper
topini
onevidence.TheCA
saidthattheywerewr ongt odos o.Ifthei nf
ormati
on,however,iswi t
hinthe
knowledgeofthecourtsandtheycandos ocompet ent
lyont hei
rownex per
ience,
thentheydonotneedex per
topini
onevi dence;Ti
vert
av.Smi t
h.

Ps
ychi
atr
icEvi
dence

Psychi
atr
icevidenceofex per
tsi
sus edwhereveri tconcernsthement alst
ateof
theaccusedperson.Insomecases,psychi
atr
icevidenceisaneces si
tywhereyou
havetoes tabl
i
s hadefenceofinsani
ty,aut
omat is
m ordi minishedrespons
ibi
li
ty,
becausethereisnootherwayyoucans ucceedint hatdefenceifyoudonotcalla
psychi
atr
isttotest
if
yonyourbehalftoshowt hatyouwer einsaneetc.

InRv.Tur ner,(1
975) ,thedef endantwaschar gedwi tht hemur derofhi sgirl
fri
end
andhi sdefencewaspr ovocat ion.Thedef encet ri
edtocal laps ychiatri
sttot es
tif
y
onhi sbehal f
.Theps ychiatr
is ttoldthecour tthatTur ners howednos i
gnsof
ment alil
l
nes swhat soever .Tur nerhadadeepemot ionalr elat
ions hipwi t
ht hegirl
andt heps ychiat
ristsai dthatTur nerwasver yups etandangr ywhenhi sgirl
fri
end
confessedt hats hehadbeens l
eepingwi t
hot hermenandt hatt hechi l
ds hewas
carr
yingwasnothi s.Inabl indr ageofanger ,heki l
ledhi sgirlf
riend.Thecour t
ref
us edtoacceptanyevi denceofi nsanit
yordi minishedr espons ibil
i
tybutonl y
dealtwi t
ht heissueofpr ovocat i
on.Thecour tsaidt hats i
nceTur nerwasnot
suff
er i
ngf rom anyment alill
nes s,theywer einapos iti
ont oj udgehow peopl e
wouldr eactwhen t heywer eangr y.Thecour tsaidt hatjur orsdi d notneed
psychiatr
istst ot el
lt hem how or dinarypeopl ewhoar en’
ts ufferingfrom any
ment ali
ll
nes sarelikelytor eactt othes tr
essesands trainsofl i
fe.

Thi
scas
ewasf ol
l
owedbyRv.Wei
ght
man,(
1980)
,whi
chr
einf
orcedt
hedeci
si
on
i
nRv.Turner
.

47
However ,Rv.Turnerwascont rastedbyRv.Lower y,(1974);LoweryandKi ngwere
bothchar gedwit
ht hemur derofayounggi rl
.Thenat ureofthemur derwass uch
thatitmus thavebeencommi t
tedbyas adist
icpsychopath.Bot hgaveevi dence
andbl amedeachot herf ort hecr i
me.Lower ysaidt hathewasnott hes ortof
persont ohavecommi tteds uchanof fence.Kingwentones t
agef urt
her;hewas
all
owedt ocallapsychol ogistt oshowt hathisvers
ionoft heevent swast hemor e
probables i
ncehewasl essli
kel y,ont hegroundsofper sonal
ity,tohavecommi t
ted
themur der.Theevidenceoft heps ychologistwasallowedbyt hePr i
vyCouncil;i
t
washel dt hathi
sevi dencewasadmi s
s i
bleasaneces si
tyandar elevantpartof
King’
scas eandtorebutLower y’sevidence.

Thecour
tbel
ievedKi
ng’
sevidenceanddeci
dedthatt
hemur derwascommi
tt
edby
Lower
y.Thi
swasas t
rangecaseandthefol
l
owingmus tbenoted-

1
)Itwasdeci
dedoni
tsownpecul
i
arf
act
s.

2)I
thasneverbeenf
oll
owed.

3)Iti
snotanauthori
tyt
oes
tabl
i
shanygener
alr
uler
elat
ingt
otheadmi
ssi
bil
i
tyof
psychi
atr
icevi
dence.

Normall
y,a psychol
ogi
stwoul
d notbecalled upon totes
tif
yon mat t
ersof
psychi
atr
y,astheyar
enotmedi
caldoct
orswhocant es
tif
yonissuesofaper
son’
s
mentalst
ate.

General
ly,
Rv.Turneristheauthor
it
ytoshowt hatj
uri
esareinabet
terposi
ti
onto
det
erminehowor dinar
ypeoplebehaveorreacttot
hes t
ress
esandstrai
nsofli
fe.
Forthis
,exper
tsarenotneeded.

InRv.Mas ih,
twodef endantswer echargedwi thrape.Oneoft hems oughtleaveto
cal
lps ychiatr
icevi
dencet os how thathewasofl ow intel
l
igence,immatur eand
easi
lyl ed;i
twast heot heronewhol edhim.Thet r
ialjudgerefusedtoadmi tt
he
psychiatri
st’
sevi
dence.Hes aidthatont hetotal
it
yoft heevidence,thedefendant’s
i
ntell
igencewaswi t
hint hes caleofnormalityandhewasnotment all
ydef ecti
ve.
Whet herhewasofl ow intell
igence,i
mmat ureoreas i
lyledisamat t
erwhi chthe
courtwoul dit
sel
fdetermi ne.

I
nRv.Reynol ds,t
hedefendantwaschargedwithmurderandwantedtocal
la
psychi
atr
istt
os howthathehadnoabil
it
yt osepar
ater
eali
tyfr
om f
antas
y;i
twas

48
fl
awed.Thet r
ialjudgerefus edt oall
owpsychi
atri
copini
onevidenceonthisasthe
i
s suewaswhet herhehadt heneces s ymensr
ar eaornotandthecourtcandecide
that.Ther
ewasnoevi dencet hathesuf
fer
edfrom anymental
ill
nessorfantas
izi
ng
att heti
meoft hecommi s sionoft heoff
ence.Thejurycoul
dus ethei
rcommon
sens et
odeter
mi nethisissue.

IntheCanadiancaseofRv.Lupi en,theSupr
emeCour tofCanadaex aminedt he
quest
ionofwhetherpsychi
atr
icevidencewasnecessar
ytos howhowadef endant
wouldreacttohomos exualadvances.Thecourtsaidthatpsychi
atri
cevi dence
shoul
dhavebeenadmi tt
edtos howt hatadef
endantwouldreactvi
olent
lyins uch
cir
cumstances.

I
nRv.Smi th,theaccus edwaschar gedwi thmurderbys t
abbingandhi sdefence
wasautomat is
m whi l
eas leep.Thepr osecuti
onadducedps ychiat
ri
cevi denceto
showwhet hertheevidenceoft heaccusedwascons ist
entwithhisdefence.Itwas
agreedt
hatex pertevidenceisneces sar
yt oestabl
is
ht hedefenceofaut omatis
m
bytheaccused.

Defencessuchasdur
essorcoerci
oncouldleadtoexper
tmedicalevidencebei
ng
admissibl
e pr
ovi
ded t
hatthe mentalcondit
ion orabnor
malit
yi n questi
on i
s
rel
evantandit
seff
ect
sareoutsi
detheknowledgeandexper
ienceoflaymen.

Expertwitnessesarelikeotherwitnes
ses ;t
heyar ecompetentandcompellabl
e.
They may be r equi
red to produce document s and coul
d be subpoenaed.
Confident
ialcommunicati
onbetweenas ol
ici
torandexper
twi t
nessi
sprot
ectedby
l
egalpr of
es si
onalpri
vil
ege.Inotherwor ds,anex per
twitnessisl
ikeanyot her
witness.

TheOpi
nionofNon-
Exper
ts

Theopi ni
on ofnon-ex per
tsisgeneral
lynotadmi ss
ibl
ebuttherear
ecertai
n
occasi
onswher ethelawwi l
lall
owtheopinionofnon-exper
tst
obeadmiss
ibl
ein
court
.Theevi denceoft heopini
onofawi tnesswhoi snotanexper
tmaybe
admissi
bleifhisopinionort heimpr
essionsr ecei
vedbyhim wi
llbeawayof
conveyi
ngrelevantf
actspercei
vedbyhim.

Whatar
ethes
esi
tuat
ions
?

1
)Handwr
it
ing.

49
2)I
dent
it
y.

3)Age.

4)Voi
ce.

5)CCTVFoot
age.

6)Thecondi
ti
onoft
hings
.

Thes ear esomeoft hes i

tuati
onswher eapersonwillbecal l
edtotesti
fy.For
exampl e,awi t
nessmaygi veevi denceofhisowncondi t
ion,whetherphysi
calor
ment alands uchevidencemaywel li
ncludeevi
denceofopinion.Forexample,t
he
witnesswi l
lsay“Idranksixpintsofbeerandwasnotdr unk.”
, or“
IwaswelluntilI
at
et hef oodgiventomebyt hedefendantandIfel
lil
l
.”

Non-
exper
tsmayal
sogi
veopi
nionofhandwr
it
ing;
Rv.Si
l
ver
lockoropi
nionont
he
i
dent
it
yofpeopl
e.

Non-exper t
s aret r
eat
ed like any ot
her wit
nes
s;t hey are competent and
compel labl
eandcanbes ubpoenaedt o gi
veevi
denceoft heiropini
on.Their
evidencei sgiventheweightgi ventothatofexper
t sbecausetheyar ealso
exceptionstothegener
alr
ule.

Thesenon-expertsperceivecert
ainfact
sandwantt ocommuni catethosef actsin
thewayofopi ni
on,acommons enseident
if
icat
ionoff acts-handwr i
ti
ng,identity,
ageands peed;theycancommentont heseands uchevidenceisadmissi
ble.InRv.
Davies
,thewi t
nes ssawanacci dentandwasallowedt ot est
if
yt hati
nhisopi nion
thedri
verwasgoi ngveryf ast
.However,hewasnotal lowedt otesti
fywhethert he
dri
verwasdr unkandgoi ngfast
.

Di
sti
nct
ionbet
weenFactandOpi
nion

Facti
swhatyoupercei
ve.Opi
nionist
heinf
erencedr
awnf
romwhatyouhaves
een.
Allwi
tnes
sesgi
veevidenceonfact
sseen.

Becausei
tisexpertevi
dence,i
tmus tbecr
edibl
eandr el
iabl
e.Thatdependsont he
qual
ifi
cat
ionoftheperson,andt heper
sonisequall
yqual i
fi
edforthetopict obe
spokenabout.I
tisnecessarythattheevi
dencethewi t
nessgivesiscredi
ble,and
mus tbenecessar
yandr eli
abl
e.Wheni tisdeter
minedt hathi
sisneces s
ar y,hi
s

50
opinionwillhavet obecredi
ble.Expert
sornon- exper
tsshoul
dnotmi sl
eadthe
courtast hiswoul dhavefarreachingconsequences.Theevidenceofex perts
shouldber es
tri
ctedtothespher etheyarecal l
edupont otesti
fy.Inthefinal
analysi
s,i
tisthecourtwhodeci deswhethert
or el
yonanex pertwitnes
sasbeing
credibl
e.

Juri
esaccor dal otofwei ghttoex per
tevidencebutt heymus tnotplaceundue
weightonex pertevidence.Sol ongast heevidenceoft heex pertiscogentand
admissi
ble,theneces sarywei ghtshouldbepaledont het r
ibunal.Inotherwords
,
solongast heevi denceoft heex perti
snecessary,cr
edibl
eandr el
iabl
e,thati
sal
l
thejur
yneedst orel
yon.

I
tisf orthej
udget odeci dewhet
hertheis
sueisonewhi
cht hejur
yshouldbe
ass
istedbyexpertevidenceandwhet
hert
heexper
thast
henecessar
yexper
ti
seto
pr
ovidesuchevidence.

Ar
east
hatnon-
exper
tscangi
veevi
denceon-

1
)Handwr
it
ing.

2)I
dent
if
icat
ionofper
sonsandt
hings
.

3)Age.

4)Bodi
l
ypl
i
ght
.E.
g.I
l
lnes
s.

5)Emot
ional
stat
e.

6)Thecondi
ti
onoft
hings
,whet
hert
heyar
eol
dornew.

7)Ques
tionofval
ue.

8)Es
timat
eofs
peedordi
stance.

I
nRv.Davi es
,Daviess
awavehi cl
egobyandhewasabl et otes
tif
ythatt
heman
wasdri
vingwithex
cessi
vespeed.However,hewasnotal
lowedtogivehi
sopi
nion
t
hattheaccusedwasunfi
ttodri
vebecausehewasdrunk.

51
 I
LLEGALLYOBTAI
NEDEVI
DENCE

Thegener alr
uleisthati
ll
egal
l
yobtainedevidencei
sadmis si
bleinacour
toflawin
EnglandorSi er
raLeone.Inotherwords,thelaw i
snotconcer nedastohow you
obtainedtheevidence.Thi
swasclearlyst
atedinRv.Leat ham,whereCompt onJ.
sai
d,“ Itmatt
ersnothow yougeti t,eveni fyousteali
t,itwillbeadmis
siblei
n
evi
dence.”

I
nEliasv.Pas more,thecourtsaidthatt
heinteres
toftheStatemus texcus
ethe
s
eiz
ur eofdocument s
, whi
chs ei
zurewoul
dotherwisebeunl
awf ul
.InCal
li
sv.Gunn,
i
twass aidthati
tdoesnotmat terhow yougett heevi
dence,whetherbyfals
e
r
epresentati
onsorbyt r
ick
,itwil
lbeadmissi
ble.

Thispos it
ioncanbecont rast
edwi t
ht hepos it
ionint heUnitedSt ates,wher e
i
llegall
yori mproper
lyobtai
nedevi dencei snotadmi ssi
blebecauseitcont ravenes
th
the4 Amendmentoft heUni t
edSt atesCons t
it
utionwhichprovidesapr otect
ion
fort hepeopl etobes ecureint heirper s
ons ,houses,papers,andef fectsf r
om
unreas onablesear
chesands eiz
ur e.Cour t
si ntheUni t
edStatesmai ntaint hatto
admi ts uchevi
denceisabreachoft heaccus ed’
srights
.

Engli
shl
awt akest
heviewthatt
heyarenotconcer
nedwiththewayandmanneri
n
whichevi
denceisobt
ained;
itwi
llbeadmi
ssi
bleinevi
dence,
asinRv.Leat
ham.

TheKenyancas eofKar uma,SonofKani uv.Rwentt ot hePri

vyCounci l;t
he
accusedwaschar gedwi ththeunl awfulpossess
ionofammuni t
ionwhichhadbeen
foundinhispocketbypol iceofficerswhower eofins
uff
ici
entranktocar r
youtthe
search.Evidenceoft hes ear
ch wasadmi tt
ed and t
heywer econvicted.The
defencesaidt hatthes earchwasi ll
egalandtheaccusedappealedt othePr i
vy
Councilwhodi smissedhi sappeal .LordGoddards ai
dt hatwhereevi denceis
rel
evantandadmi s si
ble,thecour tisnotconcer
nedwithhowi twasobtained.

InJonesv.Owens ,apol
icecons
tabl
einunlawf ul
l
ysearchinganaccusedperson,
foundanumberofyoungs al
moninhispossessi
on.Theevidencewasadmi t
tedon
thes ubsequentchar
geofunlawfulf
ishi
ng,ont hegroundst hattoexcl
udesuch
evidence obtai
ned by i
ll
egalmeans “would be a dangerous obs
tacl
et othe
admi ni
str
ationofj
usti
ce.
”

I
nJef
freyv.Bl
ack,
theaccus
edwaschar
gedwi
thunl
awf
ulpos
ses
sionofcannabi
s.

52
He wasor iginal
l
y arrested fors teal
ing a sandwich butwhi l
sthe wasbei ng
searched,pol i
ceofficerswi thoutas earchwar r
antandwi t
houtt heaccused’
s
cons ents earchedhishomeandf oundt hecannabi s
.Themagi s
trat
eorigi
nall
y
dismiss edthecas eont hegr oundt hatthecannabishadbeenobt ai
nedasar esul
t
ofani ll
egals ear
ch.Thepr osecuti
onappeal edandt heappell
atecourtuphel
dhe
appeal .Thej udgesaid,“Ihavenott heleastdoubtthatanirr
egular
it
yinobtai
ning
evidencedoesnotr endert heevidenceinadmi s
sibl
e.”Theaccusedwasconvicted.

I
nFoxv.Chi efcons t
ableofGwent ,poli
ceofficersstoppedadr iverandas kedhim
totakeabr eathal
yzertest.Thedr iverwasunl awf ul
l
yarrested.Thepol i
cewenton
andobtainedthes pecimenf r
omt hedr iver
.Hi slawyerobjectedtot headmi ssi
bil
i
t y
ofthatevidenceont hegr oundst hathewasi ll
egall
yarrested.Thecour tsai
dthat
solongast hepolicewer eact i
ngi ngoodf ait
handpr ocedure,thef actthatthe
accusedhasbeenwr ongfull
yar r
es tedwillnotr endertheevidencei nadmissi
ble.
Thepoli
ceof fi
cersmer elyperpetr
at edabonaf i
demi st
akeast ot heirpowers.

I
nRv.Api cell
a,t heaccus edwasconvi ctedont hreecount sofr ape.Eachoft he
victi
mst hathehadr apedhadcont ractedanunus uals t
r ai
nofgonor rhea.The
accus ed washel d on r emand and t hepr i
son doct ors uspected t hathewas
sufferingfrom gonor r
hea.Thedoct orcal l
edi nacons ultantwhot ookaquant i
tyof
bodilyf l
uidst oenabl ehimt omakeadi agnos is
.Thecons ultantass umedt hatthe
accus edwascons enting.I
nf act,theaccus edhads ubmi tt
edbecaus ehewast old
byapr i
sonof ficert hathehadnochoi cei nthemat ter.Thes peciment akenf r
om
theaccus eds howedt hathewass ufferingf rom thes ames tr
ainofgonor rheaas
thevi cti
ms .Thepr osecuti
ont ender edt heevi dence.Theaccus edar guedt hatthe
useoft heevi dencewasunf ai
r,pr ejudicialandt hatt hes ampl eswer et aken
withouthi sr ealcons ent.Thecour ts aidt hatuseoft heevi dencewasnotunf ai
r
andt hereforet heevi dencewasadmi s
s i
ble.

I
nRv.Payne,t heaccus edwaschar gedwi thdrunkendr i
ving.Heagr eedt oa
medicalexaminationtoseeifhewass ufferi
ngf r
om anyil
lnessordi sabi
li
ty,
ont he
underst
andingthatthedoctorwoul dnotex aminehim astohisf i
tnesstodrive.At
thetri
al
,thedoct orgaveevidenceoft heaccus ed’
sunfi
tnesst odriveandt heCA
quashedtheconvi cti
ononthegr oundthatt hetri
alj
udgemus thaveex er
cisedhis
discr
eti
ont oexcludethedoctor’
sevidence.Thi sistheonlycas ewher eevidence
thatwasil
legal
lyobt ai
nedwasnotadmi ssible.

53
I
nRv.Ki ng,pol
iceof
fi
cerssear
chedamani ll
egal
lyandfoundcannabi
sinhis
pos
ses
sion.ThePri
vyCounci
l
,however
,rul
edt
hattheevi
dencewasadmiss
ibl
e.

I
nRv.Chr is
tou,t hepolicecarr
iedoutal ongoper at
iont oobtainevidenceoft heft
byoper at
ingas hopwhi chboughtands ol
dj ewelry.Theywer etryi
ngt ot r
apa
bunchoft hievesbyus i
ngthes hoptoat tr
actbuyer sofs tol
engods .Theywer e
arr
estedandpr os ecutedandtheevidenceobt ai
nedf romt hi
soperati
on, i
nt heform
ofvideo and or alr ecordi
ngs,incl
uded incriminating conversat
ions wi t
ht he
undercoveroper ators
.Thedef enceobjectedt othet enderi
ngoft hi
sevi dencebut
thecourtrul
edt hatitwasadmi ssibl
e.

Therearetimeswhent hepol
iceuseunder
covermethodst oobt
ainevidence.They
maybugpol i
cecel
lsorevenhomest oobtai
ni ncr
iminat
ingconver
sations.These
i
ncriminat
ingconver
s ati
onsareadmiss
ibl
einlaw becausetheyarerelevanteven
thoughtheyarei
mpr operl
yobtai
ned.

InRv.Maqs udAl iandRv.As hiqHus sein,thedef endantswer ebot hPakistanis

suspectedofmur derandl i
vingi nBr adford.Theywentwi thpol iceof fi
cerst oa
room int heBr adford Town Hal l
.Unknown t ot hesePaki stanis,t herewasa
microphoneconnect edwi that aper ecor derinanot herroom.Thet womenwer e
l
eftt othems elvesandt heys tar tedtalking.Int heirconversati
on,t heymadever y
i
ncr i
minatingremar ksandt hepr osecutions oughtt oadmi tt
hist aper ecordi
ngi nto
evidence.Thej udgeheldt hatthet aper ecordingoft heincriminatingconver sation
was admi ssi
ble.The judge s aidt hatcr iminals do notactaccor di
ng tot he
Queens buryrulesandt hemet hodoft hei nformerandoft heeaves dropperar e
commonl yus edint hedet ectionofcr ime.Int hiscase,ami crophonewast he
mechani caldevicewhichwasus edast heeaves dropper.

I
nRv.Bail
ey,t
hepoli
ceins
tal
ledabuggi
ngdevicei
napol
i
cecel
l
,recor
dedwhat
Bai
l
eywassayi
ngandusediti
nevi
denceagai
nsthi
m.

I
nR v.Khan,al ist
eningdevi cewasi ns
tal
l
edi nthehomeofa3rd par t
y.The
accusedwentt hereasavi s
itorandwashear dtoconfesst
oacrimewithwhi chhe
waschar ged.Thepr osecution t
ri
ed t oint
roducethetaperecordi
ng and the
defenceobjected,sayi
ngthatt hei
rclientwasdecei
ved.Thecour
t,however,rul
ed
thatthet
aper ecordi
ngwasadmi ssi
ble.

Not
ethati
nEngl
and,S.
78ofP.
A.C.
E.now gi
vesj
udgesdi
scr
eti
ont
odeci
de

54
whet
hert
oadmi
tevi
denceornot
.

InthelocusclassicusRv.Sang,( 1980),SangandManganwer echar gedwi t

hthe
off
encesofcons pir
acyt oal t
erf orgedbanknot esandpos ses s
ionoff orgedbank
notes.Theybot hpleadednotgui l
tyandavoi rdire(tr
ialw/ i
nat rial)washel dto
decide whet
hert he pros ecuti
on’s evidence shoul
d be admi tted becaus ethe
accusedhadbeeni nducedbyani nformeracti
ngont hei nst
ructionsoft hepoli
ce.
Andbutf ortheper s uas
ionoft hisinf
ormer ,t
heywoul dnothavecommi t
tedthis
cri
me.Thedef enceputf orwardt hedef enceofentrapmentandt hatt heywould
neverhavecommi ttedthecr imei fthepol i
cehadnotins ti
gatedi t.(Ent rapmenti s
notadefenceinEngl andandSi erraLeonebutitisadefencei ntheUni t edSt at
es.)

Thet ri
aljudgeruledthattherewasnodef enceofent rapmenti nEngl i
shlaw and
thathe di d nothave any di s
cret
ion to excl
ude the evi dence obtained by
entrapment .Aft
ert hi
sr ul
i
ng,t hedefendantschangedt heirpl eatogui l
ty.They
wer ebotht r
ied and convicted.Theyappealed tot heCA whi ch upheldt hei
r
convicti
onandr uledthatevidence,howeveril
legal
lyobt ai
ned,wasadmi s s
iblein
evidence.Theyappeal edtot heHLandt heHLal souphel dt heconvicti
on,r uli
ng
thatevent houghtheevidencewasi mproperl
yobt ai
ned, i
twass ti
l
ladmissibl
e.The
convicti
ons toodbuttheHLl aiddownt woli
mi t
ati
onstot hisrule-

1)Iftheevi
denceobtainedimproper
lyorunfai
rl
yamount
stoanadmi
ssi
onora
confess
ion,
thejudgehasdis
cret
iontoexcl
udeit
.

2)Inever
ycr iminaltri
al,t
hepr es
idi
ngjudgeal
wayshasoverr
idi
ngdiscr
eti
onto
excl
udeevidencei ftheevidencewasmor eprejudi
ci
alt
hanpr
obati
ve.I.
e.i
fthe
pr
ejudi
ci
aleffectoutweighstheprobat
iveval
ue.

I
twasalsonot
edthatEngli
shlawdoesnotrecogni
zethedef
enceofent
rapment
;if
t
hepol
iceuseanagentprovocat
eur
,itwi
ll
notavailt
heaccusedasadef
ence.

Publ
i
cInt
eres
tImmuni
ty

In certain cases,rel
evantevidence isexcluded on t
he ground thatitwoul d
seriouslyprejudi
cethepubli
cinter
estift
hemat eri
alweredis
closed.Suchevidence
i
sex cl
udedbecaus eifiti
sadmi tt
edinevidence,i
twouldinjur
et heint
erestofthe
State whi ch the admini
str
ati
on ofj ust
ice it
sel
fdependson.I .e.allrel
evant
evidencecoul dbeadmi ssi
bleinevidenceift headminis
trat
ionofj usti
ceist o

55
functi
onef f
ecti
vel
y.However,t
herear
ecert
aini
nstanceswheret
headmi ni
str
ati
on
ofj ust
ice mustgive way becauseifcer
tai
n evidence i
sint
roduced i
tcould
______
__ _
_____
____
____
__.

Oneoft
heex
clus
ionar
yrul
esofevi
dence.

Someevi denceconcer nsnat i

onals ecur
ity,di
plomati
cr el
ationsbetweenStat
es,
i
nternati
onalr el
ati
ons bet ween Sierra Leone and the Uni t
ed Nati
ons.Some
evi
dence mi ghtinclude givi
ng evidence on the detecti
on ofcr i
me orpolice
i
nformers.Thistypeofevidences houldnotbedi scl
osedevent houghnecess
aryin
theinter
estoft headmi ni
s t
rat
ionofj usti
cebutot herint
erestconcernsmakesit
necessarynottodisclosethematcer tai
noccasions.Themaj orones-

1
)Mai
ntenanceofnat
ional
secur
it
yordi
plomat
icr
elat
ions
.

2)Theef
fect
ivef
unct
ioni
ngoft
heci
vi
lser
viceoroft
hepubl
i
cser
vice.

3)Thedet
ect
ionofcr
ime.

Theywer eori
ginal
lywit
hhel
dont hegr oundsofpr ot
ecti
ngtheSt at
e,ast hey
thoughttheycouldbewit
hheldwhenthepubl icinter
estinwit
hholdinginf
ormation
i
napar ti
cul
arcaseout
weighsthenormalr ul
esoft headmini
str
ationofjusti
cethat
requi
rediscl
osure.I
nsuchspecif
ici
nstances,thelawtakestheviewofwi thhol
ding
thatpieceofevi
dence.

Publi
cinter
esti
mmunityisalsorecogni
zedbytheSi
erraLeoneConst
it
uti
on1991
.
Provi
sionismadefortheStateorgovernmenttowi
thhol
dcertai
ninf
ormati
onon
thegroundsofpubl
i
cinter
est.

Itallstar
tedwi ththecas eofDuncanv.Cammel lLair
d,( 1942),whereinf
ormat i
on
wass oughtconcer ni
nghow as ubmar i
newasbui l
tbutt heCrowndeci dedt o
withholdt hati
nf or
mationbecaus eiftheplanswer edisclosedandt heyendedupi n
thehandsoft heenemy,t hi
swoul dcaus es eriousi njurytonat i
onals ecuri
ty.
Whenevert heCr ownwant edt owithholdundert hepr i
nci pl
elai
ddowni nthiscase,
ministerswoul dbr i
ngacer tif
icatetothecour tt os ayt hattheinformati
onwoul d
notbedi s cl
osedonpubl icinterestgrounds.Thecer ti
fi
cat ewasf i
nalandevent he
courtswoul dneverargueagai nstit
.Itwasapr ivi l
eget hatcouldnotbewai vedso
oncet hedeci si
onhadbeenmadet owi t
hhold,t
heCr ownhadt odoi t.I
ftheCr own
didnotcl aimthepr i
vil
ege,theevidencewoul dbeadmi t
ted.

56
InDuncanv.Cammel l
Laird,t
heMi nist
erofDefencei
nEnglanddeci
dedt
owi t
hhold
cert
aininf
ormati
onf rom thecour tconcerni
ngtheplansoft hebui
ldi
ngofa
submari
neintheinterestofnati
onals ecur
it
y.Thiswastheendofthematterbut
thi
swasheavil
ycrit
ici
z edasthemi nis
terhadabsol
utepoweri
nthematt
er.

Thes cenariowasr evi

ew intheHLcas eofConwayv.Ri mmer,(1
968),wherethe
HLs aidthatitwasnots uff
ici
entforami nist
erofthegover
nmenttocomeandt el
l
thecourtt hattheywouldwi t
hhol
dcer t
ainevi
dence.Thenewpositi
onwast hati
f
theministernowcamef orwar dwiththecerti
fi
cate,
thecour
tnowhadt hepowerto
examinei ttodecidewhetherornotthatevidencecoul
dbewi t
hhel
d;itwasnowno
l
ongeranex ecuti
vedeci
s i
onbutaj udici
aldeci
sion.

Oneoft
hemaingroundsofholdi
ngevi
dencei
sont
hegr
oundofnat
ionals
ecur
it
y,
asi
nDuncanv.CammellLai
rd.

Anothercasewast hatofBurmahOi lCoLtdv.BankofEngl and,(

1980);
therewasa
documentwhi chcontai
neds omedi pl
omat i
ccorr
espondenceandi tal
socontained
aconfident
ialeconomicreportontheBankofEngl and.Theques ti
onwaswhet her
thedocuments houldbewithheldfr
om t hecour
ts.TheCrownar guedstrongl
ythat
i
fi twasadmi ssibl
einevidence,itwoul ddamaget henat i
on’
s_ _
_____
_ _
____
____
whichwouldal s
oaf f
ecti
tsnationalsecuri
tyandasacons equence,i
twaswi t
hheld
fromthecourts.

EventhecaseofConwayv.Ri mmer
,whi
chmoreorlesschangedt
hepr
ocedur
e
fr
om beinganexecut
ivedeci
si
ontobei
ngajudi
ci
alone,wasacaseofnati
onal
secur
it
y.

TheCr
owngeneral
lyi
sabletopers
uadethecourt
stowi t
hholdwhenevidencei
s
bei
ngwit
hhel
donthegr
oundsofnati
onal
secur
it
yvis-
à-vi
sotherevi
dence.

Undertheses amegr ounds,therearecertai

ndocument swhi chtheSt at
ewi l
l
al
wayst ryt o pr
otectsuch ascabi netpapers
,f or
eign poli
cydispatchesand
documentsbet weenSierr
aLeoneandi nt
ernat
ionalorganizat
ionssuchast he
Unit
edNations.Inthesesit
uati
ons ,t
heStatewouldtrytopr eventsuchevidence
fr
omgoingi nasitwouldbeinj
urioustonati
onalsecur
it
yifall
owedt ogoin.

Af
tert
hecas
eofDuncanv.Cammel
lLai
rd,
ther
ewasal
sot
hecas
eof

El
l
isv.HomeOf
fi
ce,(
1953)
;El
l
iss
uedt
heHomeOf
fi
ceandt
hepl
ai
nti
ff
swant
ed

57
certai
ndocument s;policeandmedi calrepor
tsconcerni
ngt hement alcondi
ti
onof
apr i
sonerwhohadvi olentl
yassaultedt hepl
aint
if
fwhowasal s
oaf el
lowpri
s oner.
When t he plai
nti
ffcl aimed discl
os ure ofthese documents,t he Home Of fi
ce
objectedonthegr oundsofpubl icinteresti
mmuni t
yandt hi
sobj ect
ionwasuphel d
byt hecourt.Alt
houghDevl i
nJ.uphel dtheclai
m ofpubl i
cinterestimmunity,he
sai
dt hathehadanuneas yfeeli
ngt hatjust
icehadnotbeendoneands ucha
si
tuati
oncoul dnotcont inue.

Itwasnos ur
pri
sethenwhenConwayv.Rimmercamet obedeter
mined,t
hatt
he
HLr evers
edthes i
tuat
ioni
nDuncanv.CammellLai
rdandsai
dthatitwasnott
he
executi
vewhohadt hefi
nals
aywhenpubli
cinter
esti
mmunityi
sclaimedbutt
he
courts.

InConwayv.Ri mmer ,thepl aintif

fwasapol icecons t
abl ewhohadbeenchar ged
butacqui tt
edofs tealingat or chl i
ght.Hebr oughtanact i
onagai nsthi sformer
superintendentofpol i
cecl aimi ngdamagesf ormal iciouspr osecut i
on.TheHome
Secretaryobj ect edt ot hepr oduct i
onoff iver epor t
sr el
ati
ngt ot hepl ai
ntif
f’
s
conductwhenhewasonpr obat ionandoner eportr el
at i
ngt ohi spros ecut
ionfor
theft
.TheHomeSecr etaryobj ectedongr oundst hati twasnoti nt hepubl i
c
i
nteres ttodi s closet hem.TheHomeSecr et arys wor et oanaf f
idavitandal so
produced a cer tif
icatet hatt he documents hould notbe di scl
osed and t hey
submi tt
edt hats uchwasf inal.Thecour tsrefus et oacceptt hisar gumentnowt hat
oncet heex ecut ivehaspr oducedacer tif
icate, theymus tautomat i
call
ygr antpubli
c
i
nteres timmuni ty.TheHLs ayst hatami nister’scer ti
ficat
ei snotf i
nalbecaus e
publi
ci nter
es ti mmuni tyisaques ti
onofl awf ort hedet erminationoft hecour tand
i
ft hegover nmentobj ect stot hepr oduct i
onofdocument s ,theywi llgi
vet he
greatestwei ghtt ot hatobj ectionbutt hatobj ectionwoul dnotbef inal,anditwas
upt ot hecour tt oex ami net hedocumentanddet ermi newhet herthedocument
shouldbedi s clos edorwi thheld.

Thiswasamaj orcas
einpubl i
cinterestimmunitypar
ticul
arl
ywhenoneconsider
s
thatDuncanv.Cammel lLair
dwasdet erminedduri
ngthewaryears(1
942)whenit
made s enset o notdi s
close document sf ornati
onals ecur
it
yr eas
ons and
consideringwhatwass ai
dbyDevl i
nJ. ,t
heHLi nConwayv.Ri mmerdecidedto
overt
ur nt heposi
ti
on.

Cat
egor
ieswher
eP.
I.
I.i
sUs
ual
l
yInvoked

58
1)Ongr oundsofNationalSecuri
ty;forex
ampleinDuncanv.Cammel
lLai
rd,the
discl
osureofplansoft hecons tructi
onofas ubmari
newouldaff
ectnati
onal
securi
ty.Anot
hernat
ionalsecur
it
ycas ewasthecaseof

Asiati
cPet r
oleum CoLtdv.AngloPers
ianOi lCoLtd,wher
ethedefendant
s,act
ing
oni ns
t r
ucti
onsfrom theBoardofAdmiral
ty,object
edtotheproduct
ionofalet
ter
fr
om t headmi r
altytoanoilcompanyongr oundsofnati
onals
ecurit
ybecausethe
l
ettercontai
nedi nfor
mati
onaboutamili
tar
ycampai gn.

Also,inBurmahOi lCoLt dv.BankofEngl and,t heHLuphel dacl ai

m onpubl i
c
i
nterestimmunitytopreventcertai
ngover nmentmemor andaofaver yconfidential
meet i
ngont hegroundsofpubli
ci nteres
t ;
itwoul dnotbedes ir
abletodisclosethi s
memor anda.Whenpubl i
cinteresti mmuni t
yisi nvokedongr oundsofnat i
onal
securit
yasoppos edt o ot
hercat egories,cour t
sgener all
yt endt o upholdt he
objecti
on.Thechancesofs ucceedingar egreaterascour tsareawar eofthehar m
possibl
eifmattersofnati
onalsecurityareexpos ed.

I
nBal fourv.For ei
gnandCommonweal t
hOf f
ice,Balfourwasdi smissedf r
om hi s
posi
tionasBr iti
shCons ulinDubai .Het ookt heCommonweal thOf ficet oan
i
ndus t
rialtri
bunalandcl aimeddamages .Hes oughtdi s
closureofdocument sint he
possess i
onoft heForeignOf ficebutt heForeignofficerefused,s
ayingt hatift hey
weredi sclosed,itwouldbecont r
aryt othepublicinteresttodos oast heyr elated
totheSecur it
yandI ntell
igenceSer vi
ce.TheMi nisterforForeignAf fai
rsand
Mini
sterf ort heHomeOf fi
cebot hs ignedtwocer tif
icatesclai
mingpubl icinterest
i
mmuni ty.Theygaver eas onsf ortheirclai
m andthecour tuphel
dt hedeci siont o
ref
usedi sclosure.

InCouncilofCivi
l Servi
ceUni onsv.Mi nis
terfortheCi vi
lServi
ce, t
hef oll
owingwas
sai
d,“Whendeal ingwi thques t
ionsofnat i
onals ecuri
ty,i
tmus tber ecognizedt hat
i
tisus uall
yas ecreti
veandcompl exmat t
er.Nat i
onalsecuri
tyist heresponsibili
ty
oftheEx ecut
ivegover nmentandwhatact i
onisneededt opr otectitsint
erestsisa
matteronwhi cht hoseonwhom t her esponsibil
ityrest
sandgener al
lynott he
court
sofj usti
ce.Gener al
ly,theys houldhavet hel astword.Itisanon- justi
ciable
questi
onandt hej udici
alprocesscouldnotgener al
lydealwiththes emat t
erswhen
suchproblemsar i
s e.

2)I
nfor
mat
ionf
ort
heDet
ect
ionofCr
ime-I
fthenamesofpol
i
cei
nfor
mant
swer
e

59
rout i
nelydi sclos ed,thenitwoul dbedi ff
icultfort hepol icet oobt aini nformat ion
from t he publ ic.The pol i
ce and l aw enf orcementagenci es gr eatlyr ely on
conf i
dentiali nfor mationfrom thepubl i
ct ohel pt hem i nthepr event ion,det ection
andpr osecut ionofcr i
me.Ifthepol i
cedi sclos edthenamesofi nformant s,t hey
woul dbeat tackedorevenki ll
edands oi tisnoti nt hepubl i
cint eres t
.Thecl as si
c
cas ei sMar ksv.Beyf us;t
hepl ainti
ffclai
meddamagesf ormal iciouspr osecut i
on.
Int hecour seoft het ri
al
,heas kedt heDPPt onamehi sinformant sandt hej udge
disall
owedt heques tionands aidt hattherewasnoj usti
ficati
onf ort hatques t
ion
andhewi l
lnotevenal l
owt heDPPt oans weri tast hepol icegener al
lydonotgi ve
i
nf ormat i
onaboutt henamesoft hei
rinformer s.Heappeal edagai nstt hedeci sion
andt heCAuphel dt herul
ingoft hetri
alj udge.TheCAs ai dthatt hepr os ecution
thatt ookpl acewasapubl i
cpros ecuti
onor deredbyt hegover nment ,forwhi chit
wascons i
der edi nt hepubl i
cinteresttodos oandt hatt hei nfor mat ions oughtby
thepl aint
iffoughtnot ,onthegroundsofpubl i
cpol i
cy, t
obedi sclos ed.

I
nDv.NSPCC,t heNat i
onalSoci etyfort hePr event i
onofCr uelt
yt oChi l
dreni san
organi zat i
oni nEngl andwher epeopl ecanmakecompl ai nt
sconcer ningt heway
par entst reatt heirchildren, especial
lycr ueltreatment .Theyar eempower edt otake
remedi alact ionagai ns tpar ents.Informat ionwasgi vent ot heNSPCCabouta
mot herwhowasal l
egedl ymal t
reati
ngherbabyandt heydeci dedt oi nvestigatet he
mat terandt akeact ionagai nstthemot herf orcr uelty.Themot her,int hecour seof
thet ri
al,want edt oknowt hei denti
tyoft hei nfor mantwhohadr epor tedher .The
NSPCCcl ai
medpubl icinter estimmuni tyands aidt hati twoul dnotbei nthepubl i
c
i
nt eres ttodi sclos ethei nf ormant .Suchi nfor mant smus tbepr otect edbecaus eof
ther iskanddanger st heywoul dbes ubj ectedt oi fdis clos ed.Ifthes eagenci est hat
relyoni nformat ionf rom t hepubl i
cs t
artt odi s cl
os es uchs ensiti
vei nf
or mation,
thent heirsour cesofi nformat ionwoul ddr yupandnobodywoul dhaveconf i
dence
i
ngi vingi nformat ionandt heycannotef fectivelyoper atewi thouts uchi nformat ion
from t hepubl ic.Ther efore, theymus tpr otecti nformant s .P.I.I
.wasuphel dandt he
def endantwasnotgi vent hei nformationr equired.

3)ThePr operFunctioningoft hePubl icService-Publici nterestimmunityi s

sometimesinvokedtopr otectthenecessit
yfortheproperfunctioningofthepubli
c
ser
vice.InRv.LewesJus ti
ces,expar tetheHomeSecr etary,anuns uccessful
appl
icati
onf oragami ngl i
cences oughtcert
aindisclos
ur e.Af t
eri twasturned
down,t heuns ucces
sfulappl i
cantbr oughtli
belproceedingsagai nstt
hepol i
ce

60
becaus ehes aidt hatitwascer taininfor
mati
ont hatthepol icegavet otheGami ng
Boar d which led t o hisapplication bei
ng unsucces sf
ul.Heas ked forcertain
disclosureespeci al
lyalettersentbyt hepoli
cetot heGami ngBoar d.Itwasi nthat
l
ettert hatthepol i
ces ai
dt hathewasnots ui
tabl
e.Hel os
thi scas eandwentasf ar
ast heHLbutt heHlr efusedands aidthatt
heGami ngBoar ds houldnotdiscl
os e
thel etterast hiswoul daf f
ectt hes moothrunningoft hepubl i
cs ervi
ce.Itwas
thoughtt hatiftheGami ngBoardi stoadequatel
yper formitss tatutoryduti
es,t
hen
suchi nformations houldnotbedi sclosedint
hepubl i
ci nt
eres t
.

I
nLonr hov.Fayed,theques tionar osewhet herintheabs enceofcons entto
disclos
urebyat axpayer,P.I.I
.attachestodocument srel
atingtohi
staxaf f
air
sin
thehandsoft heincomet axdepar tment.TheCA s ai
dt hatitisnecessaryto
prohibi
tdiscl
osurebyt heincomet axdepar t
mentofat axpayer’saff
air
swi thi
n
theirdepar
tment.Furt
her,thatt heset axaffai
rsdocumentsareconfi
denti
alandi f
thesedocument shavet obedi sclosed,thenthepersons eeki
ngthei
rdisclosur
e
woul dhavetos howverys tronggr oundswhyi twoul
dbei nthepubli
cinter
estto
maket hesedi
sclosur
es.

4)Judi cialDi scl

os ures-Ther ear er est
ricti
onsont heex tentto whicht hose
i
nvolvedi ntheadmi nist
rati
onofj ust
icecanbecal l
edupont ogiveevi denceof
proceedings .Ther eas oni stheneedf oref fi
ciencyandf i
nali
tyinlit
igat
ion.Judges
presidi
ngovercas es ,includingmas t
er sandr egist
rars,cannotbecompel l
edt o
testi
fyort ogi veevi denceoft hosemat t
ersofwhi chtheybecomeawar e,rel
at i
ng
toandasar esul
toft hei
rper for
manceoft heirjudi
cialfuncti
ons.Thismeanst hat
judgesdohavecer tainpubl i
cpolicyimmuni tiesandasamat t
erofpubl i
cpol icy,
theywi l
lnotbecompel l
edt ocomet ocour tanddi scl
os ewhathadhappenedi nt he
casest heyhadpr es idedi n.Publi
ci nterestimmuni t
yi salsoex t
endedt ot hejury
presidi
ng overcas es .Thej urys hould notbeas ked whathappened i nt heir
deli
berations; i
tisnotamat terforthepubl icdomai n.(Thisistheoppos it
eofwhat
obtainsint heUni t
edSt ates.
)

I
nt hecas
eofRv.Thomps on,theCAr efus edtohearevidencetotheeffectthata
j
ur orhadr eadalistoftheaccus ed’
spr eviousconvicti
onswhi chhadnotbeen
revealedi
nevidenceincour
t.Thecour tsaidt hati
twasint hepubli
cint
erestnotto
disclosewhattakesplaceinthej uryroom andt hatdi
scussionsamongs tjuror
s
wer enotamat terforthepublic.Further,inanycas e,theremus tbefinal
ityto

61
l
i
tigat
ion.

5)Conf i
dentialRel
ati
onships-St r
ict
lys peaking,itisnotacat egor
yass uch,li
ke
nati
onal s ecuri
ty etc. However , confidential rel
ati
onships are t aken into
consi
der at
ionatt i
mest opreventcertai
ndi sclosuresgoingoutt ot
hepubl ic.The
generalassumpt i
onisthatifi
nformationwhi chi sconfi
denti
alispas sedont oyou,
you s houl
d notdi scloseit.This happens wi thl awyer
/ cl
ient,doctor/pati
ent,
banker/customer,j
ournal
ist/
sourceandpr iest/peni
tent.

Whatitmeansist hatthesecategori
esofpeopl
enor mall
ydevel opaverycl
oseand
confi
dent
ialrel
ati
ons hipandi tisnecessar
ythatwhatt r
ans pir
esbet
weent hem
shoul
dnotbedi sclosed.Forexample,amedicaldoctortr
eati
ngyoukeepsr ecords
whichshouldbeconf i
dent
ial
.Also,betweenbankersandcus tomers,f
orinst
ance,
thebankmanagers houl
dprotectthecust
omer’
sconfidenti
ali
ty.

Str
ict
lys peaking,t
heseconf identi
alrel
ationshi
psar enotagr oundforimmunity
butthes econf i
dent
ialrel
ationshipsarer espected.However,youcannotcl ai
m
publi
ci nteresti
mmuni t
y.Theonl yonet hathass omes or
tofi mmunit
yist he
rel
ati
ons hipbetweenlegaladviserandcl i
ent;confi
denti
alinf
ormati
onthatpasses
betweenl awyerandcl i
entisl egall
yprotected.InAlfr
edCr omptonAmus ements
MachinesLt dv.Cus t
omsandEx ci
seCommi ssi
oners,theHLemphas izedthat
confi
dent i
alit
yisneveras uffi
cientgroundofi mmuni t
y,eventhoughiti
sof t
ena
necessaryconditi
on.

InBr i
ti
shSt eelCor porati
onv.Gr anadaTel evision,Granadat elevisionhadr ecei ved
from aBSCempl oyee,copiesofs ecr etdocument sf r
om t hef i
lesofBSC.Someof
thesedocument swer eus edinadocument arypr ogram byGr anadaont heNat ional
Steelstri
kei nEngl and.Gr anadatel evisionhadpai dmoneyt ot hei nf or
mantf ort he
document s,pr omi s i
ngt oneverdi s closehi sidentit
y.BSCt ookGr anadat ocour t
andappl iedf oranor derthatGr anadadi scl
os ethei nfor mant ’
si dentit
y.Gr anada
refused.Thecour truledagainstGr anada.Thecas ewentt ot heCAandt heyal so
ruledagai ns tGr anada.TheHLmadeanor dert hatGr anadas houl ddiscloset he
i
dent i
tyoft hei nf ormant.LordWi lber f
orces aid“Cour t
shaveani nherentwi sht o
respectthi sconf i
dence;whet heri tar isesbet weendoct orandpat i
ent,bankerand
cus t
omer ,pr iestandpeni t
entorbet weenper s onsgivi
ngt estimoni alstoempl oyees
ori notherr elat
ions hips.Butinal lt hesecas es,thecour tsmayhavet odeci dei n
thepar ti
cul arci rcums t
ancest hatt hei nterestinpr es ervingt hi
sconf i
dencei s

62
outwei
ghedbyotheri
nter
est
stowhichthelaw at
tachesi
mportance.
”TheHL
deci
dedtoor
dert
hatGr
anadamustdi
scl
oset
henameoft hei
nfor
mant.

InA-GofEngl andv.Mul holl

and,Lor dDenni ngs aid,“ Thej udgewi llrespectthe
confi
dencewhi cheachmemberoft hes ehonor ablepr ofessionsr eceivesi nthe
courseoft heirdut yandwi l
lnotcompelt hem gener al l
yt oans werort odi scl
ose
thesourceoft hei
ri nf
ormationunl essnotonl yi si tr elevantbutal sopr operand
necessaryi nt heinterestofj usti
cet odos o.Aj udgei st heper sonent rust
edon
behalfofthecommuni tytowei ghal lt heseconf l
ictingi nterests;towei gh,ont he
onehand,t her espectduet ot heconf idenceoft hej our nalisti
cpr ofes si
onnott o
discl
oseitss ourcesand,ont heot herhand,t owei ght heot heri nt er
es tofthe
communi ty, i
nt heinterestofjusti
ce, t
oor derdi
s closur e.I fthej udgedet erminesor
ordersthatt hej ournal
istshouldans wert henameori dent i
ficationoft hes ource,
thennopr ivil
egewi llavailhi
mt orefus e.Ifherefus es ,he’ l
lbei ncont emptofcour t
forwhichhecoul dbef inedori mprisonedorbot h.

S.
104(
1)(
2)(
3)(
4)oft
heCons
tit
uti
onofSi
err
aLeone1
991r
efer
stoP.
I.
I.

Publi
cint
eresti
mmunitycannotbewaived;
youeit
hercl
aimitoryoudon’tcl
aimit
.
Ifyoudonotclaimit
,theevidencewi
llgoinandyoucannotcomplai
nlateronor
evencommentuponi t
.Necessarywei
ghtwil
lbeputoni
tanditcoul
dinfl
uencethe
outcomeofthecase.

Thoughst
rictl
ys peaki
ng,confi
dent
ial
it
yisnotani
mmuni
ty,i
tis
,however
,taken
i
ntocons
iderati
onwhenaper s
onisclai
mingi
mmuni
ty.

Theonlyprofessi
onwi t
hanyf orm oflegali
mmuni tyisthelegalprofessi
on.Ot her
prof
essi
ons have et hi
calobl i
gati
ons not t o discl
ose mat ters di
sclosed i n
confi
dence.Generall
ys peaking,doctorsar enotas kedt odi s
closeconf i
dent i
al
i
nformati
on.However ,if a cour tor ders a doctort o disclose confi
dent i
al
i
nformati
on,hehast o.Neces saryacti
oncanbet akenagainstadoct orforbreach
ofconfi
denceifhedi s
closesconf i
dentiali
nfor
mat i
on.Thisisalsot hecasewi tha
l
awyer.Youcanonl ydi scloseofi nf
or mati
onift hepar t
yt owhi chitper tains
consent
soragr ees.Ifacour tmakesanor derfordisclosur
e,youar eboundt o
complywiththatorder
.Failuretodos omayr esul
tinaf i
neori mpr i
sonment.

Thepri
vi
legethatl
awyer
shaveextendst
oquest
ionsi
ncour
t;youcannotaska
l
awyertotellwhattr
ans
pir
esbet
weenhim andhiscl
i
ent
.Also,l
awyer
’soff
ices

63
cannotbe ar
bit
rari
l
yt aken away,even i
fther
e’
sa s
ear
ch war
rant
;they ar
e
prot
ect
edbylegalpr
ofessi
onalpr
ivi
lege.

Legal
Prof
ess
ional
Pri
vil
ege

Legalpr
ofess
ionalpr
ivi
l
egeenabl
esconf
ident
ial
i
tyt
obemai
ntai
nedi
ntwot
ypes
ofsit
uat
ions-

1)Communicat
ionsbetween acli
entand al
awyermadef
ort
hepur
pos
eof
obt
aini
ngandgi
vingl
egaladvi
ce.

2)Communi cati
ons between a cl
i
ent,hislawyerand 3rd par
ti
es (
witness
es,
potent
ialwitnes
ses,expert
swhowi l
lbecall
edtotest
if
y)br
oughtintoexi
stencein
contemplat
ionofacr i
minaltr
ial
orli
ti
gat
ion.

Ther ati
onalebehi ndthisprivil
egewasex pr
essedbyTayl orLCJinthecas eofRv.
DerbyMagi strates’Court
, ExParteB, (1
996),wher ehes ai
d, “
Thepr i
nci
plet hatruns
throught helaw ist hatamanmus tbeabl etocons ulthi slawyerinconf idence
sinceotherwis ehemi ghthol dbackt hetrut
h.Thecl ientmus tbesurethatwhathe
tell
st helawyeri nconf idencewi l
lneverber evealedwi thouthiscons ent.Legal
professi
onalpr ivi
legeismuchmor ethananor dinar
yr uleofevidencelimitedinits
applicat
iontot hef act
sofapar ti
cularcase.I
tisaf undament alcondit
iononwhi ch
theadmi nis
trationofjusticeasawhol erest
s.”

Toqual
i
fyf
orpr
ivi
l
egeds
tat
us,
two(
2)condi
ti
onshavet
obemet-

1)The communicati
on bet
ween t
he l
awyerand t
he cl
i
entmus
thave been
conf
ident
ial
innat
ure.

2)Ifnotact
uall
ymadei
nthecours
eofal awyer/
cli
entr
elat
ions
hip,i
tmus
thave
beenmadewi t
havi
ewtoest
abl
is
hs uchar
elat
ionshi
p.

Thepr i
vil
egeextendstoinst
ruct
ionsbyt hecl i
entt
o hi
ssol
icit
orsandf r
om
sol
ici
tortobarri
ster
.Ital
socoversori
ginaldocument
sandcopiesbroughti
nto
exi
stencefort
hepurposeofi
nst
ructi
ngalawyer.

InthecaseofWaughv.Br i
ti
shRail
waysBoard,(1980)
,theHLheldthatinorderf
or
r
d
communi cat
ionwit
h3 par ti
estoattr
actpri
vil
ege,thedominantpurpos ef
orthe
prepar
ati
onoft her
eportsmusthavebeenforsubmissi
ontoalegaladvi
s erf
oruse
i
nl i
ti
gat
ion.

64
Communi cat
ionsbetweenal
awyerandhiscli
entfort
hepurposeofgivi
ngor
obtai
ninglegaladvi
cearepr
ivi
l
eged,whet
herornotli
ti
gat
ioni
scontemplat
ed;
Greenoughv.Gaskel
l.

When wet al
kaboutlegalprofes
sionalpri
vil
ege,we’
renotjusttal
ki
ng about
bar
ri
ster
sbutals
osol
i
citor
s,i
n-houselawyer
sandalsofor
eignl
awyer
s.

Legal Advi
cePr i
vil
ege-Legal
advicepr i
vi
lege,wherethecl
ientseeksadvi
ce,exi
s t
s
withoutl i
tigati
onbeingcontempl at
ed.I tcoversanyr equestfrom acl i
entfor
adviceandanyadvi cegivenbythel awyertotheclient
.However,unl
ikeLit
igat
ion
Pri
vilege,thisonedoesnotat t
acht ocommuni cati
onsbetweenal awyer,
hiscli
ent
r
d
anda3 par ty.

I
nt hecaseofWhel lerv.LeMar chant,adefendantwasobli
gedtoproducer eports
madet ohissol
icit
orbyas urveyorwithregardtoproper
tythatbecamet hesubject
ofliti
gat
ion,whichwasnotcont emplat
edwhent hereport
swer emade.I twas
decidedthatcouns el
’sopini
ont akenbyas oli
cit
orisalwayspr i
vil
eged,either
becauset hecouns elisthelegaladvi s
erf orthepurposesoft her uleorel se
becauseheisthealteregoofthes oli
ci
tor.

Thepr i
vil
egei sconf i
nedtotheobtaini
ngofpr operlegaladvi ce.Forex ample,i
t
wouldnotappl ywher eadviceissoughtastothebes twayinwhi chtocommi ta
cri
me.Al so,theprivil
egeisonl
yconf i
nedtocommuni cati
ons .Thepr i
vil
egedoes
notpreventthedisclosur
eoffactsdi
scover
eddur ingtherel
ations hipoflawyerand
cl
ient
.Also,theprivil
egeisenti
rel
ythatoftheclient’
sandnotoft helegaladvi
ser
.
i
fthereisgoingtobeanyques t
ionofawaiver
,itmus tbebyt hecl ient.

So,apartf rom communi cati

onsbet ween thel awyerand hisclient,no ot
her
matt
ersat tr
actthispri
vi
lege.Theycandi scl
os eor di
naryfact
sdiscoveredduri
ng
therelat
ionship.Asamat teroflaw,nopr ivi
legeex i
stsbetweenapr i
estand
peni
tent,doctorandpati
entandjournali
stands ourceetc.

Notet hatlawyersdonotr es t
ri
ctthei
radviceandcommuni cati
ont oexplanati
onof
thelaw.I .e.thei
rlegaladvi ceisnotonlyasconcer nsex plai
ningthelaw;i tcould
i
ncludeadvi ceastowhati stobedonei nar el
evantlegalcontext.Evenbet weena
sol
icitorandhi scli
ent,i
tisonl ycommuni cati
onsforthepur poseofobt aini
nglegal
advicet hatar ecoveredbypr ivi
l
ege.Ther ef
ore,i
facommuni cati
onist oatt
ract
pri
vilege,thepurposeoft hecommuni cat
ionmus tbecons i
dered.

65
Thepri
vil
egeisnotonl
yconf
inedt
olegal
advi
cebuti
tcoul
dbemi
xedl
awandf
act
;
Bel
abelv.Ai
rIndi
a,(
1988)
.

Thecour
tswi l
lnotadoptari
gidappr
oacht
odeter
minewhet
heroneormorei
tem
i
s cover
ed by l egalpri
vi
lege.What isimport
ant i
sthe purpos
e of the
communicat
ion.

The Litigati
on Pr ivil
ege (3rd Par ty pri
vil
ege)-Thi ss econd class of legal
profess
ionalpr ivil
ege i s aimed pr i
maril
y atcommuni cations with potenti
al
witnessesorex per tsalthought her ul
eisnotr es
tri
ctedtoper sonsinsuchclasses.
Thecommuni cationher ewoul dr elatetopendingorcont empl at
edliti
gat
ion.The
r
d
objectoft hi
sclas si stoextendpr ivil
egetocommuni cat
ionswi t
ha3 par tytothe
l
awyer /
clientrelationshipincertainl i
mitedcir
cumstances .

Not
et hatt
hiscl
assofprivi
l
egeappli
esift
her
eiscommuni
cat
i weena3rd
onbet
par
tyandeit
hert
helawyerorthecl
i
ent.

Wheret hecommuni cati

ontakesplacebef
oreanydi sputehasari
sen,i
tishighl
y
unli
kel
yi twi
l
l bepr
ivil
eged.I
nWaughv.Br i
ti
shRailwaysBoard,i
twashel
dt hatt
he
dominantpurposeofthecommuni cati
onoradvicewast hatt
herewasgoingtobe
l
iti
gati
onandi tmustbecontemplat
edorpending.

Fi
rst
,whati
simpor
tantaboutpr
ivi
l
egei
sthecommuni
cat
ionandnotf
act
s.

Secondl
y,t
hepr
ivi
l
egei
sthatoft
hecl
i
entandnott
hel
awyer
.

Whati
stheEf
fectofLegal
Prof
ess
ional
Pri
vil
ege?

Whet hercommuni cati

onf al
lsundert hef i
rstorthes econdcl ass,itwi l
lnotbe
admi ssi
bleatthetri
alunlessthepar t
ywhohast heprivil
egeclai msi t
.I.e.i
ti sthe
cl
ientwhoi sgoi ngtoclaimt hisprivilegeandnott hel awyer.Not et hatifcer t
ain
conditi
onsar enotmet ,t
hesepr ivil
egeswi l
lnotapplyaut omaticall
y.Forex ampl e,
underLegalAdvi cePri
vil
ege,itist oobt ai
nlegaladvi
ceort or eceivei t.Undert he
Lit
igati
onPr i
vil
ege,i
tist ogiveorr eceiveadviceeitherbetweenal awyerand3rd
partyoraclientand3rdpartyfort hepur poseofpendingorcont empl atedlit
igati
on.
I.
e.you can onl yi nvoke t he pr ivil
ege ift he domi nant pur pos ef or t he

66
communi
cati
on was t
hati
twas gi
ven becaus
eli
ti
gat
ion was pendi
ng or
cont
empl
ated.

Pr
ivi
l
egecanonl
ybewaivedbythecl
i
entandwher
et heal
l
egedwaiverwasmade
i
nexces
softhepower
softheper
sondoi
ngso,
pri
vil
egewil
lnothavebeenwai
ved.

Li
mit
sont
heScopeoft
hisPr
ivi
l
ege

1
)Thepri
vi
legeappli
estocommunicati
onsbetweenalawyerandacli
entandnot
t
ofact
spercei
vedduri
ngthes
oli
ci
tor/cl
i
entrel
ati
onshi
psuchasacl
ient
’si
denti
ty.

2)Document
soritemsdonotbecomepr
ivi
l
egeds
impl
ybecaus
etheyar
eint
he
poss
essi
onofthepart
y’
slawyer
.

Ex
cept
ionst
othePr
ivi
l
ege

1)Legalpr i
vil
egedoesnotappl yt
ocommuni cationsmadei npursuanceofacr i
me
off r
aud;Rv.Cox&Rai l
ton,(
1884).Amor er ecentauthorit
y,however,i
sthecas e
ofCr escentFarm SportsLtdv.Sterli
ngOf f
icesLt d.Inthesecases,i
twass tated
thatdocument sforfraud,dis
honesty,decei
t,tri
ckeryands ham woul
dnotat t
ract
privi
legeast heyareanabus eofpr ivi
legeandt hel aw wil
lnotpermitthetaking
advant ageofsuchapr i
vil
ege.

Alawyeri susuall
yexposedt othecrimi
nalpas toftheclientandwi llal
wayshave
toadvisehim astohisconducti nhispersonalandbus i
nes srel
ationshi
ps;always
advis
ehi mt obeont hes t
raightsi
deoft helaw.Ifthecl i
entwant stous et he
l
awyerf oradviceonhowt ocommi tacr i
me, thel
awyers houldnotcons entort hey
bothcouldbechar gedwi t
hcons pir
acyt ocommi taf r
audul entact.Ifthelawyer
ref
usest ojoi
nwi t
hthecl i
entinsuchex pl
oits,t
hedocumentwi llnotbepr i
vil
eged
andcoul dbeus edagainstthecl i
ent.Thel aw wil
lonlyhel pyouf orsomet hing
whichisregul
arandpr oper.

Theques ti
onast owhetherthedocumentwasf orthepurpos
eofei
therthel
awyer
ortheclienttopursuefraudorcri
meisani ssueforthecourtt
odetermi
ne.I
fthe
courtdeterminesthatthedocumentwasi ndeedinpur s
uanceoffraudorcri
me,
thenlegalpri
vil
egewil
lnotbeappli
cabl
e.

2)Li
ti
gat
ionpri
vil
egedoesnotapplyi
nnon-
adver
sari
alpr
oceedi
ngs
.Forexample,
i
ftheparti
eshavebeeninadivorcecas
econcer
ningcust
ody,i
nsuchsit
uati
ons

67
thewelfareoft hechi ldist hecourt’
spar amountcons iderati
on.Ifther
e’sany
rd
corr
espondencebet weenthel awyerandtheclientand3 par ti
es,i
twil
lnotattr
act
pri
vil
ege as itist he wel fare ofthe childt hatis par amount.Also,ift he
communi cat
ionsarer egar
dingt hechi
ld’
sfinancialneedset c.(wel
far
e),i
twillnot
att
ractpri
vil
ege.I
.e.thewelfareofthechil
dover ri
desprivilege.

3)Thet hir
dex cepti
onconcer nsdi s
put esbetweencl ient
sandl egaladvi sors.Si
nce
thewhol epointoflegalprofessi
onal privil
egeistoencour aget hefull
estdisclosure
betweenl egaladviserandcl ient,itfollowst hatnopr ivil
egecanar isebet ween
them.I .
e.ifthere’
sadi sputebet weent hem,thel aw willnotallow bot hs i
dest o
takeadvant ageofeachot her
.Thecl i
entmaynotmakeacl aim agains tthelegal
adviserandt helegaladvis
ercannotal s omakes uchacl aim.Ifthedisput eistobe
fair
lyandclearlysettl
ed,al
lthef actsthatamount edbetweent hem mus tbes et
tled
outintheopeni fthatdisputeistobes ettl
ed;nopr i
vil
egewi l
lex i
stthere.

4)Cer tains tatutes whi ch are enact ed expressly abr

ogatel egalprof
ess i
onal
pri
vil
ege.Forex ampl e,theAnt i
-MoneyLaunder ingActcl earlyabrogat
esl egal
prof
es si
onalpr i
vilege.Al awyeroraccount antcannotclai
m privil
egeonmat tersof
moneyl aundering.Oncepr ivi
l
eged,al wayspr i
vil
eged;thisisagener alrule.I.
e.
document swhi chhavebeenpr eparedf orones etofpr oceedingsconti
nuet obe
pri
vil
egedf ort hepur pos eofs ubs equentl i
ti
gati
oneveni fthel i
ti
gati
onoriginal
ly
anti
cipatednevermat eriali
zedort ookpl ace.

Legalpr
ofes
sionalpr
ivil
egei
snotonl
ythatoft
hecli
entbutals
othei
rsurvi
vor
s-i
n-
ti
tl
eformatt
ersofaffecti
ngt
hecli
ent
’
sestat
eortheadmini
str
ati
onofsuchest
ates.

Legalprof
essi
onalpr
ivil
egemeanst hatevidencei
spr esent
edfrom bei
nggivenor
documentsfrom bei
ngpr oducedincour tbypar ti
cularpers
ons;t hecl
i
ent ,hi
s
r
d
l
awyerandr el
evant3 parti
es;evens ecr
etari
esorclerksandanycommuni cati
on
withthem.

I
fanot heroverhear
sapr ivil
egedconversationorobtai
nsapr i
vatedocument ,he
maybecompel l
edt ogiveevi denceint hatregardorcompelledt oproducea
documentt hati
slegall
yprivi
legedbecauseitisi
nhispossessi
on;Calcr
aftv.Guest
,
(1890);thiscasei nvol
ved copiesofpr i
vate documentsin which Guesthad
obtained documentswhi ch were pri
vil
eged concerni
ng Cal
craftand hislegal
adviser.Cal
craf
ttookGues ttocourttoproducet henecess
arydocument sont wo

68
grounds;(
i)t
hedocumentsdi
dnotbel
ongtohi
m;and(i
i
)itwasdanger
oustohave
r
d
saiddocumentsi
nthehandsof3 par
ti
eswhohavenobusi
nes
sinthecase.

I
nRv.Tompki ns,(
1977),anincri
minati
ngnotefrom theaccus edt
ohislawyerwas
foundont hef l
ooroft hecourtandhandedt othelawyerf orthepros
ecution.The
accusedtriedt ogetthepr os
ecuti
on’slawyerfr
om wi thhol
dingthedocumentbut
thejudgeruledagainsthimandal l
owedt hepr
osecuti
onl awyertoshowt henoteto
theaccusedandt ocros s-
examinehimont hemat t
ersreferr
edt oi
nthenote.

I
nRv.Cottri
l,astat
ementmadebyanaccus edtohiss ol
i
citorsandsentbythem
t
otheprosecuti
onwi t
houthi
sknowledgeorconsentwasal lowedtobeus edby
t
hepr
osecuti
onincross-ex
aminat
ionasaprevi
ousinconsi
stentstat
ement.

“
Wit
houtPr
ejudi
ce”Communi
cat
ions

Thegeneralr
uleist
hatthecontentsofas t
atementmadewi t
houtpr
ejudi
cecannot
beputi nevidenceinaci vi
lcas ewithouttheconsentofbot hparti
estot he
l
it
igat
ion.“Wi
thoutPrej
udi
ce”i
sal s
oapr ivi
l
egewhichisrecogni
zedbythecourt
s.

Par
t i
esf requentl
ynegotiateoveradi sputeinanat tempttof i
ndas et
tlement
wit
houtt heneedf orli
ti
gation.Ifi
twaspos si
bletomakeus eofstat
ement smade
dur
ings uchnegot i
ati
ons,thent hi
scouldprejudi
ceapar t
yinsubsequentli
ti
gation,
si
ncei fones idemakesanof f
ertos et
tl
e,thi
smi ghtbeconst
ruedasanadmi s
sion
oftheweaknes sofhi
scas eorthes oundnessoftheopponent’
scase.

Topreventthisfrom happeni
ng,par
tiesar
eall
owedtonegoti
atewithoutprejudice
unti
ltheycomet oas ettl
ement.I
ftheycannotcometoasett
lement,theycans ti
l
l
res
orttoli
tigati
onbutt hecorr
espondencewhichwasmarked“withoutprejudice”
wil
lnotbeus edinsubsequentl
iti
gat
ionagai
nstanyot
herpar
ti
es.

Theprivi
legeextendstocoverr eportsobtainedbyonepar tyfrom a3rd par
ty.I
f
suchar eportwass oughtaspar tofanat tempttofindas ett
lement,t
her ei
sno
magicinthewor ds“withoutprej
udice”usedbyt hepart
iesinordert
opr oducethe
cl
oakoft hepri
vil
ege,s olongasi tisclearthatthestatementinques ti
onwas
i
ntendedtobewi thoutprej
udice.

I
fyouus ethewords“ wit
houtprej
udice”inadocumentandtheint
entionwasnot
toarr
iveatsomesett
lement,t
heni ti
sinappl
i
cabl
e.Ift
hefi
rstofaseri
esoflett
eris
headed“wit
houtpr
ejudice”
,pri
vi
legemayat t
achtotherestoft
hecorrespondence

69
thatyouaddr esstotheothers
ide,eventhoughtheyarenotmarked“
without
prej
udice”becauset
heint
enti
ontoarr
iveatasett
lementcoul
dbes
eenthr
oughall
theotherlet
ter
s.

Wit
houtprej
udicepri
vil
egeappli
esevenwhent heonlyoutst
andi
ngis
suebetween
t
heparti
esist hequesti
onofcos ts
.Thus,withouttheconsentoft
hepar t
ies
,a
j
udgemaynotl ookatawi t
houtprej
udi
cecor r
espondencewhenthei
ntent
ionwas
t
oarri
veatas ett
lement
,whetherastol
iabi
l
ityortocosts.

Therul
ethattheprivi
legeatt
achest
os t
atementsmadewi t
houtprej
udi
cesimply
meanswithoutprej
udicetothemakerofthestatementi
ftheter
mshepr oposes
ar
enotaccepted;
establi
shedint
hecaseofWalkerv.Wil
sher
.

Eveni ft henegot i
ati
onss ucceedandas ettl
ementi sconcl uded,thewi thout
prejudicecor r
espondencer emainspr i
vil
eged.Suchcorrespondencei si
nadmi ssi
ble
i
nanys ubs equentlit
igati
onconnect edwi t
ht hes ames ubject-matt
er.Whet her
betweent hes ameordi ff
erentpartiesandi tisalsoprotect
edf rom subsequent
discoverybyot herparti
estot heli
ti
gat i
on;
Rush&Tompki nsLtdv.Gr eaterLondon
Counci l
,(1988) .
Theprivil
egei sthejointpri
vi
legeofbot hpart
iesandi tex t
endst o
theirsoli
citors.I
tcanonl ybewai vedwi t
hthecons entofeachoft heparties
.

Ex
cept
ionst
othePr
ivi
l
ege

1)WithoutPrejudi
ceprivi
l
egeonlycover
scommuni cati
onsconnect
edwit
han
at
temptt ocompromiseli
ti
gati
oni
ngoodfait
h.I
fther
ei snogoodfait
hori
fdone
mal-
a-f
ides,i
tdoesnotapply.

2)Itdoesnotpr
otectsomebodyf r
om l
ibel
.Alibeli
snonet
hel
essal
i
bel
,though
contai
nedi
nalet
terheaded“
withoutpr
ejudi
ce”
.

3)Youcannotuseitt
oexcl
udeanactofbankr
uptcy;
ifyouwri
tealet
terof
fer
ingt
o
set
tl
eanditals
os t
ates“
wit
houtpr
ejudi
ce”
,thel
awwi l
ldis
counti
t.

4)I
talsodoesnotprot
ectapart
ywhowr i
tescor
res
pondence,headsi
t“wi
thout
pr
ejudi
ce”andt
hendoesnotmakeref
erencetot
hematteri
ndisput
e.

5)I
tdoesnotprot
ectl
ett
erss enti
nthecourseof“wit
houtprej
udice”negot
iat
ions
whi
chcouldleadt
oanot i
ceofs ever
ancebei
ngs enti
nthecour s
eofnegotiat
ions
byt
hes ol
i
cit
orofonej
ointtenanttot
hesoli
ci
toroftheotherj
ointtenant
.

70
6)Itisal soexcludedifthecor r
espondencepri
maf aci
es howsthatther
eisa
reasonablechargeofacr imeorf r
audandt hatcommunicati
onsweremadein
preparat
ionfororinfur
theranceofit
.

Inaci vilacti
onf ordebt sordamages ,thedefendantmightmakeapaymenti nto
cour twithoutadmi t
tingliabi
li
ty,andusuall
ythecour tisnottoldofthepayment
untilallquesti
onsofl i
abil
it
yandquant um havebeendeci ded.But,i
ftheplai
ntif
f
recover sas um whi chi sthes ameorl essthanthepaymenti ncour twhent he
ques ti
onofcos t
si saboutt obedeci ded,thecour t
,init
sdiscret
ion,wi
llusuall
y
awar dcos tsuptothedat eofther ecei
ptofthenoticeofpaymenttotheplai
nti
ff.

SI
MILARFACTEVI
DENCE

Thegener
alr
ulei
sthats
imi
l
arf
acti
sinadmi
ssi
blei
nlaw.Thi
swass
tat
edi
n

Maki nv.At t-
Genf orNew Sout hWal es,int hej udgmentofLor dHer shell
,Lor d
Chancel l
or.Hes aid, “
Iti
sundoubt edlynotcompet entf orthepr osecut
iontoadduce
evidencet endingt os how thattheaccus edhasbeengui ltyofcr i
minalactsot her
thant hosecover edbyt heindi
ctment ,forthepur poseofl eadingt otheconcl usion
thattheaccus edi saper son,l
ik
elyf r
om hi scriminalconductorchar acter,t
ohave
commi t
tedt heof fencef orwhichhei sbei ngtried.Ont heot herhand, t
hemer ef act
thattheevi denceadducedt endst oshowt hecommi ssionofot hercri
mesdoesnot
renderitinadmi ssibleifitberelevanttoani s
s uebef or ethej uryandi tmaybes o
rel
evanti fitbear supont heques ti
on,whet hert heact sallegedt ocons ti
tutet he
cri
mechar gedi nt hei ndictmentwer edes i
gnedoracci dentalort orebutadef ence
whi chwoul dot herwi sebeopent otheaccus ed.”

(
1)TheLawbef
oreBoar
dman

Befor ethecaseofDPPv.Boar dman,thel aw t

ooktheview thatevent hough
si
mi larfactwasgeneral
lyinadmis
sibl
e,ifthes i
mil
arfactcasescanbef i
ti nto
certaincompartments
,thent heywouldbeadmi ssi
bleinevidence.I
.e.thatt he
evidenceofot hercri
minalactsorpas tconductofanaccus edpers ons hould
gener al
lynotbeusedagainsthimifhe’
sf acinganew casebecauseitwoul dbe
prejudici
alandunf
airt
odos o.

I
fthats
imi
l
arf
actevi
dence/
pas
tconductbecomesr
elevanti
nthi
snewcas
e,t
hen

71
thelaw wi
llal
l
ow itt
obeus ed.I
nthef
oll
owi
ngi
nst
ances
,ifs
imi
l
arf
actf
it
sint
o
cert
aincat
egori
es,
itwil
lbeal
lowedi
n-

(a)Ifs omebodyput supadef enceofacci dent,simil

arfactwoul dbeal l
owedt obe
usedt or ebutthatdefence.Thecl assi
ccas eisRv.Smi th;alsor ef
erredt oas“The
Bridesi ntheBathsCas e”,theques ti
onher ewaswhet hertheci r
cums tancesofthi
s
presentdeat hwer es i
mi l
art ot hedeat hsoft hef ormerwi veswhohaddi edina
similarfashion.Thelawnowt ookthet wopr eviousdeathst os howdes ign;away
i
nwhi chSmi thhaddes ignedt heirdeaths,marriesthemandt henmur dersthem.So,
therewass imil
arfact(similar
ity)inthewayhewasmur deri
nghi swi ves.

(b)Ifsomebodyput supadef enceofmi s

take,si
milarfactevidencewoul dbe
admissibletorebut;Rv.Bond;t heaccus edhadperfor
medani l
legalaborti
onona
gir
lands hedied.Hewaschar gedwi thmurderandheputf ort
hadef encethati
t
wasami st
ake.Tor ebutt
hisdef ence,t
heevidenceofanot hergir
lonwhom Bond
hadper formedas imilari
l
legalabor t
ionwasadmi ssi
bletos howt hatitwasnota
mistakeandt hatBondhaddoneas imil
arthi
nginthepast.

(
c)InRv.Ball,abrotherands i
s t
erwer echar gedwithincestandt heprosecuti
on
s
oughttoadduceevi denceofear liersit
uati
onswher etheyhadbot hhads exto
s
how thatthedefenceofi nnocentas sociat
ionwasnotval id.Theywer eableto
s
how thatthebrotherands i
sterhadagui ltypassiont owardseachot her.The
j
udgesaid,“
Iconsiderthatthi
sevi dencewascl ear
lyadmi ss
ibleont hei
ssuethat
t
hiscr
imewascommi t
tedtoes t
ablishtheguiltyrel
ati
onsbet weent hepart
iesand
t
heexi
s t
enceofas exualpassi
onbet weenthem. ”

(d)Si
milarfactevi
dencemayalsobeus edtoident
if
yanaccus edper
son.I
fthey
denythattheycommi t
tedtheof
fenceandthatitwas,i
nst
ead,acaseofmis
taken
i
denti
ty,si
milarf
actwouldbeusedtorebut
.Int
hecaseof

R v.St r
aff
en,theaccus ed waschar ged with mur deri
ngal it
tl
egi rlneart he
BroadmorePris
on.Whent heaccusedwasar r
es ted,hes ai
dt hathewasnott he
onewhoki ll
edthegirl
.Thei ss
uebef orethecour twaswhet herevidenceoft wo
othermurdersinthepas t
,commi tt
edbyt hi
ss ameaccus edper sonwi t
hs i
milar
featur
estothekil
li
ngi ntheinstantcase,wasadmi ssibl
einevi dence.Thecour t
saidyes.Theprosecuti
onwasal l
owedt oputi nevi denceoft woot hermur ders
Straff
enhadcommi tt
edint hepastandt hesimilarfeatur
esint hepas ttwocas es

72
andthepr es
entcas ewithwhichhewasbeingchar ged.Thecour
tall
owedsimil
ar
factevidencet oidenti
fytheaccusedinthei nst
antcas eandbyadmi t
ti
ngthis
simil
arf actevidence,theprosecut
ionwasabl etopr ovethati
twast hesame
i
ndividualwhocommi t
tedthi
smur derwhoal s
omur der
edtheothertwogir
lsin
preci
s el
ythes ameway.St r
affenwasconvi
cted.

Thr
ee(
3)Landmar
kCas
esYouMus
tKnow-

1
)Maki
nv.At
t-
Genf
orNewSout
hWal
es.Pr
ivyCounci
l
.

2)DPPv.Boar
dman.HL.

3)DPPv.P.HL.

Undert he s ame cat egor yi s R v.Thomps on;Thomps on was charged wi th

poss es
sion ofpowderpuf fsand i ndecentphot ographsofver y young boys .
Thomps onwasal sochar gedwi t
hi ndecentas sault.Inhi sdefence,healsodeni ed
thathewasnott heonei nvol vedint heof fencenordi dhecommi tanycr ime.He
wasaccus edofal sohavi nghomos ex ualrelati
ons hipswi thanumberofboysand
theboysmadeas tatementt opol icet hatThomps onhadar r
angedf ort hem to
meetatapar ticul
arpl aceandatapar t
iculartime.Thomps onwentt her
et omeet
theboys .Unknownt ohim,t hepol i
cewer ewai t
ingf orhi m.Whent heys earched
Thomps on,t heyf oundi nhi spos ses si
onpowderpuf fsandi ndecentphot ographs
ofyoungboys .Hedeni edt hathewast heret omeett hes eboysort hathehadany
homos exualr elati
onswi t
ht hem int hepas t.Hewasconvi ctedandt hecas ewent
totheHL.TheHLs aidt hati temsf oundi nhispos sess i
onwer ei t
emsas s oci
ated
withhomos exualt endenci es .Thesei temswer eadmi ssibleinevidencetoconf ir
m
hisidenti
ty.

Thiswast hes i
tuationsincet hecas eofMaki nf rom 1 894unt il1975.I .
e.thel aw
tookthevi ewt hatifthepros ecuti
oncans howt hepur poseforwhi cht heevidence
wasr elevant,
andwhi chcoul dbei dent
if
ied,thent hes i
milarfactevi dencecoul dbe
admiss i
ble.Thiss i
tuati
oncont inuedunt i
lthecl assiccas eofDPPv.Boar dman,
(1975),aHLcas e.Boardmanwasheadmas t
erofas choolwhowokeboysatni ght,
tookthemt ohisroomandt henhewoul das kthemt ohaves exwi t
hhi m.Itwast he
boyswhowoul dpl ayther oleoft heman.Thi swentonf ors omet i
meunt ilthey
reportedBoar dmant othepol i
ce.Hedeni edthathewashavi ngahomos exual
rel
ati
ons hipwiththes eboys .Hewaschar gedwi ththree(3)count sofbugger y.The

73
questi
onati ss
uewaswhet hertheevi
denceofoneboycouldbeus edagai
nst
Boardmanorwhethertheevi
denceofoneboycouldbecons
ider
edassimi
larf
act
i
nr espectofhi
sact
ivi
ti
eswithanot
herboybecaus
etheboyspokeofanumberof
i
ncidentsovert
heyear
s.

Thiscas ei simpor t
antf orthepr i
nci
pleofl aw comi ngoutofi t.I nBoar dman,
alt
hought heHLdi dnotover r
uletheappr oachoft hecour t
swhi chhadbeen
fol
loweds incet heMaki ncas e,thejudgess ai
dt hattheadmi ssi
onofs i
mi l
arf act
evidencei nl aw isex ceptionalandr equiresas trongdegr eeofprobat i
vef orceor
probativeval ue.Thepr obat i
veval ue/f
orcei sderivedfrom allt
hecircums t
ancesof
thecas eandt hef actst esti
fiedtobyt hewi tnessesmus tbeartoeachot hera
str
ikings imilarit
yt hatthef act s
,whenj udgedbyex peri
enceandcommons ens e,
areei t
heral ltrueorhavear isenf r
om acommoncaus ecommont othewi t
nes ses
orpur ecoi ncidence.I.e.Boar dmani snows ayingt hatforsimil
arfactevidencet o
beadmi ssibleinl aw,ift hepr esentcri
mechar gedi scommi t
tedinauni quelyor
str
ikinglysimi l
armannert oot hercrimescommi ttedinthepas tbytheaccus ed, the
manneri nwhi cht heot hercrimeswer ecommi ttedmaynowbeus edasevi dence
uponwhi chaj urycoul dr easonablyconcl udet hattheaccus edwasgui l
tyoft he
cri
mepr esent l
ychar ged.

Thes imilar
it
ywoul dhavetobes ouniqueorstr
iki
ngt hatcommons ens
emakesi t
i
nex pli
cableont hebasisofcoinci
dence;i
tcannotbecoi nci
dence.So,Boardman
sai
dt hatwhatmat t
eredinlawwast hedegr
eeofrelevanceandnott hecategor
ies
ofrelevanceaswasdonei nthepast
.TheHLr ul
edthatifsimi
larfactevi
dencewas
tobeadmi ssi
ble,i
tmustcontai
nahighdegreeofrelevancesothatitwouldsati
sfy
theUni queorSt r
iki
ngSimil
ari
tyTest
.

Boardman,theref
ore,changedt heapproachbecausepre-Boardman,youlooked
fort
hepur poseforwhichs i
milarfactwouldbeadmissi
ble.Boardmansai
ditwas
notcategor
iesbutdegreesofrelevancet
hatmatter
ed.

DidBoardmanchangethelaw orr
epresentanew era?Theanswerisaqual
i
fied
yes.Si
nceBoar
dman,ther
ewasabi tofchangeal
thoughi
tdidnotl
astl
ong.

Subsequentcour
tdeci
si
onsdidapproveandapplyt heStri
ki
ngSimil
ari
tyTest.
However,ther
eweresoonanumberofi ndi
cat
ionsthatsomecourt
sinEngland,
part
icul
arl
ytheCA,wereuneas
ywiththi
snew f or
mulati
on.Forex
ample,inRv.

74
Rance&Her ron,(1975),theLordChi efJust
ice,LordWi dger
ysaid,“Onemus tbe
caref
ulnottoat t
acht oomuchi mpor t
ancet othephras e“Uni
quelyorStriki
ngl
y
Simil
ar”
;thegis
toft hattesti
sthatsimilarf
actevidenceisadmissibl
eifandonlyi
f
i
tgoes beyond s howi ng a tendency to commi tcrimes oft his ki
nd and i
s
parti
cul
arl
yprobati
vei nregar
dt othecrimecharged.”

Similarl
y,i
nRv.Scar rott
,LordJusticeScarmansaid,“
Positi
veprobativeval
ueis
whatt helaw requi
resifsi
mil
arfactevidenceistobeadmi ssi
ble.Suchprobati
ve
valueisnotprovidedbythemer erepeti
ti
onofsimil
arfact
s.Therehast obesome
featureorfeat
uresintheevi
dences oughtt
obeadducedwhi chprovidesali
nk.
”

I
ns ever
alcasesaft
ert
heprevi
oust
wocases,t
heCAappl i
edtheSt
ri
ki
ngSimi
l
arit
y
Testincombinat
ionwit
hthewarni
nggi
veninthatcasethati
twasmerel
yalabel
andthatwhatwasneededwasposi
ti
vepr
obati
vevalue.

Thedi fficul
tywi t
hDPPv.Boar dmanist hati
tgivestheimpres si
onofas i
ngl
eall
-
embr acings tandardtobeappli
edinallcasesofs i
mil
arfact
.Bycont r
ast
,thelat
er
analysisi ntheCAs ugges
tedthattheactualt
es tofadmissibil
i
tyinagivencase
woul di nevi
tablyt ur
nons uchmat t
ersaswhet hertheevi dencehadpositi
ve
probativevalueandt henatureoft
hedefencebeingusedbyt heaccused.

Thiswast hes it
uationoft hel aw unti
lthewel l
-knowncas eofDPPvP,whi chi s
now theauthor i
tyons imilarfactevidence.Ther ational
eoft hiscasewast hat
Stri
ki
ngSi mil
arityisonlyonewayofes tabl
ishi
ngwhati sneededi nSimil
arFact
cases;namely,ahi ghdegr eeofpos it
ivevalue.Theevi dencet obeadducedmus t
havepos i
ti
vepr obativevalue.Thistestwasl ai
ddownbyt het henLor dChancel
lor,
LordMackayi nDPPvPandt herestoftheHLconcur r
ed.Thi scas estar
tedinthe
HighCourtandt henwentt otheCA.Accompl i
ceswer epros ecutedandconvicted
oncount sofr apeandi ncest.Thevi cti
mswer ehi stwodaught ersandthetrial
judgefounds triki
ngs i
milari
ti
esbet weent hevar iousoff encesi nthefoll
owing
manner-

1
)Theex
tremedi
sci
pli
neheex
erci
sedoverhi
sdaught
ers
.

2)Abor
ti
onswhi
chwer
ecar
ri
edoutoneachoft
hegi
rl
sandwhi
chwer
epai
dfor
.

3)Theacqui
escenceoft
hemot
heri
nP’
ssex
ual
att
ent
iont
ohi
sdaught
ers
.

Pwasconvi
ctedbutheappeal
edandt
hisappealwasal
l
owedbyt
heCA.TheCA

75
s
aidthatthesimil
ari
ti
esdi
dnotgobeyondwhatwasdes
cri
bedasani
ncest
uous
f
ather
’
ss tock-
in-
tr
ade.TheStat
eappeal
edagai
nstt
heCA deci
si
onandtheHL
r
estor
edtheconvict
ionofP.

LordMackayr eviewedal lofthecas espr evi

oust ot hisonebutconcent rat
ed
speci
fical
lyonDPPv.Boar dman.Hes aid,“
Thees sent
ial f
eat
ureofevidencewhich
i
st obeadmi ttedisthatitsprobati
vef or
cei nsuppor toftheal
legati
ont hatan
accusedpersoncommi t
tedacr i
mei ss uf
fici
entl
ygreatt omakei tnecessaryto
admitt heevi
dencenot wit
hstandingthatitsprej
udicialval
uetot heaccus edis
i
ntendingtoshowt hathewasgui l
tyofthecrime.
”

Thismeanst hatt hepos i

ti
vepr obat i
veval ueoft hes imil
arfactevidencemus t
outweighitsprejudicial val
ue.“ Thef unctionoft hetri
aljudgeisnottodecideasan
i
ntell
ectualproces swhet hert heevi dences at i
sfi
edpr escri
bedconditi
ons .Butt o
str
ikeasamat terofi ndivi
dualj udgment ,inlightofhisex peri
enceandcons ci
ous
sense,abalancebet weent hepos i
tivepr obativevalueoft hes i
mil
arfactevi dence
andi t
spot enti
allypr ejudicialeffect .”Ands uchpr obativevaluemaybeder i
ved
fr
om s tri
ki
ngs imil
arities.I.e.s tri
kings i
mi l
arit
yi sonewasofes tabl
ishingt he
posit
iveprobativeval ue.Thi swasf ollowedbyt heHLi nt hecaseofRv.H, (1995) .

76