Corroboration is required based on statutes such as s1 Treason Act 1795, s13 Perjury Act 1911 and s89(2) Road Traffic Act 1984.
Judicial Direction is required in case of lies told by the accused as in R v Lucas ( 1981) and alibi defence raised by the accused as in the case of R v Burge, Hurst and Pegg (1996).
Judicial warning to take care is required in disputed identification evidence as in R v Turnbull (1977).
Where evidential basis for believing the evidence from the witness appear to be suspicious, discretionary warning to take care is considered.
The issue of previous inconsistent statements is covered under ss 4 and 5 Criminal Procedure Act 1865.
s100 (1)(a) Criminal Justice Act 2003 will focus on the cross examination of police officers on conduct in other cases.
Finality rule on collateral questions will focus on the medical evidence of disability,bias and s6 Criminal Procedure Act 1865.
Sexual offences fall under ss41 - 43 Youth Justice Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
In re examination, the previous consistent statement is admissible in rebuttal.
Examination in Chief
Previous consistent statement is considered inadmissible except based on s120 Criminal Justice Act 2003 which focus on the recent complaints made by victim of crime, statement in response to the accusation, previous identification or res gestae or rebutting any suggestion indicating recent fabrication.
s139 and s120 of Criminal Justice Act 2003 focus on the memory refreshing from the document which cover the situation where the witness unable to remember matters referred to and could not be reasonably expected to do so or statement made while the events are still fresh in the mind.
s3 Criminal Procedure Act 1865 focus on the hostile and unfavourable witness.
Special Measures Direction under s16 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
The reasons for special measures direction should be given in the open court.
In term of eligibility, s16(1)(a) of Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence 1999 provides the provision of witness under 17 years old.
s16(2)(a)(ii) of Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 will focus on witness suffering from intellectual impairment or impairment in social functioning.
s16(2)(b) Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence act 1999 will consider the witness who suffer from physical or mental disorders.
s17(1)-(4) Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 are towards the non child who witness who suffer from distress or fear.
The types of special measures available include:
screening as in s23 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Live link as in s24 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Evidence in Private as s25 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Removal of wigs or gowns as in s26 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Pre Recorded examination in chief as in s27 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Pre Recorded Cross Examination as in s28 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Witness being examined through intermediary as in s29 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Aids provided in communication as in s30 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Jury should receive judicial warning to avoid any direction that prejudice the accused as in s32
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
- Incompetent as prosecution witness unless the accused is ceased to be accused.
-Consider referring to s1(1) Criminal Evidence Act 1989 and s53(4) Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
The spouse of the accused
-s53(1) Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 the spouse of the accused is competent.
-s80(3) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the spouse of the accused has limited compellability
Vulnerable Witness ( inclusive of Children)
-referring to special measures as in s16 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
-referring to s55(2) Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 for unsworn evidence.
The evidential and legal burden at different stages of the criminal trial
-The evidential burden is for the prosecution to adduce evidence for every single elements of the offences charged with hope to pass the judge.
-The legal burden is on the prosecution to prove each single elements of the offence being charged with sufficient evidence.
-After the prosecution has passed the judge the defendant has the evidential burden.
-Only in specific defences raised may the defendant has the legal burden.
-The burden of proof is less onerous in defendant cases.
-The defendant who fails to produce sufficient evidence will not necessarily lose the case.
-If the defendant raises a defence which goes beyond the denial of the prosecution case, the defendant is obliged to lay a proper foundation for his defence.
-Once a proper foundation has been completed by the defendant, the prosecution has the legal burden of disproving the defence.