Relevant is an important concept to be associated with evidence in order for the evidence / information to be accepted by the court.
Relevant indicates that the evidence myst have a relation or connection with the questions of fact to be proved. Relevant may also lead to the point that existence of the fact is more probable. For instance in the case of thief, the question of fact may include the identification of the person who stole certain goods. Evidence / information that shows the goods were found in the house of accused is considered relevant as it answered and make the questions of fact that he is the thief to be more probable.
0 Comments
The law of evidence is rich with concepts and terminology which are important in understanding the topic in detail. The most common concepts are relevancy, admissibility, exclusionary rules, exclusionary discretion and the weight of the evidence which depends on the credibility and reliability.
The law of evidence generally concerned with pre trial and trial stages.
In pre trial stage, the law of evidence is focused on the collection of evidence. In trial stage, the law of evidence is directed on the presentation and used of the evidence. For instance, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act ( PACE) 1984 and its Codes of Practice are concerned with the set of rules of the police's conduct in obtaining evidence related to the commission of an offence. Any issue of non compliacne with the PACE Act (1984) and its Code of Practice will affect the reception of evidence during trial. The objective of the law of evidence is to determine the truth of the questions of fact.
The questions of fact usually depending on the duties and substantive legal rights of the inquirer. Any issues regarding the questions of fact will draw the attention of inquirers from relevant legal process. These inquirers will be collecting and evaluating evidence. Fir instance in criminal case, the decision regarding the questions of the guilt of the suspect must be made by the police an prosecutor at an early stages depending on the evidence available to them. The court or tribunal will e the ultimate inquirer in determining the legal dispute. If the proceedings reaches the trial stage, it is the law of evidence which will regulate the process of proof in the trial. After the establishment of the non existence or existence of the fact, which is achievable with a degree of satisfaction based on the inquirer's standard procedure, it can be concluded that the matter has been proved.
Proof is a term which carries various meaning. It may refer to the end result of the procedures of evaluation of the evidence and drawing inferences from it. Proof may also mean in wider scope as the process of proving the evidence / information which is being evaluated. Despite differences, similarity is detected in the form of similar intellectual process which is based on the assumption where the knowledge of the surrounding either past or present events can be understood and gained through observation and reasons which is known as universal cognitive competence.
The principle of universal cognitive competence postulates the concept that the existence of the truth of the facts will be established based on inferences / conclusions from the evidence which has been collected. However the truth is not the absolute truth. The truth is regarded as a questions or issues of probability due to the limitation of the human knowledge. Besides that inquirers may not be totally confident that the evidence is absolutely certain, complete and accurate and the inferences derived from it are correct. Evidence is a form of information.
Evidence will form a basic for belief that the particular fact or facts are true. Evidence will provide the answer to the questions of fact. The concept and function of evidence may have no legal properties. People or inquirers will use evidence to inquire the existence or non existence of the facts for a wide variety of different reasons. These inquirers may include scientist, police detectives, journalist,historian or even the court of law. The inquirers may collect and evaluate evidence. The inquirers from different fields may be interested in the same matter of fact. For instance, the police officer, forensic scientist, court of law, historians and investigative journalist may inquire successively to the fact regarding a murder case. Different inquirers apply different procedures for collecting, analysing and evaluating the evidence or information. This usually depends on the person who makes the inquiries. They may have special qualification of experience and the resources available for the purpose of the inquiry. |
AuthorLearn the facts about law of evidence ArchivesCategories |