Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or compromise for the convenience of the accused. The rule allows a plea of guilty to a lesser offense, not only at arraignment but also after arraignment and after his prior plea is withdrawn, but said rule also provides that the same be made before trial. When there is a plea of guilty to a lesser offense and the same was allowed by the court, there is no need to amend the information or
INTRODUCTION The ‘rules of evidence’ are rules of practice, which guide or control the discretion of the trial judge in the fair conduct of the trial. This research paper will therefore discuss the constitutional provisions that constitute rules of evidence, which protect the rights of an accused person, and the extent to which such protection is afforded. To close, an opinion will be given on whether the rights of an accused are indeed protected. CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY AND THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS For the purposes of this exercise it is important to briefly consider that the Constitution of Zambia is the supreme law of Zambia with the effect of declaring null and void any law that is inconsistent to it. Furthermore, The Constitution provides
The victim is not required to testify, except in some cases, or provide any further information in order for prosecution to continue. In situations where the victim does not want to participate, prosecutors may simply use factual evidence and witness testimony in order to get a conviction (Corsilles, 1994). However, in other cases where there is not enough evidence, victims may have to be subpoenaed in order to provide the courts with enough information for the prosecution to continue with the charges. The final treatment of cases under this policy regards the option of dropping a case. Although not common, there are some cases in which the victim and the aggressor choose to come to terms and the victim wants the charges to be dropped.
Chain-of-custody describes a process as testified to by an individual who offers real evidence in a court of law and can account for the evidence from the moment it reached his/her custody until it is offered as evidence in court. A chain of custody provides a link between the evidence and the scene of a crime. Chain of Custody can be broadly defined as a system or way to provide a link between the evidence at the scene of the crime and till it was presented as an evidence in the court. The chain of custody must ensure that collected evidence can be accepted as truthful by the court. The chain of custody information is important to a forensic examiner.
The burden of proof is an obligation on one party to persuade the jury or a judge of an alleged claim. The defendant need not prove his own innocence; it is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty and the standard of proof here is beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to discharge such legal burden would result in the defendant being acquitted. This principle is especially important in criminal cases because a person’s liberty is at stake. In doing so, it will help to promote fair trial and somewhat uphold human rights.
Pursuant to Article 3, ‘inferences may be drawn from an accused’s failure to mention particular facts when questioned about or charged with an offence’. Article 4 stipulates that ‘an accused person may be called upon by the court to give evidence at his trial, and certain inferences may be drawn if he refuses to do so’. Mirfield, amongst others, argue that the rules curtailing the right to silence ‘require the suspect to be his own betrayer.’ Whether guilty or innocent, Leng submits that the fact that some hardened criminals will remain silent no matter what defeats any claim that ‘silence can be taken as evidence of guilt.’ Due to the strength of the challenges posed by the benefits to the defendant of remaining silent, the NI legislature did not address the possibility that there may be reasons for maintaining silence other than guilt or ambush defences, the ascertainment of which is at the courts’ discretion. For instance, a suspect may be embarrassed to admit their whereabouts; they may be afraid of giving inaccurate information and being punished as a result; they may be suffering from ill-health, a mental or learning disability; or they may be in an intoxicated state at the time of questioning. The minority of the Irish Committee which was established to review the matter
The public documents such as birth, marriage, or death certificates. The private documents such as contracts, deeds, and leases. Then, the evidence of witnesses of fact will either present their evidence in the form of oral testimony at the trial of the action, or in written form with or without additional oral evidence. For the evidence of expert witnesses, the expert witness needs to have some special skill, knowledge, or experience on the subject in question. A practitioner should, therefore, choose his or her client’s expert witnesses with care.
The PC is however, reluctant to disturb its previous decision unless a new point of law is raised or if reasoning has been reviewed. Next in the hierarchy of courts is the Court of Appeal, Supreme Courts followed by family courts and magistrates courts. The least authoritative in the hierarchical structure are Juvenile Courts. Obligations to such binding precedents and the hierarchy of the courts were declared in London Tramcars Co Ltd v London County
My final recommendation is that, if both the accused person and the prosecutor agree to the accused person being tried by a Judge alone, the court must make the order unless the court is satisfied that the order is not in the interests of justice which can be seen under section 118 of Western Australia’s the Criminal Procedures Act 2004. In conclusion, I believe the amendment to the jury system provides an incredibly effective delivery of justice while still maintaining the accused’s right of presumption of innocence and right to a trial by jury referred to by Justice
Sec. 2 of Cr.P.C refers to the following : (a) Investigation (b) Enquiry (c) Trial As such there is no reference to preliminary enquiry.A reference to “preliminary enquiry” is made in some departmental manuals such as CBI (crime) manual. The reason why the writer wants to throw light upon Lalitha Kumari’s case is because it has been a landmark judgement which gave following conclusions: 2.i) Registration of FIR becomes important when the offence is cognizable and no preliminary enquiry is possible in the matter (Sec. 154 or Cr.P.C) ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed.