Inadmissible Evidence When discussing the outcome of criminal cases, evidence is a make or break factor. During trials, jury members rely heavily on the evidence presented to them over the arguments being made by prosecution and defense lawyers. Depending on the evidence admitted into court, it can be the nail on the coffin for some defendants to secure a conviction. Other defendants may walk free, despite the evidence against them, because the evidence may be deemed inadmissible in court; therefore, never presented to the jurors. There are a few factors to consider with evidence admissibility, and these include the exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the exceptions to these rules, and the applicability during an actual
However, the relevance of confession in criminal trial as a species of an admissions against the interest of the maker by virtue of Section 21 of the Evidence Act. The sum and substance of the difference is that the confession rule aims to exclude self-criminality statements which are false, 30 while the privilege rule gives the opinion of excluding those which are true. The two or complimentary to each other in that respect and therefore cannot be coincident.
The case study presented many issues identified in the criminal justice system. The issue of police brutality is a direct action when authority abuse their possession of power by taking advantage of a population that should be protected by their most basic right. The exposure of cruel, unusual, and and explosive treatment is coming from the colleague of the abusers. Whistle-blowing has gone through a series of changes in the definitions Frederick Elliston has composed four components; it is the actions of an individual to make information public, the information becomes public, the information is about the wrong doing of an organization, and the person exposing the wrongdoing has some former or current affiliations in which they report(Dryburgh,2009.
In such cases, the police exercise discretion on what constitutes violation of the law, when and how to enforce such laws. In the case provide above the police did not exercise discretion but accorded preferential treatment for a certain member of the community. Discretion arises when the police officer decides not to enforce certain violations based on the nature of the offence but preferential treatment arises when there are multiple offenses and the police enforce the law for a minor offense and overlook other multiple violations. The outcome would have been different if the individual pulled over by the police for the investigative stop as black. It is likely that in this case the individual would have been cited for all the violations.
Just like other intentional torts, intention is required in false imprisonment and is a very important element. Carelessness is not enough, the defendant may have acted with a purpose to cause the confinement, or with substantial certainty that his acts will cause it. Second, the defendant’s intention must cause confinement of the plaintiff. The essence of the tort is restraint of the plaintiff’s freedom of movement, so they must establish confinement. It must be noted that blocking the plaintiff’s way will not amount to false imprisonment, as long as a reasonable alternate route is available.
This takes place when the prosecutor himself breaks the law or the code of professional ethics in the course of a prosecution. Sometimes they act in ways that are incoherent and incongruous with ethical mandates they are obliged to follow. Acts of prosecutorial transgression often violate both legal as well as professional
When the court itself appoints an expert, the fact finder may find him/her almost infallible and may neglect the consideration of other factors when finding out the truth (McCahey, & Proman, 2011). In reality, mental health professionals should be aware and inform the court that they cannot provide "definite answers" especially to the question, "Did the defendant, at the time of the crime, appreciate right from wrong"? (Meyer & Weaver, 2006, Ch. 2). Thinking that these experts can offer absolute answers that determine incapacity or insanity "may be misleading, probably unethical, and downright untruthful" (Meyer & Weaver, 2006, Ch.
The plaintiff must furthermore employ this standard to establish that the defamatory material relates to his reputation and not that of another. A presumption of wrongfulness ensues. In refutation of this presumption, the defendant may assert justifications similar to those listed in the context of criminal defamation. Intention on the part of the defendant, alleged but not proven by the plaintiff, requires both deliberate action and cognizance of the wrongfulness thereof. Publication of defamatory material leads to a presumption of deliberate action by the defendant which the defendant may refute by establishing mistake or jest.
The most obvious indicator of restraint is the use of physical force to ensure that an unwilling person is confined to the premises where the tests are to be conducted. . In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India , it was held that the unauthorised tapping of telephones by police personnel violated the `right to privacy’ as contemplated under Article 21. However, it was not stated that telephone-tapping by the police was absolutely prohibited, presumably because the same may be necessary in some circumstances to prevent criminal acts and in the course of investigation. Hence, such intrusive practices are permissible if done under a proper legislative mandate that regulates their use.
However, the Privy Council in Haw Tua Tau in interpreting the phrase “if unrebutted” in the old version of section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code was of the opinion that ‘it is necessary for the Court to keep an open mind as to the veracity and accuracy of the witness at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case.’ The Privy Council in Haw Tua Tau whereby in a ‘no defence’ case, decided that there should not be an automatic conviction. Lord Diplock indicated that ‘the Court shall review and reconsider the prosecution’s evidence by a higher standard to adopt whether or not the Court is firm that the guilt of the accused is proven beyond reasonable