When crime scene examiners find an earprint at a crime scene, there is no national database to compare it to, but when a suspect is arrested, an earprint can be taken, anonymized and placed with other prints for comparison with the footprint found at the crime scene. The evidence of a suitably qualified expert is admissible in reaching a conclusion as to the conformity of the impressions (R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim. 1903). However, in determining the weight to be given to this evidence, jurors should have less confidence in an identification based on the similarity of gross features such as ear wrinkles, unless it is precise. This is partly due to the flexibility of the ear and its sensitivity to changes depending on the amount of pressure applied to the surface on which the pressure was left. The situation would be different if there were a small anatomical feature, such as a notch or crease in the ear structure, that could be identified and attributed (R v Kempster (No. 2) [2008] 2 Cr. App. R. 19).
This part contains the rules about what happens and in what order when a district court hears a case against a defendant and renders a verdict when the defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty. If it is determined that, based on the facts available, a judge or jury should be able to draw its own conclusions without outside assistance, an expert`s opinion is deemed unnecessary because it could be misleading. For example, if an expert`s opinion is embellished with confusing jargon, the jury may be more confused and therefore less able than before to make a reliable decision. In other words, there is a risk that expert evidence will be misleading because the jury may not understand the scientific language used by the expert and, as a result, make a wrong decision. In addition, there is an additional risk that the expert`s opinion will be treated as fact and considered fact by the jury simply because the person is a qualified person; Their qualifications and the potentially confusing language they use can distract a jury from the need to determine whether the opinion is right or wrong. The Court of Appeal ruled that the current academic status of psychological autopsies was not sufficient to allow their admission as expert evidence. The expert`s conclusions were based on biased information, in particular from the complainant and his family, who had never testified; while the family and friends of the deceased had not been interviewed and, of course, she had not been examined. Moreover, there is no criterion on the basis of which the court could have examined the quality of the expert opinion: there is no database comparing actual and suspicious suicides, and there is no in-depth scientific work that endorses the underlying methodology. The scientific literature indicated that there was no complete assessment of the nature and validity of these investigations (as opposed to suspicious suicides) that had been conducted to date. Below, we look at the different types of evidence that can be used in criminal and civil proceedings, as well as an overview of some of the legal principles that form the basis of the law of evidence.
While admissible in many cases, there are cases where expert opinions are not admissible. In 1975, the verdict in R. v. Turner led to the rejection of some expert testimony on the grounds that the jury already had the knowledge and experience required to reach a verdict and that the hearing of an expert report was more misleading than substantiated. Sometimes a person who has been involved in an appeal to the Court of Appeal may appeal to the Supreme Court if they believe that the Court of Appeal erred in law. The Court of Appeal must be asked to issue a certificate attesting that this is a “point of law of general public interest”. This part contains rules on applications for accreditation to the Court of Appeal. Witnesses may present their testimony orally by taking an oath and testifying orally in court, or by means of signed testimony faithfully reproducing their own version of events. When a person accuses a sexual offence, evidence of past sexual behaviour is generally not admissible. This part contains rules for requests to authorize this type of evidence.
Circumstantial evidence differs from direct evidence in that it is evidence that does not arise from direct observation of a fact or event. Rather, it is evidence drawn from a number of circumstances related to the event. In criminal law, circumstantial evidence allows conclusions to be drawn from a number of circumstances. For example, if an accused were charged with stealing items from a store, his guilt could be proven if a witness had direct evidence, obtained through his senses, that the defendant had stolen the items in question. In other words, if the defendant saw the crime, his testimony could be used to prove the guilt of the accused. However, in the absence of such direct evidence, circumstantial evidence may be used to reach a conclusion. In such a case, evidence such as the defendant`s escape from the store at the time of the alleged theft could be interpreted by the jury as potential evidence of the person`s guilt. If other circumstantial evidence were to come to light, such as perhaps an observation of the person with the allegedly stolen objects, the evidence could be used to prove the guilt of the accused. In this way, circumstantial evidence, even if not direct, is not necessarily weaker than direct evidence, provided it is sufficient to bring a jury to a reasonable verdict that is based on reasonable doubt. An expert is permitted to make comparisons between the defendant`s handwriting and a photocopy of the disputed document if the original has been lost. However, the weight to be given to the conclusions to be drawn from such evidence must be assessed in the light of information not apparent from the copy, such as printed characters, traces and overwritten words which may indicate that the document has been falsified.
