Law of Evidence

Posted on

This blog is another one of my assignments while studying law; this one is about the Law of Evidence.

Introduction

  • The law of evidence concerns those rules and principles which affect the investigation into questions of fact.
  • The Court may be concerned with mental conditions and physical sensations as well as with acts or objects perceived by sight, hearing, taste or touch
  • Facts which are put to the court by parties to an action as being the basis of the disputes are referred to as facts in issue.
  • What are the facts in question will be determined by reference to the law governing the particular circumstances involved and by the reaction of parties to the various allegations.
  • The law of evidence is, therefore, concerned both with the kind of facts which may be proved and the manner of their proof.

There are four main areas of law of evidence is concerned they are:

  1. The Kind Of evidence which will be accepted by the court
  2. The amount of evidence which will be required by the court
  3. The manner in which evidence will be presented to the court
  4. The persons who may or must give evidence.

 

 

Case Scenario:

Mr Stephenson who was The Truck was apparently swerving from one side of the road to other before the fatal accident killing four people in which neither of the deceased had current valid licenses.  But Mrs Dani has observed the Kenworth truck 30 minutes before the fatal truck driving erratically. Will the Evidence of Mr Stephens earlier being convicted four years earlier of dangerous driving causing death will this be enough evidence in this case?

One of the deceased had also been convicted of dangerous driving four weeks earlier in the car, Will this also be Evidence or would it come under the rule Double Jeopardy. Also, Evidence has come in effect of Mr Danni who had been convicted ten years early of perjury in a trial that involved a fraud charge against her friend would the court take this into account for this recent case.

 

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:

  1. 30 minutes before the crash, Mrs Danni had observed the driver of the Kenworth truck driving erratically by swerving on either side of the road and overtaking on a blind bend on a hill.

The evidence required by the prosecution has mentioned that in this case scenario is more likely to be relevant, due to the fact in the event of R v Buchanan: The accused was charged with manslaughter arising out of a collision in which a car driven by the accused was involved. The accused had admitted that he had consumed a large quantity of liquor during the day before the collision. The prosecution had tendered evidence from Mr and Mrs Lewis about 35-40 minutes before the fatal accident. The court held that the evidence given by Mr and Mrs Lewis was properly admitted as relevant to the fact in issue.

 

  1. Mr Stephenson had been convicted four years earlier of dangerous driving causing death.

 

The evidence is this case would be relevant and would be admissible in fact, even though it happened four years ago. This evidence would, in fact, be relevant to this new case due to the fact four years early which also resulted in death so overall it would be in fact be relevant and would not course a double jeopardy rule.

 

 

DEFENCE EVIDENCE:

1: The blood alcohol reading and TCH of the two deceased after the accident.

 

This evidence would be admissible, because of the alcohol reading and the use of the cannabis is relevant to this issue in hand, because of in the case of R v Stephenson, that the evidence did not establish who was the driver of the Fiat at the time of the collision, at the initial trial, the counsel for the accused sought to cross-examine a medical witness as to whether Miss Broberg’s body contained any drugs or alcohol and also to adduce evidence of the results of the blood alcohol tests conducted on the three male deceased persons. The counsel for the accused argued that the condition of all occupants should be revealed to the court because of the sobriety of the driver of the Fiat was relevant, and anyone of the four occupants may have been the driver, The trial judge disallowed this evidence and directed that the movements of the Fiat on the roadway were relevant, but unless connected in some way with those movements, the condition of the occupants was not relevant, also on appeal the court agreed with the trial judge’s refusal to allow defense counsel to lead evidence of the occupants.

 

1: Neither of the deceased occupants had a current driver’s licence.

The probability of who was driving the vehicle could have been incapable of controlling the said vehicle this evidence would be admissible. To the current case.

 

2: One of the deceased had been convicted of reckless driving four weeks earlier.

 

(Road Traffic Act 1974 -Sec 61. Sub (4) a person is convicted of an offence against this section any offence previously committed by him/her against section 59,59A, or 60 shall be taken into account and deemed to have been offence against this section (but not to the exclusion of any other previous offence against this section) in determining whether that first-mentioned offence is at first or subsequent offence).

In the Case of   R V Buchanan {1966VR.9} the accused had been charged with manslaughter arising out of a Motor accident. He was interviewed by police officers in hospital five days after the accident and admitted he had drunk a large amount of alcohol before the accident. It was held that the statement was admissible, Shall pointed out that in this case of presenting there are no suggestions in the evidence that there was a suspension of the faculty of judgement, and the mere reduction of that faculty by head injury or drink could not be held to be sufficient to render a confession or admission involuntary in the legal sense.

Yes, this Evidence of Earlier conviction would be relevant to this case, due it had happened four weeks earlier before the fatal accident, it would not be admissible but be very relevant evidence.

  1. Mr Danni had been convicted ten years earlier of Perjury in a trial that involved a Fraud charged against her friend.

 

This Evidence is irrelevant and therefore inadmissible, because it is not relevant to the current case of Motor Vehicle Accident.

 

 CONCLUSION

 

In this finding, the Relevance only occurs when an item of evidence must be relevant to a fact in issue to be admissible in a case. Some of the evidence in this current case would be exempt from being use.

 

Due to the fact it has nothing to do with Truck and car Collision, only evidence that I feel would be allowed would be the fact Mr Stephens has already been convicted of dangerous driving causing death before this recent case and that the deceased occupants maybe indeed did not know how to drive a vehicle according to one of the other drivers was convicted early of reckless driving.

Overall the Truck driver would be sentenced by the Road Traffic Act Section 59. Dangerous driving causing death.

Notes to consider:

  • previous conviction will most likely go against the accused and plaintiff
  • But what had caused the truck driver to swerve erratically?

The above may or may  not be correct, this is from a previous assignment I had studied.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s