The Evidence Forms of Law

Introduction

The law of evidence refers to the principles that require one to prove a particular act during court proceedings.¹ The principles are used to govern the kind of evidence required so as to arrive at an effective decision. It is important to note that for the proof to be effective, the amount of evidence also referred to as quantum should meet a minimum threshold. Therefore, the law of evidence takes into consideration all these requirements for a case to receive favour in court.

In the process of producing evidence in a court of law, various concepts are used to determine how strong that particular evidence is. For example statements like ‘I hereby state’, ‘admissibility’, ‘in reasonable doubt’ and many others are common terms that are used to drive the point home in legal proceedings. ² To this end this author is going to give different types of evidence as far as this law is concerned. This will enable the reader to comprehend evidence law and have an idea what the law is all about.

Types of Evidence

Different forms of evidence exist depending on their source. Evidence on the ground is used to direct the use of testimony in a given court session. There is evidence derived orally where one is required to say what happened during a particular event. In this case, the court depends on word of mouth from a witness who has to convince the court by stating facts. An effective witness should be convincing enough so that he or she can support other evidence provided in court. The witness should also be aware of the fact that the opposition will try to tear down their evidence. They should be able to protect it. The witness has to affirm that they are going to tell the truth. This is why most of the times they have to swear before testifying.

On the other hand there is written statement which is another form of evidence. This is for instance an affidavit which is a form of evidence that states the initial relationship between the parties in dispute.³ This is also very important in a given legal procedure.

Exhibit is also a type of evidence which is characterised by the use of physical objects that were used to cause a particular event. As such it is very important in supporting evidence. There is also the demonstrative evidence which is a type of evidence based on admissibility in a court of law. All these forms of evidence are important so that the court can make a sound decision that is fair and transparent to all parties.

Disputing parties that find their way into the courts have to convince the court of their innocence in order to receive favour. This calls for substantial evidence as proof of their innocence. The court regulations require the evidence presented to have an element of trustworthiness. Evidence is disregarded if it is found to provide baseless proof. A given criminal or civil dispute has different issues when it comes to proofing. For instance Scots law has different criteria in dealing with a criminal case.

The rule of corroboration is put into effect.⁴ In this case, evidence should be in place to prove each fact. If the two pieces of evidence are not provided to proof each fact, then the evidence is deemed insufficient for the case.⁵ In other words one piece of evidence is not enough in any court proceeding. For example, DNA evidence is not enough in corroboration rule. In addition it requires a second person who has first- hand information regarding the issue. On the contrary, this rule does not always apply to civil cases.⁶

Relevance of Evidence

For a very long time now, evidence has been regarded as an important component in the legal field especially in English law.⁷ For any evidence to be admissible, it must adhere to some rules that have been put in place. The role of evidence should be relevant to the case whereby it disapproves or proves facts provided in a court of law. However, these criteria have given rise to second thoughts. For example, relevant evidence may be insufficient in proving a point hence the admissibility will be denied. Relevance evidence has been characterised by the fact that the provided proof cannot be subjected to syllogistic reasoning. In this case the evidence is disqualified unless other strong grounds are provided to act as the evidence.⁸

The International Federal Rules of Evidence have formulated requirements to be met by any given evidence for it to be admissible. In this case, the evidence must exhibit a fact that is probable even in the circumstances of no evidence.⁹ The law further warns against evidence that is misleading. It should provide grounds for the court to base its decisions on. To this end the court will be engaged in a session that needs to determine who wins the case. This is where the burden of proof comes in.

Burden of Proof

In court sessions, burden of proof varies from one form of proceeding to the other. As the author had stated earlier, the concepts used in evidence comes in handy at this juncture. Convincing terminologies are used to refer to the evidence provided before the court. For example scenarios given should be beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is noted when the groups are arguing over the evidence they have provided before the court. The opposing parties will always take each other to task in trying to proof their evidence. In some cases, the opposing party will try to cast aspersions on the evidence provided by the rival.

If one party in a legal dispute claims a particular truth based on provability, the burden of proof is seen when the other party stands to oppose the evidence by citing superior evidence. ¹⁰ In other words, it is significant as it shifts from the opposed conclusion to the Trier or the position taken by the jury in the argument with regard to all proven statements.

The burden of proof is first left to those engaged in disputes. In this case, it can be referred to as the burden of persuasion whereby the party has to continue claiming or trying to prove their innocence in the case. They have to discharge all proofs and once cleared, they can graduate in their claims. The person who feels offended by another person will lay the charges.

In the English Commons’ law, the standard proof is based on the civil standard as well as the criminal standards. The criminal evidence is described using the phrase ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. In the case of civil evidence, the balance of probability is applied. The nature of the proof should not be used to make conclusions. For instance no matter how serious the allegations or consequences are, they should not affect proofs as far as the factual information is concerned. To avoid this challenge, the inherent probability is taken into consideration. This was a realisation made by judges in the House of the Lords.¹¹

The standard of proof should not be manipulated by how the evidence is performed but should be based on the balance of probability. In this context, the tribunal task is to see the quality of facts and not the quality of serious allegations when pointing out evidence. It does not matter how serious the allegation is because no allegations are constructed in a vacuum.¹² For example if a dead body is found on the yard after being strangled and no weapon is produced to support the allegations then it is likely to be improbable. This kind of information has altered the way court cases are normally handled. This has triggered the need to have credible evidence in the legal proceedings.

Credible Evidence

Presumption of Innocence

In a court of law, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty after being subjected to thorough scrutiny as far as the law of evidence is concerned.¹³ The law gives right to the perceived criminal to prove their innocence in court and as we have discussed earlier the burden of proof comes into play. Here the accused and the jury have to give enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The regulations in this case states that with all due respect and regardless of the crime committed, the state has a task to proof the charges and the accused will bear no burden of proof.

European Convention on Human Rights

This is a phrase in the article of European convention on human rights. The right is to subject the accused to a fair trial. The law states that anyone perceived to have committed an offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In this case, the law protects an individual from any form of harassment. ¹⁴

An example is Woolmington case where the accused committed murder accidentally. The court sentenced him to death but on appeal the burden of proof was reviewed and this saved his life. Credible evidence is also exhibited when Lord Bingham of Cornhill attorney general reference number 4 of 2002 reviews the case by applying the convention rules which view the accused as innocent. The onus was to accomplish the appeal by bearing the burden of proof.

There are standard requirements that have to be met in a particular case. For instance, the standard required by the civil cases is referred to as the balance of probabilities. Different forms of evidence should serve different cases including in the intra- adjudicative courts. Family cases also have their place during legal actions. The business world has a tribunal that is familiar with the kind of evidence needed. Credibility therefore implies that evidence should be given where it is needed.

Recommendations and Conclusion

Civil and criminal cases are decided upon by courts and different criteria are used to achieve the desired outcome. For the court to be effective and independent, it should follow the conduct of the court as defined by the constitution especially when it comes to the collection of evidence.¹⁵ Various forms of evidence are regulated so as to be admissible during court proceedings. This calls for interrogation and provisions of rules that govern the gathering of evidence.

The English common law has various guidelines that regulate the admissibility of evidence in court. In the past, a person would be tortured so as to obtain evidence. The Magna Carter law has changed this and today evidence should not be obtained through torture. Evidence obtained in this nature is already compromised and cannot be used in court. For instance the person may be arrested due to evidence based on rumours.¹⁶

Information used in court to support particular evidence should be relevant. It has been discussed earlier that the evidence should not mislead the court in any way. Failure to meet this criterion will hinder the court from carrying out its legal proceedings effectively. This is a fundamental rule that all other regulations are based on.

The courts should have more guidelines that protect the suspect to make sure that the evidence brought to court is valid. There is no need to use anonymous testimony in legal proceedings. The accused should face the accuser and interrogate them. The other important aspect is that the accused should not be forced to give testimony. It is dangerous to use evidence that is based on hearsay testimony.¹⁷ The hearsay can be as a result of a rumour. This will hinder the effectiveness of a court session as the outcome will be biased. A case in point is when a worker is dismissed from the work place due to incompetence only to realise later that it was due to a relationship that went sour. Therefore, the court should be vigilant regarding the kind of evidence that is used.

Another important factor is the admission of the accused based on a mistake committed in the past. Self-admittance can be as a result of undue influence on the victim. Such practices can be a challenge to the entire court process. Finally, if all legal processes take place using the required procedure, all court sessions will be effective.

Bibliography

Adrian K, Griffiths J, McKeown P, Modern law of evidence, Oxford University Press, London, 2010.

Ernest VD, Punishing criminals: Concerning a very old and painful question, Basic Books, London, 2008.

Fletcher GP, Basic concepts of criminal law, Oxford University Press, London, 1998.

Fletcher GP, Rethinking criminal law, Oxford University Press, London, 2000.

Gorr M, Controversies in criminal law, Westview Press, London, 2002.

Hall J, General principles of criminal law, Lexis Law Pub, Melbon 2006.

Hart HL, Punishment and responsibility, Oxford University Press, London, 2008.

Harwood S, “Is Mercy Inherently Unjust?” in Crime and Punishment: Philosophic Explorations, Wadsworth Publishing Co, Melbon, 2000.

Hyman G, A Theory of criminal justice, Oxford University Press, London, 2005.

Murphy J, Forgiveness and mercy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009.

Ormerod D, Criminal law, Oxford University Press, London, 2005.

Rollin PM, Criminal law, The Foundation Press, UK, 2004.

Smith KJ, Lawyers, legislators and theorists: Developments in English criminal jurisprudence, Clarendon Press, Melbone, 1998.

Spract, J, A practical approach on criminal law, Oxford University Press, London, 2011.

Turrow S, Legal thriller, Farrar Straus & Giroux, London, 2009.

Williams G, Textbook of criminal law, Stevens & Sons, UK, 2003.

Footnotes

1. GP Fletcher, Rethinking criminal, Oxford University Press, London, 2000, p,3.
2. G Hyman, A Theory of criminal justice , Oxford University Press, London, p, 33.
3. HL, Hart, Punishment and responsibility, Oxford University Press, London 2008 p, 123.
4. G, Williams. Textbook of the criminal law, Stevens and sons, UK p,2003, 67.
5. J Hall, General principles of criminal law, Lexis Law Pub Melbon, 2006, p 192.
6. M Gorr, Controversies in criminal law, Westview Press, London, 2002, p 219.
7. S Harwood, Is mercy inherently unjust… crime and punishment, Wadsworth Publishing Co, Melbon, 2000, p 283.
8. J Murphy, Forgiveness and mercy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009, p 67.
9. KJ Smith, Lawyers, Legislators and Theorists; Development in English criminal jurisprudence, Clarendon Press,London , 1998, p 40.
10. VD Ernest, Punishing criminals: Concerning a very old and painful question, Basic Books, London, 2008, p 53.
11. D Ormerod, Criminal law, Oxford University Press London, 2005, p 312.
12. PM Rolling, Criminal law, The Foundation Press, U.K, 2004 p 15.
13. K Adrian, G James, M Paul, The modern law of evidence, Oxford University Press. London 2010, p 170.
14. J Sprack, A Practical approach to criminal procedure, Oxford University Press, London, 2011, p 401.
15. S Turrow, Legal thriller, Farrar Straus and Giroux London , 2009, p 413.
16. J Spract, p 267.
17. GP Fletcher, Basic concepts of criminal law, Oxford University Press, London , 1998, P 73.