Law of evidence
Case summary and questions
Discuss the admissibility and weight likely to be attached to any identification evidence. (1000 words)
Rebecca Bland
Inspector mendel only showed her Haydons picture so in her mind he must have been the culprit as the inspector was saying so,
however this may have caused her to be biased in the viper parade as this may have been affected by the inspectors visit.
Identification of a picture (Lucas v Williams & Sons [1892] 2 QB 113)
How did she see his head when the balaclava was pulled over it – need to check if valid????
Carla Westerby
Heard his voice 10 years ago, not likely to be able to remember how some ones voice you heard in passing sounds
She may have also automatically suspected haydon because he was sent to prison because of the testimony from Martin and had shouted that he would, ‘get the grass who stitched him up’
Familiar voice (Flynn [2008] EWCA Crim 970, [2008] 2 Cr App R 20 (266))
Martin Priddeaux
He didn’t specify any physical attributes which would describe the assailant, he only said that he thinks it was haydon and nobody was found when the police officer searched.
Paul Guillam
Has previous convictions for fraud and perjury- can he be trusted??
2) Discuss the admissibility of the previous convictions of Haydon. (500 words)
1995 – Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life (4 years imprisonment)
Haydon has stated that he would not know how to obtain a gun, whereas he has been convicted if being in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Need to check if this would be so, maybe its been too long time
1999 – Rape (6 years imprisonment)
2005 – Dwelling house burglary (4 years imprisonment)
2010 – Robbery (10 years imprisonment – the offence described above)
3) Discuss the admissibility of the comments made by Haydon to the police and the discovery of the gun. (750 words)
Obtained unlawfully under the PACE act as they manipulated and tried to threaten him by intimidation
However, when he spoke about the canal, he was not directly answering the questions of the police officers and seemed like a slip of the tongue, this paired with the fact that the weapon was actually found in the canal seems admissible
