The K-Zone: admissibility of evidence

In general, any RelevantEvidence is admissible. In criminal cases in particular, certain types of evidence are inadmissible, except where there are exceptions in common law or statute. Each of these has its own entry in this glossary. The general exceptions include:

`hearsay', that is, spoken or documentary evidence that is a report of someone else's observation (see: Hearsay), not that of the reporter himself;
`opinion' (see: OpinionEvidence), except where it is from a expert on matters that are expected to be outside the knowledge of the court;
evidence that tends to show the bad character of the accused (see EvidenceOfBadCharacter), but is not related to the case in point (except certain items of `SimilarFacts' evidence -- but be aware that this area of law is due for a radical shake-up in the CJA2003);
`narrative' evidence, that is, evidence from prior statements made by a witness that would contradict his current position. Exceptions include ResGestae utterances.

Certain items which were previously largely inadmissible in criminal cases are now usually admissible, owing to various statutory provisions:

failures to answer questions which the accused might reasonably by expected to answer (see: RightToSilence), as provided in the CriminalJusticeAndPublicOrderAct1994;
`documentary hearsay' (see: Hearsay), particularly statements made to investigating officers and documents created in the course of business CriminalJusticeAct2003.

Even if the evidence is of a type that is normally admissible, a court has the discretion under the PoliceAndCriminalEvidenceAct1984 to exclude evidence in certain circumstances (see: ExclusionOfEvidence).

EvidenceLaw