ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION & DECLARATION

QUALIFICATION UNIT NUMBER AND TITLE

PEARSON BTEC HND IN LAW (SRF) LAW OF EVIDENCE

STUDENT NAME ASSESSOR NAME

Muhammad Ahsan Iqbal Afzal Anwar Rana

DATE ISSUED COMPLETION DATE SUBMITTED ON

10 October 2024 28 November 2024 28 November 2024

ASSIGNMENT TITLE LAW OF EVIDENCE

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA GUIDANCE EVIDENCE PAGE NUMBER

PASS 1 PART A
PASS 2 PART A
PASS 3 PART A
PASS 4 PART B
PASS 5 PART B
PASS 6 PART B
PASS 7 PART B

MERIT 1 PART A
MERIT 2 PART A
MERIT 3 PART B
MERIT 4 PART B
DISTINCTION 1 PART A
DISTINCTION 2 PART B
DISTINCTION 3 PART B

PLAGIARISM

Plagiarism is a particular form of cheating. Plagiarism must be avoided at all costs and students who break the rules, however
innocently, may be penalised. It is your responsibility to ensure that you understand correct referencing practices. As a
university level student, you are expected to use appropriate references throughout and keep carefully detailed notes of all
your sources of materials for material you have used in your work, including any material downloaded from the Internet.

LEARNER DECLARATION
I CERTIFY THAT THE ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION IS ENTIRELY MY OWN WORK AND I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF PLAGIARISM. I UNDERSTAND
THAT MAKING A FALSE DECLARATION IS A FORM OF MALPRACTICE .

STUDENT SIGNATURE: AHSAN MALIK DATE: 28 NOVEMBER 2024

1
Table of Contents
1. ESSAY: THE ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL TRIALS
.................................................................................................................................................................3
2. LEGAL ANALYSIS 1: RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE IN DANIAL’S CASE ...............................4
3. LEGAL ANALYSIS 2: CIRCUMSTANTIAL VS DIRECT EVIDENCE AND HEARSAY IN
DANIAL’S CASE ...................................................................................................................................5
4. LEGAL ANALYSIS 3: PROCEDURES FOR EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES AND HOSTILE
WITNESSES IN STACY’S CASE .........................................................................................................7
5. LEGAL ANALYSIS 4: BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN STACY’S CASE ...............9
6. LEGAL ANALYSIS 5: RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL & BURDEN PROOF IN STACY’S CASE .....11
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................................................14

2
1. Essay: The Role and Importance of Evidence in Civil and Criminal
Trials
Evidence is to legal proceedings what truth and fact-finding mean in the dispensation of justice; thus, it
forms the bedrock upon which facts are established. In civil or criminal trials, evidence has to be
presented and weighed for the court to arrive at an informed decision. Without evidence, what a party
asserts would never find basis, with decisions largely left to conjecture. The evidence plays a critical
role in both civil and criminal cases, as shall be discussed herein, with the importance of attaining
justice, while legal principles guide its usage in the court of law.

Evidence plays the role of supporting the claims and defenses of parties in civil cases, where there is a
litigant seeking a remedy, such as damages or an injunction. For example, a case of breach of contract
would want evidence of a written agreement, emails, and witnesses to prove that there was indeed a
contract and one of the parties breached it. The standard of proof in a civil matter means "on the balance
of probabilities"; that is, the evidence must show it is more likely than not that one party's claim is true.

In criminal cases, the stakes are higher as it either deals with sending the defendant free or taking away
his or her life. In that effect, the burden of proof to be observed in this matter must be that the
prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt-an altogether higher threshold.
Evidence presented during criminal trials may take different forms: forensic reports, expert testimonies,
and physical exhibits of tangible objects. Presentation of evidences in these trials tends towards either
a proof of the accused or a defense against charges (Woolmington v DPP, 1935).1

The major purpose evidence is to establish the facts the case. Evidence is what courts depend on when
determining what took place in a dispute. In a criminal case, such forensic evidence as DNA can actually
place a defendant at a crime scene and definitively establish a fact in the case. Documentary evidence
might be used in a civil case to prove the existence of a contract.

Evidence allows the judicial process to be fair in that both sides can bring their case and even further
discredit the opposition's claims. Evidence provides grounds on which judges and juries may make
decisions without rendering judgment based on bias, emotion, or speculation. Thus, rules have been
developed in the judicial system as to the admissibility of evidence to ensure fairness; for instance, the
exclusion of evidence that is gained through improper means.

Evidence also plays a central role in protecting individuals' rights in both civil and criminal cases. A
defendant's right to a fair trial-under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights-is
preserved in criminal trials by placing a burden upon the prosecution to prove an individual's guilt
through admissible, reliable evidence. In this respect, therefore, rights to compensation or enforcement
of agreements are secured in civil cases by the introduction of credible evidence (European Convention
for Human Rights, 1950).2

The evidence must relate to the case in hand or have some logical connection with the issue to be tried,
which simply means it should relate directly to the issues being decided. In cases of fraud, for instance,
suspicious transactions recorded through bank records would be relevant, while testimony about the
defendant's unrelated behavior would not.

Even relevant evidence may be ruled inadmissible if it violates certain legal principles. The illegally
obtained evidence, for example, the results of illegal searches, might be ruled out in order to maintain
order within the administration of the courts themselves. Evidence which might be more prejudicial
than probative - that is to say, evidence that may serve to unduly affect the jury - may also be ruled out
by the courts (R v Sang [1980] AC 402).3

1 Established that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution in criminal cases.
2 Ensures the right to a fair trial and equality before the law.
3 This case discusses the principle that evidence obtained improperly may still be admissible unless it

significantly impacts the fairness of the trial.

3
The weight of evidence refers to how much importance is given to it by the court. In determining what
weight to give to evidence, the court considers whether such evidence is reliable and credible. For
example, a witness to an event may be given greater weight than hearsay evidence because this latter
form of evidence is generally not as reliable.

Types of Evidence: Evidence may be used from many sources:

• Direct evidence: This may be defined as that which, directly proves a certain fact. An example
would be an eyewitness to a robbery.
• Circumstantial evidence: It is an indirect proof of a fact by an inference from another fact.
For instance, though nobody saw the accused committing the crime, the appearance of a
person's fingerprints at the place where the crime is committed shows the suspect had been
there.
• Hearsay evidence:
This is an out-of-court statement presented in court in order to prove the truth of the matter
asserted. Hearsay in general is not admissible unless it falls under certain exceptions (R v
Kearley [1992] 2 AC 228).

Evidence has a very important role in both civil and criminal trials. Evidence is, therefore, basically the
fundament of all the judicial process, enabling the courts to ascertain the facts correctly, ensuring
fairness, and allowing the judicial protection of legal rights to prevail. The principles governing the
admissibility, relevancy, and weight of evidence ensure that only reliable and pertinent information is
considered in trials. The careful consideration of evidence ensures that justice is served, and that legal
decisions are based on concrete facts rather than assumptions.

2. Legal Analysis 1: Relevancy of Evidence in Danial’s Case

Relevancy is an operative requirement of the law of evidence, in that it guards against the admission of
a presentation of irrelevant evidence. Thus, evidence will be said to be relevant if it has a direct or
indirect tendency to make more or less probable any fact in issue at trial. On the case of Danial, however,
the most important question to be pursued would be to identify the level of his involvement with Sam's
murder. This legal argument will, therefore, identify those pieces of evidence that are highly relevant
in the purchase of the knife and to include witnesses to the crime and that of Danial's link to it.

Evidence would be relevant under section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872,4 if the existence or non-existence
of certain facts would thereby be probable than without the aid of evidence in question. Logically
speaking, in order for the evidence to be said to be relevant, some connection must exist between the
evidence and the facts in issue in the case. In a criminal case, relevant evidence may pertain to the
actions, intentions, and relations of the defendant with the crime scene or the victim. In Danial's case,
all evidence that had to do with the knife, his trip out of town, and his association with the people
involved were all contributing factors to what his role in Sam's murder is.

One of the important pieces of evidence in Danial's case is the knife bought from Suman. The same
knife later on became what Zaeem used to murder Sam after a scuffle. The purchase of the knife shall
become relevant because, one way or another, it connects Danial to the murder weapon. According to
eyewitness Mateen, who witnessed the said purchase, Danial just bought the knife from Suman. This
makes it more probable that Danial was involved in providing the weapon that facilitated the murder.

Such a fact is further empowered when it is considered that the knife was bought on "special order under
secrecy", suggesting that the acquisition of the knife was not casual but premeditated. The presence of

4 This section defines 'evidence' as all legal means, oral or documentary, used to prove or disprove any fact in
issue or relevant fact in judicial proceedings.

4
this detail strengthens the prosecution argument of Danial having acted deliberately in a manner
indicative of involvement in a planned crime.

The two star witnesses will be Mateen and Adam; both will be testifying to the circumstantial evidence
against Danial concerning the events surrounding the murder.

• Mateen's Testimony: Mateen testified against Danial, having purchased the knife from Suman
to which he gave confirmation through Naeem. This piece of testimony is quite relevant because
hereby it directly links Danial with the murder weapon. Though Mateen has not witnessed the
actual act of a crime, whenever he speaks about the purchase of the knife, it draws a direct
principle connecting Danial to the weapon used in Sam's case.

• Adams' Testimony: Adams testifies that his testimony is based upon what Danials brother told
him and upon a photograph showing Danial in the city where the knife was bought. Adams'
evidence, although more indirect, still has relevance since it places Danial in the city where the
crime preparation occurred. Although Adam did not directly witness the murder or the purchase
of the knife, his testimony helps corroborate the time and location of Danial's movements,
which is important to build up the prosecution's case.

The fact that Danial traveled to the other city, which led him to obtain the knife, was later seen in a
photograph with the person who lives in that city, namely Jamil, is relevant. This travel connects Danial
to place where the request for the murder weapon was made. Adam's testimony to Danial's presence in
the city, supplemented by the photographic evidence, gives credence to the fact that he traveled to
purchase the knife. This in itself makes it more probable that Danial had a premeditated role in Sam's
eventual murder.

While relevant, Danial's case evidence is such that the court has got to take into account the admissibility
of any of it. On this note, the Exclusionary Rule allows courts to exclude relevant evidence when such
evidence may have been improperly obtained or highly prejudicial. No indications are expressed that
the purchase of the knife or the testimonies violated any legal standard in terms of obtaining them. In
this case, these elements of evidence remain relevant.

Besides, the court may inquire as to whether the evidence is highly prejudicial and apt to confuse the
issues. For instance, where the defence put up on the basis of inconsistencies in Mateen's testimony
since he is a friend of Naeem who later recanted, then the court would also have to consider whether
Mateen's account is to be believed or not. However, the relevance of the knife purchase, along with the
corroboration afforded by Adam's testimony, continues to support the prosecution's case.

Relevancy ensures that evidence will directly relate to the fact of whether he really committed Sam's
murder or not. The purchase of the knife, the witness statements, and Danial's journey towards another
city all constitute relevant pieces of evidence linking him with the murder weapon and the crime itself.
This, most likely, would be the evidence on which the prosecution would rely to establish premeditation
on the part of Danial and further that his involvement in providing the weapon used for the murder
amounts to complicity in Sam's death.

3. Legal Analysis 2: Circumstantial vs Direct Evidence and Hearsay in

Danial’s Case
This legal analysis considers the distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence, the rules
governing hearsay evidence, and the rules governing character evidence. In Danial's case, for the
most part, the prosecution has relied on circumstantial evidence in establishing whether he is linked to
the murder of Sam. This report will examine how these aspects of evidence are classified in court, how
they apply in Danial's case, and how hearsay and character evidence are in perspective to his trial
treated.

5
Direct Evidence: Evidence that is given as direct establishes a fact without the need for any inference.
The examples of such evidence include a witness or confession, or physical evidence linking an
individual directly to the crime. In this case, it would be considered direct evidence, for instance, if
there was an eyewitness who witnessed Danial giving the knife to Zaeem for the intention of killing
Sam. No such direct link evidence is, however, available in this case, which links Danial to the actual
commission of murder.

Circumstantial Evidence: In contrast, circumstantial evidence does not tend to prove a fact directly
but rather it implies a conclusion that may be reasonably inferred. While its effect is to require the court
to draw inferences, circumstances can be as convincing as direct testimony when they form a coherent
picture. The courts have indeed held that convictions based upon pure circumstantial evidence can be
arrived at, if the summation of the circumstances makes the guilt the most reasonable conclusion to
draw (Taylor, 1928).5

The following is the most vital circumstantial evidence in Danial's case:

1. The Knife Purchase: The testimony of Mateen that he saw Danial purchase the knife from
Suman indicates that Danial obtained the murder weapon. This does not constitute direct proof
of Danial's intent to commit or facilitate the murder, but it forms an essential part of the
circumstantial evidence which forms the basis of the prosecution's theory upon which the case
against Danial is based.

2. Danial's Trip to Another City: The testimony of Adam and a photograph showing Danial in
the same city where the knife was bought further implicate Danial in the events that culminated
in the commission of the crime. This acts as circumstantial evidence that Danial knowingly
went to another city to get the murder weapon, which speaks volumes in terms of premeditation.

3. Delivery of the Knife to Zaeem: There is no direct evidence as to Danial's handing the knife
to Zaeem. However, the fact that the knife was used on the murder shortly after the purchase
gives rise to a strong inference that Danial was implicated in its transfer.

Legal Precedent: For a long period now, courts have accepted the probability of convicting on
circumstantial evidence provided the evidence as a whole is sufficient to exclude all reasonable
explanation. In (R v Turnbull , 1977) QB 224,6 the court reiterated that even in purely circumstantial
cases, the jury can convict if they are sure that the only reasonable conclusion is guilt.

The general definition of hearsay evidence includes a statement made out of court offered in court to
prove the truth of the matter asserted. Generally it is not admissible into evidence because it is
unreliable-usually the person who made the original statement elicited is not available to be cross-
examined. There are, however several important exceptions to the prohibition against hearsay.
In Danial's case, this would be considered hearsay because his statements are based on the fact that his
brother told him Danial was out of town. Adam never directly witnessed where Danial was but was told
by someone else. Therein lies a potential element of hearsay, which the defence may, at their discretion,
seek to argue as inadmissible depending on whether or not it falls into one of the exceptions to the rule
on hearsay see (R v Kearley , 1992) 2 AC 228).7

Exceptions to the Hearsay Rule: Hearsay can be admitted provided that it comes under one or more
of the recognized exceptions such as:

• Dying declarations: Statements made by a person who is about to die and believes death is
imminent.

5 Highlights that convictions based on circumstantial evidence must form a coherent and credible narrative.
6 his case established guidelines for courts to assess the reliability of eyewitness identification evidence,
emphasizing caution in accepting such evidence.
7 Discusses the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence unless it meets an exception.

6
 • Statements Against Interest: If one makes statements against their interest, such as a
confession.
• Business records: Records kept in the regular course of a business or organization may be
admissible under the exception to hearsay.

Here, Adam's testimony could be excluded on hearsay grounds, unless his testimony meets one of the
many exceptions. The prosecution may seek to admit Adam's testimony as corroborative evidence, but
again it is likely to be mooted by the defense.

Character Evidence: evidence that relates either to a person's general character or to his traits of
character and that is offered for the purpose of proving that he more or less probably acted in a particular
fashion as charged. In criminal trials, tight restrictions are quite literally set on character evidence
because it is assumed that it is generally prejudicial. The prosecution cannot introduce the evidence of
bad character of the defendant unless directly relevant to the case.

Bad Character Evidence: The admissibility of bad character evidence under s 101 of the Criminal
Justice Act 20038 provides that it may be admitted where it has sufficient probative value to admit such
as showing a 'system'. In Danial's case, if the prosecution had asserted that Danial was violent or a
dishonest it may wish to adduce bad character evidence. Such testimony would likely be objected to by
the defense as being prejudicial in that it is only probative to make Danial appear guilty based upon
prior conduct and not based upon the merits of the case at bar.

Exceptions to Character Evidence Rule: Are that character evidence may be admitted in very few
instances:

• Defendant opens the door: If the defense pursues evidence of the defendant's good character,
the prosecution may be permitted to present evidence of bad character to rebut it.

• Key to understanding the case: If evidence is key to understanding a crucial issue at trial, it
is admissible.

In Danial's case, nothing has been said about any bad character evidence up till now, but if the
prosecution thinks that it will help draw a motive or pattern of behavior, such evidence may be brought
into action.

In the case of Danial, the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence for establishing the
involvement of Danial in the murder of Sam. Even though no direct evidence is available that could
implicate Danial with respect to the crime committed, the knife he had purchased, the evidences
presented by eye-witnesses, and the trip of Danial to some other city weave a strong web of
circumstantial evidence. The evidentiary rules related to hearsay will most probably apply to the
testimony of Adam, that may be challenged as second-hand. While the character evidence is thus far
irrelevant, it may be introduced by the prosecution as showing a pattern of behavior. Strength in
prosecution's case is only as strong as how well the prosecution presents the circumstantial evidence
and maneuvers the legal rules on hearsay and character evidence.

4. Legal Analysis 3: Procedures for Examination of Witnesses and Hostile

Witnesses in Stacy’s Case
The examination of witness in both cases of civil and criminal trials, very significant. The process
ensures that the facts are brought before the court through testimony, whereby the prosecuting and the
accused can be effectively proving their case. This legal analysis focuses on the examination of
witnesses in Stacy's case, particularly examining the issue of hostile witnesses and the legal procedures
surrounding the examination of witnesses. For instance, Danial initially identified Stacy, but in court,

8 Governs the admissibility of bad character evidence in criminal trials.

7
he later recanted. That would be the classic definition of a hostile witness, and the prosecution has to
adapt their approach with him.

During any legal trial, witnesses can be considered one of the most important aspects in proving or
disproving the facts of a case. By and large, the examination of a witness would fall into three broad
steps:

Examination-in-chief: It means the very first questioning by the party calling the witness of the latter.
This is done with an object of ascertaining all the relevant facts for proving one's case.

1. Cross-Examination: This is when the other party is allowed to question the witness following
the examination in chief. Usually, cross-examination is used to establish that a witness may be
lacking in credibility or not to be relied upon.

2. Re-Examination: If the witness has been cross-examined, the party calling that witness may
re-examine to clarify issues thrown up by the cross-examination.

These stages ensure that the statement of the witness is tested and the respective sides take their chance
over witness's evidence. Case of Stacy, the examination of Danial as a witness becomes complicated
because he is a hostile witness.

A hostile witness would be one that is unwilling to co-operate with the party calling him, or one whose
evidence in court directly contradicts that which was previously given. Section 3 of the CPA 18659
provides a witness may treated as hostile when his reluctance, hostility, or manifest change in testimony
at the time of trial is apparent. Once a witness is declared hostile, the calling party may cross examine
witness in a manner similar to that of the opposing party.

Danial had earlier testified against Stacy, pointing at her for the murders and money laundering; he later
recanted such testimonies after he and Stacy had reconciled. This change in testimony significantly
complicates the prosecution's task because its case was substantially based upon his earlier confession.
Under the CPA 186510, prosecution can declare Danial a hostile witness and thereby cross-examine
him a view to impeaching credibility.

• Cross Examination of a Hostile Witness: Once the court accepts that Danial is hostile, his
previous inconsistent statements can be subject of cross examination by prosecution. In a case
then, the prosecution can use Danial's previous accusations against Stacy as evidence. The
reason for cross-examining a hostile witness is to contradict the current testimony by revealing
that the witness has previously made statements against their own interest. On the contrary,
Danial's preliminary confession would come to serve the purpose of contradicting his current
recantation.

• Impeachment: The prosecution may seek to impeach Danial's credibility by highlighting the
inconsistencies in his statements. Courts have established that when a witness's credibility is in
question, prior inconsistent statements can be used to impeach their testimony. To be certain,
this can be considered in Baston [2010] EWCA Crim 244911. In this case, Danial's original
confession will be brought up to indicate that his denial now cannot be relied upon.

The most important principle involved when conducting an examination of a hostile witness like Danial
is proving that the witness's recantation is less credible than his original testimony. In this regard, there
are several approaches:

9 Provides guidelines for treating witnesses as hostile when they demonstrate reluctance or contradict earlier
testimony during a trial
10 Provides guidelines for treating witnesses as hostile when they demonstrate reluctance or contradict earlier

testimony during a trial

11 This case discusses the use of prior inconsistent statements to impeach the credibility of a hostile witness

during a trial

8
 1. Highlighting Motive for Change: The prosecution will likely argue that Danial has a motive
to change his testimony because of pressure from his children or reconciliation with Stacy,
rather than because of the truth of the matter. Questioning Danial's motives allows the
prosecution indirectly to suggest that his earlier statements were more reliable.

2. 2. Previous Statements: The general rule in criminal law is that previous statements made by
a witness outside the court are not admissible except to contradict his testimony at present.
Under (PACE), s 7612, the earlier confession made Danial could be admitted into evidence
despite Danial's denial of it later on; the prosecution will argue that this confession was made
voluntarily besides and should be considered credible.

3. Corroboration from Other Evidence: The prosecution in supporting the case against Stacy
can as well rely on corroborative evidence from other sources, like financial records that link
her to money laundering. Even if Danial were to retract his confession, the prosecution might
still seek a conviction by building a case around corroborative evidence and, therefore, limiting
the damage caused by the hostile witness.

Besides cross-examining Danial, either the prosecution or the defense can undergo re-examination
based on any issue that has been raised during cross-examination. In Danial's case, the defense might
want to re-examine him to explain why he changed his testimony or to give more context of why he
blamed Stacy in the first place. However, the prosecution can also controvert the credibility of any
explanations given at re-examination if that explanation had not been forthcoming earlier.

The court can also give judicial instructions for the jury on how to approach the hostile witness's
testimony. Indeed, many courts instruct that the testimony of hostile witnesses should be received with
caution in light of this factor and further that the witness has made prior inconsistent statements, either
or both of which may have a bearing on the credibility of those witnesses. The jury will be instructed
to assess which testimony by the witness is more credible and whether or not, because of the change in
testimony, the overall credit of evidence presented has been affected.

Examination of witnesses, which in this case includes a hostile witness named Danial, is probably the
most complex and sensitive, yet significant, aspect of any trial. Declaring Danial a hostile witness
allows the prosecution to cross-examine him with prior inconsistent statements and to use his prior
confession as substantive evidence for impeachment of his testimony against him. For that, the
prosecution has to establish that the prior inconsistent statements were under oath and that Danial was
granted an opportunity to explain or deny the contradiction. Hostile witness rules and procedures give
the prosecution legal means to challenge any form of witnesses that may change their stories mid-trial.
In this case, Stacy's ability of prosecution to discredit Danial's recantation and rely on corroborating
evidence will be key in trying to make a strong charge despite difficulties from a hostile witness.

Reference:

• Criminal Procedure Act 1865, s 3.

• Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 76.

5. Legal Analysis 4: Burden and Standard of Proof in Stacy’s Case

In any criminal trial, the burden and standard of proof are cardinal principles that define the manner a
case would be pursued and the conviction secured. While the burden of proof in itself would speak to
the duty of one party to prove the facts in issue, the standard of proof defines the level of certainty

12Specifies that confessions are admissible only if made voluntarily and not obtained through oppression or
anything that might render them unreliable

9
needed to establish those facts. In criminal matters, the onus of proof lies with the prosecution, the legal
standard being "beyond reasonable doubt" to make sure that only clearly guilty suspects are convicted
of the crime. The following legal analysis considers how those concepts apply in Stacy's case-
particularly money laundering and murder-and, upon complications presented by the hostile witness
testimony of Danial, how the prosecution can nevertheless meet its burden of proof.

This refers to the responsibility given in criminal trial cases to the prosecution of proving to the court
that the defendant is indeed guilty. It always rests on the prosecution during the whole trial and does
not shift to the defense, except when affirmative defense decisions are raised by the latter, such as self-
defense or insanity.

• Prosecution’s Burden against Stacy’s Case: The prosecution against Stacy has to establish
that Stacy was concerned in the money laundering scheme and the murders. That is, it needs
to show Stacy knew about these illegal activities and her actions show elements of the relevant
criminal offenses under the (Proceed of Crime Act , 2002)13 and any other applicable
legislation.

• Implication of Danial's Hostile Testimony Against Stacy: The fact that Danial is a now-
hostile prosecution witness who has recanted his earlier testimony accentuates the complexity
of the prosecution's burden. Danial's earlier confession was critical to the linking of Stacy to
the criminal activities. His sudden hostility to, and reluctance to testify consistently with his
earlier hostile statements, does not absolve the prosecution from the burden, if not the blame,
of proof regarding Stacy's guilt.

Exceptions to the Burden of Proof: Although the burden of proof will normally be on the prosecution,
there are exceptions. For example, if Stacy wanted to rely on a defence of duress-that is, that she was
coerced into taking part in the money laundering operation-she would bear the burden of being able to
provide sufficient evidence to raise such a defence. However, responsibility for the final burden of proof
must always remain with the prosecution.

The standard of proof, in trying a criminal case, is beyond reasonable doubt, meaning that the
prosecution, while proving the guilt of the defendant, should be able to establish his guilt to the extent
that in the mind of the judge or jury, no reasonable doubt is left to acquit the accused. This high standard
is meant to preserve personhood from bad conviction, ensuring that only persons who are obviously
guilty will be convicted.

• Beyond Reasonable Doubt: To prove that Stacy is guilty of the said criminal offenses, the
prosecution needs to do so beyond reasonable doubt. What this essentially means is the jury
needs to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt no other explanation aside from Stacy's guilt
can be plausibly entertained. The prosecution must be able to prove, via financial records,
corroborative witnesses, and perhaps even forensic evidence, that Stacy was actively involved
in the money laundering and murders.

• Challenge to the Standard in View of Danial's Recantation: Danial's recantation presents an

uphill challenge for the prosecution in meeting the high standard of proof. Whereas Danial, in
his original confession, implicated Stacy, a possible change in his testimony may raise
questions regarding the prosecution's case. With Danial's inconsistencies in his testimony, this
means that for the beyond reasonable doubt to be met, the prosecution now has to rely on
corroborating evidence, such as bank records or other witnesses, to fill in the gap.

Judicial Directions as to Standard of Proof. The Judges usually give judicial directions to the juries
on how they should interpret the standard of proof. They will tell the jurors that they had any reasonable
doubt as to the defendant's guilt, they acquit him. Conversely, if convinced of guilt beyond reasonable

13Provides a framework for identifying, tracing, and confiscating proceeds of crime, including offenses related
to money laundering

10
doubt, they may return a guilt verdict. This is a high standard that is intended to ensure that the evidence
proffered by the prosecution is highly tested before a conviction results.

Danial's Confession: Even though Danial has sought to retract his testimony, his original confession
does have some value in terms of evidence. Under PACE 1984, s 76, a confession is inadmissible if it
has been obtained through oppression or in any other circumstances that render it unreliable. The
prosecution may wish to use Danial's confession as part of its evidence in support of the proposition
that it was made voluntarily and that it reflected what had occurred at the material time.

• Impact of the Recantation:Although highly problematic for the prosecution, it has been held
that courts can utilize prior inconsistent statements to impeach the present testimony of a
witness. (R v Baston, 2010) EWCA Crim 2449. 14 The jury will be appropriately instructed to
consider Mr. Danial's original confession and his recantation, weighing which account they find
more believable.

• Defense's Burden of Proof: While the prosecution must prove a case beyond reasonable doubt,
often the defense also has to be in a position to provide explanations or evidence that will
contradict Danial's confession. The more likely scenario, however, is Stacy's legal team
avowing Danial's original statement was under duress, or was a result of external pressure.
Overall, however, the burden of proof remains with the prosecution to establish the guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

Apart from Danial's confession, the prosecution will most likely rely on circumstantial evidence to
establish Stacy's guilt. Circumstantial evidence, though indirect, forms a very good foundation upon
which a case may be built. In (R v Taylor , 1928),15 the court held conviction based solely on
circumstantial evidence is possible if it is of sufficient strength to exclude reasonable doubt.

Financial Records and Transactions: In Stacy's case, circumstantial evidence will involve bank
statements, suspicious financial transactions, and links to known money launderers like Roman. The
prosecution can argue that such financial records clearly indicate money laundering activities linking
Stacy to criminal activities.

Circumstantial Evidence: Stacy's change of identity and relocating to a remote area may be presented
as one piece of circumstantial evidence to show guilt consciousness. The prosecution will indicate that
such behavior is inconsistent with innocence and, therefore leads to the conclusion that Stacy sought to
avoid detection for her criminal activities.

The prosecution should prove that Stacy is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Her litigation,
however, just got a lot more difficult than initially perceived by the prosecutors as Danial has now
recanted his previous confession. Nevertheless, it could still prove Stacy's guilt using circumstantial
evidence corroborating Danial's prior confession of association with the money laundering operation.
In weighing the contradictory statements of Danial against the strength of circumstantial evidence, the
jury will have to decide whether the prosecution has met its burden. Finally, what that means in any
case, the burden and standard of proof make sure Stacy will not be convicted, unless evidence presented
by the prosecution is strong enough to take out all reasonable doubt.

This concludes the final legal analysis on burden and standard proof in Stacy’s case.

6. Legal Analysis 5: Right to Fair Trial & Burden Proof in Stacy’s Case

14 Explores the use of prior inconsistent statements to challenge and impeach the credibility of a hostile witness
during trial proceedings
15 Highlights that convictions based on circumstantial evidence must form a coherent and credible narrative

11
Both national law and international conventions on human right provide that the right to a fair trial a
cornerstone of justice. Article 6 of the (ECHR) enshrines this principle by guaranteeing equal
opportunities to both prosecution and defense to argue their case before impartial adjournment with due
procedural precautions respected. The following legal analysis will develop an argument based on the
right to a fair trial and burden of proof in Stacy's case concerning Danial's status as a hostile witness,
treatment of evidence, and fairness of the trial generally (European Convention for Human Rights,
1950)

It provides a right to a fair, public hearing within a reasonable time before an independent and impartial
tribunal. The right pertains to both civil and criminal cases with the purpose of ensuring that individual
persons get mentioned of their offenses and a chance to defend themselves.

• Fair Hearing: The right to a fair hearing in the case of Stacy provides that the proceedings
must be conducted by an impartial judge or jury without any form of bias or undue influence.
The court has to ensure that Stacy's defense is accorded adequate attention along with the case
brought forward by the prosecution, despite the complications that may arise due to Danial's
taking back his statement.
• Equality of Arms: In other words, it is the principle that, in trial, prosecution and defense shall
have equal opportunity to prove their case, and for that matter, both will be entitled to the same
procedural safeguards. Stacy's lawyers must be in a position to cross-examine the witnesses,
contest the admissibility of evidence such as Danial's confession, present their own evidence,
and bury the arguments. Furthermore, it is upon the prosecution to ensure evidence presented
in court is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, without violating Stacy's rights
(Woolmington v DPP, 1935)16.
• Access to Evidence: The guarantees of fair trial provide that the prosecution and defense make
all relevant evidence available to their counterpart in due time. This includes anything that can
be admitted which may tend to go to the support of the defense or impugn the prosecution's
case. In this case, if Danial's recantation was taped or memorialized so as to be producible as
evidence, then this has to be provided to Stacy's defense for impeachment of Danial. In this
scenario, suppression of evidence may be a fair trial right violation of Stacy.

Law of Proof: In criminal cases, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that a
defendant is guilty. It is one of the base factors of principles governing fair hearing, whereby it holds
that a defendant should be presumed innocent until proved otherwise. Stacy's case is tough to prosecute
since they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she participated in the two murders and that,
coupled with Danial's conflicting statements, she participated in the money laundering scheme.

• Presumption of Innocence: The right of Stacy both to be presumed innocent is incorporated

within her fair trial rights. This presumption puts the onus entirely upon the prosecution for
proving her guilty. If there is reasonable doubt, she is to be acquitted about her linkage with the
committed crimes. Presumption of innocence relieves Stacy from proving her innocence and
shifts the onus totally upon the prosecution.
• Use of Danial's confession and Hostile Testimony: Because he now wishes to recant, the
prosecution will have problems with Danial's original confession. His confession will be
admissible under PACE 1984, s 76, provided that it was voluntary and not found to be
unreliable. How fairly Stacy will be tried depends on the way the court treats Danial's
contradictory testimony to properly instruct the jury to weigh his original statements against his
recantation and decide which version is more credible.

Danial's status as a hostile witness is a real problem to the prosecution and may impact Stacy's right to
a fair trial. Generally speaking, a hostile witness is a person who, for whatever reason, at some period
either recants or contradicts their testimony and therefore can give accounts that may be inconsistent
with events. In the case of Stacy, Danial initially accused her of involvement in both murders and money

16Established the fundamental principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution in criminal cases and
that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

12
laundering but has since recanted; his accusation now casts doubt on the reliability of his testimony
(European Convention for Human Rights, 1950).17

• Cross-Examination of Danial: The nature of the fair trial allows Stacy's defense an adequate
opportunity for cross-examination upon Danial by contradicting the latter's original confession.
If Danial is declared a hostile witness, even the prosecution may cross-examine him upon his
recantation, using his previous statements to impeach his credibility against him. Essentially,
this implies that each party can thoroughly test the witness's testimony-the essential
characteristic of a fair trial.
• Judicial Directions on Hostile Witnesses: The judge may give special directions to the jury
with respect of how they may consider the conflicting statements of Danial. These directions
imply that the jury must consider which version they find more improbable and then return their
verdict as to whether the prosecution satisfied its burden of proof in light of its assessment. The
judge will most likely remark that hostile witness testimony is accepted with caution so that the
jury does not view either side in a negative light due to the discrepancies in Danial's testimony.

By the right to a fair hearing, Stacy also has the right to silence, said in other words, she is not obliged
to testify in her defense, and her silence cannot be considered evidence of guilt. Should Stacy ever say
anything during the case, whatever she says could be used against her, granted such statements are
obtained lawfully and voluntarily.

• Confessions: The defendant's confessions are permissible evidence, as long as they are given
voluntarily and without coercion. In Danial's case, his first confession, which implicated Stacy
as a co-conspirator, is admissible, but again, the jury weighs that confession against his
recantation of it. If the jury were to decide that Danial's confession was voluntary and an honest
description of what actually happened, they can consider it more than his subsequent denial.
• Adverse Inferences: Stacy, if she is taken to trial, may remain silent. The court may grant the
right to the jury for drawing adverse inferences from the same, but in limited circumstances.
To elaborate, Stacy does not account for some critical evidence that links her to the crimes;
hence the jury may draw from her silence that her silence amounts to her guilt. This has to be
done with due care so the right of fair trial of Stacy is not prejudiced.

Another important factor in Stacy's case could be public interest immunity (PII), whereby the court
might withhold particular evidence from the trial on the basis that to disclose it would go against the
public interest, for instance, when issues of national security or sensitive government information are
concerned. The defense of Stacy must be accorded the opportunity to dispute such a course of action if
the prosecution wishes to withhold certain evidence under PII.

• Balancing Public Interest with Fairness: While the courts are bound to protect public interest,
this must be balanced against the right of a defendant to a fair trial. In any case, if any
information deemed sensitive in Stacy's case is ruled not to be disclosed through a PII, the court
needs to consider the impact on not prejudicing her defense or making any impossibility for her
to put forward a complete case. Disclosure is one of the hallmarks of any fair trial, and any
limitation that can be placed on evidence must have proper justification and be proportionate
to the case at hand.

Due process of law and burden of proof are the rights Stacy needs to rely upon, ensuring that the
prosecution proves her guilt beyond reasonable doubt while observing her rights in law. All this brings
in the complexity regarding the role of Danial as a hostile witness and the conflict in his statements-
how the court deals with it would ensure fairness of the trial. The weighing of all the evidence, be it
Danial's confession or his recantation, with all the circumstantial evidence to reach the conclusion
whether the prosecution has carried the burden of proof. Stacy has a right to a fair trial: the presumption
of innocence in the course of these proceedings (European Convention for Human Rights, 1950).

17 Provides fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to a fair trial as enshrined in Article 6

13
Reference:

• Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 76.

• Criminal Procedure Act 1865, s 3.

7. Bibliography

• European Convention for Human Rights, Article 6, 1950. Available at:

<https://www.echr.coe.int> (Accessed: 19 November 2024).
• Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, c.29. Available at: <https://www.legislation.gov.uk> (Accessed:
19 November 2024).
• R v Kearley [1992] 2 AC 228.
• R v Taylor [1928] 21 Cr. App. R 20.
• Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462.

14