Evidence is the information presented in a trial to prove facts and establish the truth regarding a case.

Evidence has probative value in a case, i.e., it can be used to prove the existence of a fact under
consideration. Evidence can be used directly or indirectly to establish whether an event occurred or
whether an individual was implicated.

Facts are objective realities referring to truth and supported by evidence, they are universal and based
on research or observation. On the other hand, an opinion is a subjective statement based on
assumptions and varies from person to person, therefore it cannot be supported by proof. In a criminal
trial, the claim is submitted by the prosecution therefore it is presumed that they are responsible to
prove all the facts by providing relevant evidence. Hearsay evidence is not allowed in court except in
certain circumstances, and evidence of the defendant’s bad character is subject to specific rules. On the
contrary, in a civil trial, the case is entered by the claimant and they are not presumed to present all the
evidence, also hearsay is admissible.

The courts only allow evidence that is relevant to the case, which implies that its existence is useful in
proving that one of the facts related to the case is more or less likely, and this varies from case to case
since it is not a matter of law but facts. In DPP v Kilbourne1, Lord Simon elaborated that evidence is
deemed relevant if it has the rationally substantiating force in proving the criminal allegations. Any
evidence that is relevant and does not infringe any rules of exclusion is admissible, however, it can be
excluded by judicial discretion. In R v Randall2 it was stated that determining the degree of relevance
depends typically on common sense and experience.

Admissibility, on the other hand, is a matter of law concerning whether or not the evidence is allowed in
court. This requires that the matter of relevance must first be addressed.

The weight of evidence is assessed once its relevance and admissibility have been asserted, it is the
probative value of the evidence, or its credibility and validity. The judge is responsible for determining
the relevance, whereas the weight of the evidence is usually ascertained by the jury.

Although the evidence may be admissible, it can be excluded in specific circumstances, usually governed
by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Any evidence of a breach of the PACE regulations is
excluded. Any confession made by the accused is admissible if it is relevant to the case under
consideration and is not excluded by judicial discretion under section 76 of PACE.3 It is also stated that
any confession obtained by oppression or under circumstances that render the confession unreliable will
be inadmissible.4 A confession is defined by the Act as any statement made in words or otherwise that is
unfavourable to the person expounding it, either wholly or partly. 5 The court may also disallow the
prosecution’s evidence if admitting it adversely affects the fairness of the court’s proceedings.6 In R v
Mason7 the confession was held inadmissible in the Court of Appeal in accordance with section 78 of
PACE since it was obtained by unfair means.

1
DPP v Kilbourne [1973] AC 729
2
R v Randall [2003] UKHL 69
3
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Section 76 (1)
4
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Section 76 (2)
5
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Section 82
6
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Section 78 (1)
7
R v Mason [1988] 86 Cr App R 349
Improperly obtained evidence by the prosecution may be excluded by the following principles:

Reliability principle: Evidence may be excluded if its reliability appears dubious.

Remedial principle: The defendant may be provided exclusion as a remedy for violation of his rights by
the police. In R v Loveridge8 secretly filming the defendant while in custody at the magistrate’s court was
held by the Court of Appeal as a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 9 and the Criminal Justice Act
1925.10

Disciplinary principle: Exclusion of evidence is also a means to dissuade the police from improper
conduct in the future.

Integrity principle: Exclusion of evidence preserves the morality of the judiciary and the criminal justice
system overall by serving as a means of rebutting impropriety in the procedure. In R v Horseferry Road
Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1)11 it was declared that the criminal trial could be stayed at the
pre-trial stage if there is a misuse of power or improper conduct by police or prosecution.

Evidence can be broadly classified into four types:

Testimonial evidence: This is the oral or written evidence provided by the witness under oath or
deposition during the trial or other legal process.

Direct evidence: It is the evidence that proves the actuality of the fact in question without requiring
further evidence or drawing a presumption.

Real evidence: This includes material evidence for example the murder weapon, documents,
photographs or evidence from the scene of the crime.

Circumstantial evidence: This is the evidence of the relevant fact rather than the fact in issue and it
depends on inference to relate it to a conclusive fact. For example, the opportunity to commit a crime
may be proved by providing evidence of the relevant facts that the accused was present at the time and
scene of the crime. Similarly, objects bearing the fingerprints of the defendant were found at the scene
of the crime as well as samples of the defendant’s bodily fluids matching those taken from the victim all
constitute circumstantial evidence identifying the culprit.

During a criminal or civil proceeding, each party in the case is compelled to provide all the relevant
evidence in their possession to the other party before the hearing, and this is known as disclosure. it is
the basic requirement of an adversarial process, enabling the defendant to answer the case against him.
Since the prosecution represented the state’s interest, previously only the prosecutor was subject to the
duty to disclose evidence. Now the defendant is also compelled to disclose evidence pre-trial under the
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 for criminal cases and part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
reformed by Lord Woolf for civil cases. Disclosure of documents implies that the existence of the
document is stated, and the duty of disclosure remains as long as the case is continued. However, a
person may retain the disclosure of a document if its disclosure is detrimental to the public interest. 12

8
R v Loveridge [2001] EWCA Crim 973
9
Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8
10
Criminal Justice Act 1925, Section 41
11
R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) [1994] 1 AC 42
12
Civil Procedure Rules, Rule 31.19 (1)
Also, a party cannot rely on a document if they failed to disclose it unless the court allows it.13 In a
criminal proceeding, any prosecution evidence that has not been disclosed to the accused which might
aid in the defendant’s acquittal must be made available by the prosecutor.14 A defence statement
elaborates on the nature of the defendant’s defence and the defences he will rely on, and such a
statement providing an alibi must give its particulars.15

The legal proceedings in a trial begin with the prosecution or the claimant presenting their case by giving
an opening statement. Witnesses are called by the prosecution/plaintiff and questioned during the
examination in chief, and the defence can also cross-examine the witness by questioning them. any
issues raised during cross-examination provide grounds for re-examination of the witness. The case of
the prosecution/plaintiff is closed once all their witnesses have been questioned. The defence then calls
their witnesses for examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination after which their case is
closed. Closing statements are made by attorneys of both parties. in case a jury is present, the judge will
summarize the case for them, highlight the problematic issues and grounds for appeal, and give
instructions about the evidential issues that arose during the case.

13
Civil Procedure Rules, Rule 31.21
14
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, Section 3
15
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, Section 6 (1) (2)