LAW OF EVIDENCE

Law of Evidence

Law of Evidence

(a)

Evidence is based on common law principles and is concerned with proof to determine the facts in issue. Evidence consists of facts? testimony? documents and physical exhibits legally admissible to prove or disprove the matter under inquiry. Evidence is concerned with the kind of facts? which can be proved? and the manner in which they are proved in a court of law.

This is evidence which the court can experience for itself. Real evidence is used to refer to any form of evidence which at its production calls upon the court to reach conclusions on the basis of their own perceptions and not the reported observations of witnesses. For example if a witness testify's to the court they saw a blood stained knife then the court is asked to assume this statement is true. Yet is the knife is produced in court they are asked to draw their own conclusions about the truth. Before real evidence is admissible to the court two foundations must be laid. The first being that the evidence must hold relevance to the case and secondly there must be a basis to finding the evidence and what it allegedly represents. This means the evidence must be supported by a witness testimony claiming their own personal knowledge of how the evidence was brought into being in the case. Without a supporting testimony to back up the evidence? the evidence will become inadmissible. Where a proper foundation is laid and the evidence is admissible the physical object can be admitted as an exhibit to the court. Where a jury is present they are at liberty to take the object into the jury room during deliberations.

In a lot of cases no direct evidence will be available. There may be no eyewitnesses to the events or if there were they may have been the victim and now may be dead. In cases like these the courts have to rely on circumstantial evidence being presented to them. If some direct evidence is available it is often supported by circumstantial evidence to make the case stronger. Circumstantial and Direct evidence are similar in nature? in that they are generally adduced by means of witnesses testifying to the court about their perceptions of the events in question. Where they differ is that even in the case of highly credible witnesses? circumstantial evidence is always inconclusive. This is due to the fact the witnesses are not eyewitnesses? merely witnesses who offer information which make the occurrence of events more or less likely. For example in the recent case of the two young girls who killed their friends mother Mrs Visisombat. There were traces of the girls left at the scene of the crime such as bloodied palm prints? footprints and fingerprints. The girls were also seen shortly after the incident covered in blood. Now this evidence in itself does not prove the girls killed Mrs Visisombat but it does prove a connection to the ...