Essay Sample on Criminal Law and Procedure
Last update:
Table of contents
Criminal law and procedure have evolved significantly in recent years, emphasizing the fundamental principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This ensures that defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty, rather than requiring them to prove their innocence. Additionally, the legal system grants defendants the right to legal representation, with court-appointed attorneys available for those who cannot afford one.
A general principle of law dictates that only admissible evidence can be presented in court. Hearsay and rumors are generally inadmissible unless the defendant acknowledges making the statements. Likewise, evidence obtained unlawfully is typically excluded from trial proceedings. In Australia, the authority to exclude unlawful evidence is derived from both common law and statutory provisions.
Pro tip
If you’re having difficulty analyzing legal procedures or presenting your arguments clearly, getting help from professional law writers can make your essay more accurate and compelling.
Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof
A fundamental concept in criminal law is that every individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof in all criminal cases rests on the prosecution. Proposed amendments to the Uniform Evidence Act of 1995 suggest that in cases involving offenses against persons or property, evidence of three or more prior convictions could be introduced in court.
However, allowing such amendments could result in a miscarriage of justice by undermining the principle of presumption of innocence. As seen in Perry v R (1982) 44 ALR, where a defendant was accused of poisoning her husband, the introduction of unrelated past events created undue prejudice. The Australian High Court overturned her conviction, stating that prior incidents should not have influenced the case.
Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Trials
Certain types of evidence are generally inadmissible in Australian courts, not necessarily because they are false, but due to concerns about fairness and reliability. These include:
- Hearsay Evidence: Statements made outside court that cannot be cross-examined.
- Illegally Obtained Evidence: Evidence obtained without proper legal procedures.
- Opinion Evidence: Statements from non-experts regarding technical matters.
- Privileged Communications: Confidential exchanges between a lawyer and client, or a priest and penitent.
- Confessions Under Duress: Statements extracted through coercion or threats.
Conversely, courts accept certain types of evidence with minimal qualification, such as:
- Direct Evidence: Eyewitness accounts or video recordings that directly support a claim.
- Circumstantial Evidence: Indirect evidence that implies a fact.
- Corroborative Evidence: Supporting testimony that strengthens initial claims.
- Demonstrative Evidence: Physical objects presented as proof.
- Forensic Evidence: Scientific analysis, including DNA testing and fingerprint identification.
Potential Risks of Prejudicial Evidence
The proposed amendment allowing prior convictions to be introduced in court raises concerns about prejudicial evidence. Such evidence could unfairly influence a jury’s perception of the defendant, violating principles established in R v Christie (1904) AC 545.
In a criminal trial, the jury assesses factual evidence, while the judge applies the law. If past convictions were allowed as evidence, jurors might assume guilt based on prior actions rather than evaluating the current case objectively. This assumption contradicts the essence of fair trials and could lead to wrongful convictions.
Legal Framework for Evidence Collection and Presentation
Criminal trials follow strict legal guidelines regarding evidence collection and admissibility. Statutory laws establish procedures to ensure that all evidence presented is valid and reliable. Judges have the discretion to exclude evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value, as outlined in Section 137 of the Uniform Evidence Law:
“In a criminal proceeding, the court must refuse to admit evidence adduced by the prosecutor if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.”
The introduction of prior convictions could shift the burden of proof onto the defense, forcing defendants to prove their innocence rather than requiring the prosecution to establish guilt. This would erode the core principles of the justice system and increase the likelihood of wrongful convictions.
Jury Bias and the Impact of Prior Convictions
Another concern with admitting prior convictions is the potential for jury bias. If jurors learn of past offenses, they may assume that the defendant has a tendency to commit similar crimes, rather than objectively evaluating the evidence. This assumption could be dangerously misleading, as noted in Perry v R (1982) 44 ALR, where past incidents unfairly influenced the jury’s perception.
Similarly, in R v Bond (1906) 2 KB 389, the court acknowledged that once past convictions were introduced, it became difficult for jurors to remain impartial. The risk of assuming a pattern of criminal behavior could lead to wrongful convictions, contradicting the principle that each case should be assessed independently.
Exceptions to the Rule on Prior Convictions
While prior convictions are generally inadmissible, there are exceptions. The Evidence Act allows prosecutors to introduce similar fact evidence, provided they obtain the court’s permission. If the accused testifies, the prosecution may cross-examine them on past conduct, but only under strict conditions.
Conclusion
The proposed amendments to criminal law and procedure pose significant risks to the fairness and integrity of the justice system. Admissibility rules are designed to protect the rights of defendants while ensuring that trials remain impartial. Allowing past convictions to be used as evidence would create bias, undermine the presumption of innocence, and increase the risk of wrongful convictions.
To maintain justice and due process, it is essential that courts uphold existing evidentiary principles. Rather than relaxing rules on prior convictions, efforts should focus on strengthening judicial safeguards to ensure fair trials. The legal system should continue prioritizing evidence that is relevant, reliable, and non-prejudicial, preventing any erosion of the fundamental rights that form the foundation of criminal law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the burden of proof in criminal cases?
The prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This ensures that individuals are not wrongfully convicted without substantial evidence.
Why is hearsay evidence generally inadmissible?
Hearsay evidence is unreliable because it is based on statements made outside court, preventing cross-examination and verification.
Can a defendant’s past convictions be used against them?
Generally, no. Prior convictions are considered prejudicial and inadmissible. However, in specific cases, prosecutors may request permission to introduce similar fact evidence.
What happens if evidence is obtained illegally?
Illegally obtained evidence is usually excluded from trial to prevent violations of constitutional rights and discourage unlawful investigative practices.
How does a jury determine guilt?
The jury evaluates the evidence presented, ensuring that their decision is based solely on facts and not influenced by prejudicial information or assumptions.
