7. What evidence is admissible?

7. What evidence is admissible?

Evidence is adduced in a criminal trial to support the parties’ respective cases, i.e. to prove facts that the party alleges. For evidence to be admitted, they must be both relevant and admissible.

In determining relevance, the Court does not only look at whether the matter relates to the offence in question. The Court must be additionally satisfied that the evidence is sufficiently probative in relation to the offence in question. In other words, the evidence must have a tendency to make a fact more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

First type of relevant evidence is direct evidence. This includes the testimony of a witness as to what he or she saw, heard, felt, smelt, touched. For example, in a common assault case, a witness can testify as to how he or she saw the defendant hit another person.

The second type of relevant evidence is circumstantial evidence. They are evidence of facts from which another fact or series of facts relevant to the case might be inferred or deduced. For example, in a murder case, the relationship between the defendant and the deceased may assist the Court in inferring the defendant’s intent to kill.

The third type of relevant evidence is real evidence. They are objects produced in Court upon which the Court is asked to reach conclusions on the basis of its own perception. For example, the actual drugs seized from a defendant in a drug case, or photographs of damages caused to a vehicle taken by the investigating police officer in a careless driving case.

Relevant evidence is generally admissible, unless they are held inadmissible by applying an exclusionary rule in evidence law. Examples of exclusionary rules are hearsay, opinion, evidence purporting to establish a person’s character, evidence protected by privilege or public interest immunity.