ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû

View the related checklists about Admissibility

±õ²Ô±¹±ð²õ³Ù¾±²µ²¹³Ù´Ç°ù²õ—c³ó±ð³¦°ì±ô¾±²õ³Ù

±õ²Ô±¹±ð²õ³Ù¾±²µ²¹³Ù´Ç°ù²õ—c³ó±ð³¦°ì±ô¾±²õ³Ù • What is the offence(s) under investigation? Analyse the statute and identify the: â—¦ ingredients of the offence, and â—¦ who can commit the offence • What is the legal status of a potential defendant(s)? Is the potential defendant: â—¦ a registered company? â—¦ an LLP? â—¦ a partnership? â—¦ a sole trader? â—¦ an unincorporated association? â—¦ an individual? â—¦ an employee? • What are the sources of evidence to prove each ingredient of an offence? Identify: â—¦ who are the witnesses of fact? â—¦ who can explain the underlying cause of an incident? â—¦ is an expert needed? • What corroborative evidence is there? â—¦ have photographs or site plans been prepared? â—¦ is there CCTV or other audio visual evidence? â—¦ what samples have been taken? â—¦ what records have been seized? • Are the witness statements in the proper format?

Order of events at summary trial—flowchart

Order of events at summary trial—flowchart For further information relating to each of these stages, see the following Practice Notes: • Case management in the magistrates’ courts • Stages of a summary trial • Burden and standard of proof in criminal proceedings • Competence and compellability of witnesses in criminal proceedings • Witness evidence during

View the related practice notes about Admissibility

Admissibility of evidence in driving cases

Proving the identity of the driverWhere the court is satisfied that the accused was served with a notice under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) and the court has received a statement from the accused confirming that they were the driver, the magistrates will accept that statement as proof of the identity of the driver.Where there is no such statement, either because RTA 1988, s 172 notice was not satisfactorily served in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, SI 2020/759, Pt 4 (CrimPR) or because the offence is not one to which section 172 applies, the magistrates will consider evidence such as details of the registered keeper given to police during questioning or details on the police national database. See: Creed v Scott [1976] RTR 485 (not reported by ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû®) and DPP v Bayliff [2003] EWHC 539 (Admin) (not reported by ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû®).Details of the driver given to the police can be proof of identity. It does not matter if a driver’s licence is produced to prove the name and address or the details are...

Admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings

This Practice Note considers what constitutes hearsay evidence, when it might be admissible and how to make an application to introduce hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is a particularly important aspect of a criminal trial as it can impact the fairness of proceedings. The Practice Note also sets out what the court should consider when deciding whether or not to allow or exclude hearsay evidence.How to identify hearsayThe definition of hearsay is contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003). The essence of hearsay evidence is that it is a second-hand account of a relevant matter. It comprises of four essential elements.There must be:•a statement•made out of court•relied on for the truth of the matter stated, and•the purpose of the maker of the statement is to cause another to believe or act on the facts statedA statementUnder CJA 2003 a statement is broadly defined as any representation of fact or opinion by whatever means. This means that the representation could be made orally, in writing or by a gesture. The...

View the related precedents about Admissibility

Legal opinion letter: for a ship finance transaction

Legal opinion letter: for a ship finance transaction [Headed notepaper of law firm issuing the opinion] [insert name and address of Lender] [insert date] Dear [insert name of Lender] Facility Agreement dated [insert date] between [insert name of lender] (the Lender) and [insert name of borrower] (the Borrower) (the Facility Agreement) We refer to [insert number of clause which requires delivery of legal opinion] of the Facility Agreement. This opinion is given in satisfaction of that clause. Unless otherwise defined in this opinion, defined terms in the Facility Agreement shall have the same meanings when used in this opinion. This opinion is governed by English law and is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. 1 Background 1.1 This opinion is given in relation to the English law aspects of a transaction (the Transaction) by which [insert description of transaction]. 1.2 We have acted as English law legal advisers to [insert name of clients] in relation to the Transaction. 1.3 This opinion is...

Procedural Order for directions following preliminary meeting in arbitration

Procedural Order for directions following preliminary meeting in arbitration PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. [1] Having heard representatives for both the [ Claimant OR Claimants] and the [ Respondent OR Respondents] (the Parties) at the preliminary meeting held on [date], the Tribunal hereby orders that: 1 Applicable arbitration rules 1.1 This arbitration shall be governed by [insert applicable arbitration rules] in force as of [insert date]. 1.2 The Parties and Tribunal shall seek guidance from, but shall not be bound by, the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (the IBA Rules), subject to the Tribunal’s discretion to control the procedural conduct of the arbitration. 1.3 [[If appropriate, include a statement on the applicable law of the substantive dispute and/or the arbitration].] 2 Seat and language of the arbitration 2.1 The seat of arbitration is [insert place]. Meetings and hearings may take place at other locations if so decided by the Tribunal after consultation with the Parties. 2.2 The language of the arbitration is [insert...

View the related q&as about Admissibility

Instead of rectification, can the Chartbrook principle (Chartbrook v Persimmon) be used to correct a drafting error in a contract that was intended to have a clause providing for auto-renewal at the end of the contract, but which contains a drafting error which renders the auto-renewal clause nonsensical?

Instead of rectification, can the Chartbrook principle (Chartbrook v Persimmon) be used to correct a drafting error in a contract that was intended to have a clause providing for auto-renewal at the end of the contract, but which contains a drafting error which renders the auto-renewal clause nonsensical? Rectification is an equitable remedy aimed at amending a document to accord with the intention of the parties. Parties to a contract may have had a common intention or understanding when they drew up their contract as to what it meant but, somehow, that meaning has not been reflected in the drafting, ie it is different from the objective meaning of the contractual document as ascertained in accordance with the rules of contract interpretation. Alternatively, a mistake may be able to be corrected by means of construction ie, seeking a declaration of the court as to the meaning of the relevant clause, rather than by applying for rectification. In Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society, Lord Hoffmann set out...

In proceedings for a child arrangements order, where statements have already been filed, one of the parties has now indicated that they wish to disclose documentation belonging to the other party such as medical records, bank statements and documents relating to their previous employment. As the Imerman rule does not apply since these are private law children proceedings, what rules or principles do apply in these circumstances?

In proceedings for a child arrangements order, where statements have already been filed, one of the parties has now indicated that they wish to disclose documentation belonging to the other party such as medical records, bank statements and documents relating to their previous employment. As the Imerman rule does not apply since these are private law children proceedings, what rules or principles do apply in these circumstances? In Tchenguiz v Imerman, the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment that made clear a person enjoys legal protection in respect of their confidential and private documentation. The court confirmed that it would be a breach of confidence for one party, without the authority of the other, to examine, make, retain or supply copies to a third party of a document whose contents it should have appreciated would be confidential. Looking at documents which a party knows to be confidential is capable of constituting an actionable wrong (para [68]). They may be guilty of a criminal offence and be at risk of...

View the related News about Admissibility

Share Incentives weekly highlights—14 November 2024

This week's edition of Share Incentives weekly highlights includes (1) publication of Finance Bill 2024–25, (2) a change in the bonus rates for SAYE schemes and (3) a new Q&A which considers the requirements of the 'trustee independence condition' in respect of employee ownership trusts (EOTs), which was announced as part of Autumn Budget 2024 and for which draft legislation has also been published.

Employment weekly highlights—14 November 2024

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) analysis from Nick Chronias, Partner at DAC Beachcroft LLP, David Reade KC and Joseph Bryan, barristers at Littleton Chambers, and Jonathan Tuck, Partner at Baker McKenzie of a Supreme Court decision on rectification of mistakes in collective agreements, (2) an Order setting pay and conditions of school teachers in Wales from 1 September 2024, (3) an employment tribunal decision finding that Bolt app drivers have worker status, (4) the coming into force of the Platform Work Directive, (5) a Court of Appeal decision concerning civil penalty notices under the Immigration Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, (6) the Department for Business and Trade consultation report following consultation with devolved governments on UK-Switzerland professional qualifications recognition implementation, (7) HMRC guidance for employers on reporting the apprenticeship levy and employment allowance, (8) an Equality and Human Rights Commission checklist and action plan for preventing sexual harassment at work, (9) a Financial Reporting Council consultation on updates to the UK Stewardship Code, (10) plans for an...

View the latest UK Parliament Acts documents on Admissibility

78 Exclusion of unfair evidence

(1)     In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.(2)     Nothing in this section shall prejudice any rule of law requiring a court to exclude evidence.[(3)     . . .]