Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides for seven statutory gateways for adducing bad character evidence of defendants: [9] (a) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible, (b) the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it,
This occurs when a person in a position of power, such as a nurse manager or head nurse, bullies a person in lesser power, such as a staff nurse. [12] Lateral violence occurs when one staff nurse were to harass another staff nurse, with neither of them being in a higher position of power than the other.
The admissibility of character evidence to allow the defendant to prove the character trait of a victim is limited, however, if the lawsuit is for rape or assault with the intent to commit rape. If the reputation or opinion evidence is being offered by the defendant to show the rape victim's past sexual conduct, character evidence is inadmissible.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Nut-picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – using individual cases or data that falsify a particular position, while ignoring related cases or data that may support that position. Survivorship bias – a small number of successes of a given process are actively promoted while completely ignoring a large number of failures.
In the 1970s, after the women's movement had gained its first traction, and the media began to cover the reporting of rape and other forms of sexual assault, a sexual assault survivor named Martha Goddard embarked upon a crusade to create a comprehensive rape evidence collection kit and lobby for its adoption by law enforcement agencies. [9]
Where the available evidence does not meet the standard normally required to bring a prosecution, a caution cannot be administered. A caution will not be appropriate where a person does not make a clear and reliable admission of the offence (for example if intent is denied or there are doubts about their mental health or intellectual capacity).
In Canada, the rule is established in R. v. Handy, 164 CCC (3d) 481, 2 SCR 908 (2002): . Evidence of prior bad acts by the accused will be admissible if the prosecution satisfies the judge on a balance of probabilities that, in the context of the particular case, the probative value of the evidence in relation to a specific issue outweighs its potential prejudice and thereby justifies its ...