Regina v edward putman case study

The major forms of evidences that will be put in use will include, the Putmans interviews, evidence produced by Ms. Bailey, and Mr. Allsop. These are witness statements provided. Another piece of important evidence is the surveillance footage presented. In this types of interviews most of the occasions, the suspect will tend to create his alibi, the person interviewing should be keen not to doubt the suspect during this statement. It is now the duty of the investigators assigned the case to provide sufficient evidence that will either convict or release Mr. Putman. Meanwhile, he should be treated as an innocent person until proven to be guilty. The suspects should be in a position to prove themselves innocent and the accounts should be strongly considered acceptable in the court of law as parts of the evidences provided.

Despite the fact that the suspect has a right to remain silent as whatever he says might and will be used in the court of law, if he refuses to cooperate with the police during the preliminary stages of investigation, the details will be availed in court and as a result act as an advantage to the prosecutor (Craig, 2017). Despite the fact that the suspects account should be used in the proceedings, it is important to abstain from any form of hearsay while doing that. According to section 114, hearsay is a piece of oral evidence that is used in court proceedings to back up the said matter. At all times, a crime has the offender and the victim. To identify the difference, hearsay is brought about if people involved with the offender are closely monitored and are used to back up the existing evidence.

The evidence he provides in this case is a personal statement that will identify the suspect. The statement issued by this person further incriminates the suspect as it will be used by the prosecutor to serve the public interest and the prosecution side. All the evidence that will point at the suspect should be included in this case. Despite the fact that the client is deceased, his personal statement can still be admissible in a court of law. Rule 7(f) of the “Uniform Rules of Evidence” (British Common Law), “all relevant evidence is admissible,” and for this case the victim’s personal statement can still be relevant in court. From then on, the court was challenged and this made the justice system to grow.

During writing of the statement from this party however, the police and the prosecution should be sure to protect the suspect against hearsay and misinformation as mentioned above. Due to the fact that this person’s statement is relatively strong and will be considered during decision making, the prosecutor should ensure safety. According to the law, the criminal justice act of 2003 states that the court can admit to evidence of hearsay only if the constitution allows all the parties that are involved agree and if the court finds it admissible (Elliot, 2015). This law is only valid if it is not in conflict against the statute. Another witness is the anonymous taxi driver who is yet to be identified. This thus leads to conclude that it’s only Mr.

Allsop that can testify before the court of law against the accused. With the victim deceased, the statement issued will be highly considered as part of the evidence that will be provided before the court of law. Surveillance footage It is legal in the United Kingdom to identify a suspect using surveillance cameras. This is a very strong piece of evidence that can be used in a court of law during proceedings. The suspects past convictions will be important in identifying the type of individual that is involved in the case of law. The suspect in this case, has been convicted several time in the past. First, he was convicted for cases relating to robbery. The second conviction happened recently and it was harming an individual physically and inflicting body injuries.

Characters who turn down cooperation from the police are in most cases considered to be guilty. In my opinion, not cooperating with the police and the investigations is a strong indicator of guilt and that the suspect is guilty (Bradley, 2018). However, my analysis does not only depends on the character and the fact that he refused to cooperate but also due to the statement issued by Mr. Allsop and the surveillance footage. Most importantly, the suspect lied in his alibi making him a suspect as the footage placed him in the scene of crime at the exact time the crime took place. The prosecution in the process should ensure they protect their witnesses and that they are not harmed before they can testify.

Another issue that might arise and might be a strong argument by the suspect side is the authenticity of the surveillance footage that has been issued as evidence in the court. The prosecution first has to ensure that the premises followed the appropriate regulations while installing the surveillance footage in the first place. Due to the fact that the footage does not capture the whole crime but rather just the suspect at the crime scene does not indicate murder. Conclusion At all times, there is need to follow the law. In order to reduce mass incarceration however, fewer people need to be locked up in prisons and this can be achieved through proper representation of the public defenders at the court room.