Evidence in the case of Donald who May have Hit Doris Essay

Evidence in the case of Donald who May have Hit Doris - Essay Example Doris provides what is called the ‘master narrative’ as well which is defined as a story that has cultural context through which the specific story is given a deeper meaning.3 The ‘master narrative’ that Doris has created is that of the abused female by a male aggressor. Through this narrative, the context of the rest of the evidence is presented. Ann Ann overheard a statement by Doris at the party. That statement was â€Å"Stop hitting me Donald† and that it was made in a state of duress. Except for the accused, the spouse of an accused, or the children of an accused, there is an assumption made in English law that all witnesses that are brought forth with be competent and compellable.4 The narrative is how the story of the events is constructed, starting with the story of the victim, but then moving to the corroboration of witnesses. Ann’s function is to corroborate the story that Doris has related that led to charges against Donald. Ann†™s testimony is hearsay. Hearsay is defined as a statement that is made outside of the court which is given to prove the matter that is in process.5 Using the example of R v Xhabri, hearsay in the form of overhearing statements made by a victims were admissible through s114(1)(d) even when it was dismissible under s120.6 The reason for this admissibility is that the interests of justice overrode any benefit of dismissing the testimony.7 Ann’s testimony becomes complicated, however, by her former conviction. Under the Criminal Justice Act of 2003, provision 100, the bad character of an individual as it may pertain to guilt in relationship to their participation may be admissible.8 Under this provision, the witness’ character can be at issue when they may have criminally contributed or actually been the perpetrator of the crime. It has been used further to assess the credibility of a witness.9 In this case, Ann has been previously convicted of perverting the course of justice, which means she was part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice which is criminal and is a holdover of English Common Law.10 This means that at some point she participated in trying to falsely inform the court as to the truth of an action. It is likely that the evidence she presents will be thrown out or at the least minimized by introduction of her former conviction. Dr. Foot Dr. Foot, which for the purposes of this paper is assumed to be an expert in forensic investigation, has evidence of hair from Donald on the victim, Doris. Evidence must be relevant which was established in the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 which is still in effect and provides that there is a difference between logical evidence and legal evidence, supporting the concept of the best evidence theory. Best evidence theory has been overruled by the relevance of evidence on most trials, however, and in this one while the hair is best evidence, it does nothing more than establish Donald’s pr esence at the party which is not in dispute.11 The use of the Civil Evidence Act of 1972 provides for evidence created outside