The right to a fair hearing.
Lesson not just karate only. Lesson for whole life. Whole life have a balance everything be better.
The Criminal Procedures and Investigatory Act.
Evidence is key:
We pose the question as to whether individuals that have committed theft related offences to fund their disordered gambling are given a fair hearing. All criminal court cases work on a fundamental principle that all relevant material must be gathered by the investigating police officer/body and all such material is to be disclosed, firstly to the reviewing CPS lawyer and secondly to the defence lawyer. This is covered by The Criminal Procedures and Investigatory Act 1996 (CPIA). The fundamental reasons that this act came into place was to ensure that police officers/the prosecution were not selective in their evidence gathering process- i.e. only pursuing lines of enquiry likely to assist the prosecution case and ignoring lines of enquiry that could potentially undermine the prosecution’s case.
It could assist the defence:
For example, ignoring a witness that could give a conflicting account against the preferred narrative of a case or ignoring CCTV footage that could mitigate the defendant’s actions. The second primary reason was to ensure that the police were not selective in the evidence that they disclosed to the defence, on the same principles as stated above. For example, the police officer did collect the witness account and the CCTV but then chose not to inform the defence of its existence. Therefore, in such circumstances, the defendant has not received a fair trial as the jury and judge have not had all available material given to them to make an informed decision. The existence of such material that could either undermine the prosecution’s case or assist the defence’s case can of course have the potential to seriously alter the outcome of a case, either by it casting doubt to the extent a jury acquits the defendant, or by reducing the sentence given by the judge, with such material providing mitigation.