Evidence Law: Self-Incrimination, Privilege, and Recorded Evidence

This assignment delves into the intricacies of evidence law, specifically examining the privilege against self-incrimination in a criminal context. The analysis begins by advising Bill on his right to claim this privilege, emphasizing the importance of remaining silent and the limitations of compelled testimony. The assignment then explores the admissibility of potentially damaging statements made by AB, including whether they can be edited from recorded evidence. Finally, the assignment provides counsel to Ernie regarding his ability to object to specific questions or the presentation of evidence during both an ACC examination and a County Court trial. The conclusion reiterates the fundamental nature of the privilege against self-incrimination and its significance in protecting individual rights within the legal system. The assignment utilizes case-based scenarios to apply legal principles, referencing relevant legal sources to support its arguments.

EVIDENCE LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
Question 1 Advising Bill as to whether he can claim the privilege against self incrimination in
response to question asked..........................................................................................................1
Question 2 Advise Bill as to whether AB’s answers to police questions, that AB believed Bill
was a “pedo,” and part of an international “pedo ring,” may be edited from his recorded
evidence ......................................................................................................................................2
Question 3 Advise Ernie as to whether he can object to giving particular answers, or evidence
generally, before the ACC examiner, and in the County Court trial...........................................3
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION
Criminal law is system of law that is concerned with punishment related with offenders.
It is considered as the body of law which is associated with crime. It proscribes the conduct that
is perceived as threatening, harmful or otherwise which endangers the property, health, safety
and moral welfare of the individual (Bronitt and McSherry, 2010). Several criminal law are
being developed by statute that is towards saying that laws are being enacted by legislature. The
present report is case based. The study includes the privileges that can be provided against the
self incrimination.
Question 1 Advising Bill as to whether he can claim the privilege against self incrimination in
response to question asked
In the present case privilege can be given to Bill towards self incrimination. This is in
terms that Bill can keep silent and refuse to answer. In this the evidence which the court possess
would be considered as the only means through which the decisions by the court will be
provided. The privilege against the self incrimination is considered basic as well as substantive
common law right. It is not just the rule related with evidence. It demonstrates the longer
standing antipathy of the common law towards mandatory interrogations with respect to criminal
conduct [R v McKenna, R v Benischke]. The particular case is related with assault on five week
old baby. The privilege is one aspect of the right towards silence (Stephen, 2014). The rights
towards the silence is one that is protecting the right towards not to be made to testify against
oneself. The privilege against the self incrimination is narrow and this is protecting the right that
are not to be made towards incrimination oneself. A statute may need a person who can answer
the question which results in breaching the silence (Privilege: Other Privileges, 2017). However
if the person is allowed to refuse towards giving incriminating answers results in preserving the
privilege against the self incrimination. It has been provided by High court that a person can
make refusal towards answering any question or make production of any document or thing in
order to do so they might tend to bring him into peril as well as possibility towards being
convicted as a criminal (Cryer, Friman, Robinson and Wilmshurst, 2007). The privilege is being
applied in civil and criminal cases for excluding certain evidence but this applies as protection
wherever information is compulsory attained by the investigators or by the administrative
agencies that are imposing the penalties. It protects the one who might incriminate him and
cannot be evoked towards shielding other from incriminating. It is not extending the information
1

which can be collected in an independent manner. The privilege associated with incrimination
can be referred to as the concept that includes three distinct privileges. This is comprised of
privilege against the criminal matter, a privilege against self exposure towards civil or
administrator penalty as well as privilege against the self exposure towards forfeiting the existing
right (Danner and Martinez, 2005.). A greater number of rationale have been offered for the
privilege but this is required to protect the freedom and dignity.
Self-incrimination is an act to expose the criminal to the charge of crime, to involve a
guilty in a criminal prosecution. It can be occur both directly and indirectly, directly that is in
way of interrogation where to information of the self-incrimination is disclosed. Indirectly is
when the subject matter of the self-incrimination is disclosed by the person voluntarily where
there is no pressure imposed by the other person. The guilty may or may not speck when the
question is being asked through which the criminal is exposed, he can refuse to answer and no
punishment is given to him. Privilege of self-incrimination is the right given to the vicious to
protect himself against the expose of being guilty asking such question which proved to be
guilty.
One of the privileges enjoyed by a person not to answer any question which is affecting
their dignity as the current privilege is launched in order to maintain their self-esteem. Privileges
are provided by the Australian government to protect the interest of an individual as this
advantage will help in keeping their self respect. Main motive of legal authority is to ascertain
crime and not to harm an individual (Cryer, 2010). Intentional incrimination is abolished as per
the Australian government as these acts come into existence in order to emphasise on the crime
committed by a person instead of affecting a person's mentally. Harming a person mentally is
regarded as crime under the legal terminology as various people are restricted in law. Lunatic
person are regarded as disqualified person according to the section 10 of the contract act as they
can't' get decision in the lunacy. Just like, in the criminal act intention of a person matters a lot
which differentiates their act among unintentional and intentional act. According to the section
13 of contract act 1872, act of a person that doesn't harm an individual are taken as mistake and
not a crime. In criminal law, intentional mistakes done by an individual to affect another party is
punished under the law (Bantekas and Nash, 2009).
2

In the current discussion, greater emphasis lies on determining the actual condition of Bill
in relation to the self incrimination rights according to which they will be protected against all
the personal questions asked by the ACC examiner. The scrutinizer can only ask question related
to the current matter that is to harm a child that covers under the sexual abuse act as the
intentional of bill is not good which amounts to punishment under the criminal law but prior to
interrogation conducted by a legal officer Bill is required to know about its self incrimination
rights in order to defend itself against the wrong questions asked by the examiner.
Question 2 Advise Bill as to whether AB’s answers to police questions, that AB believed Bill
was a “pedo,” and part of an international “pedo ring,” may be edited from his recorded
evidence
In the present case scenario several evidence have been gathered by the police and
authorized community. Further AB has provided answers to various questions as he is the victim
of the issue. It can be advised to the Bill that he cannot edit the recorded evidence as the court
possess the evidence of the same. In this regard if he makes efforts also then he can be held
responsible for his actions (Clopton, 2011). This has been determined that AB has believed that
Bill was a “pedo,” and part of an international “pedo ring,” this statement is stated before the
police also several videos have been found from the computer of Bill. Thus this states that all
those videos have been downloaded and devised by Bill only. Thus he cannot claim in terms that
it is not his. This is because all the videos belongs to him only. Therefore it is being advised to
him that he cannot remove or edit the evidence that are proving that he is in greater fault. This
demonstrates that AB has filed complaint against him which makes Bill liable for the actions that
being committed by him. Being at renowned position in the church he cannot ask for editing of
the videos that are acquired against him. Once the recorded evidence are being given to the
police they cannot be edited.
Question 3 Advise Ernie as to whether he can object to giving particular answers, or evidence
generally, before the ACC examiner, and in the County Court trial
In the present case Bill and Ernie are couple having same sex. It has been determined that
there is no role played by Ernie in the actions that are being committed by Bill. Thus there is no
liability of Ernie towards the actions that are being performed by Bill. It has been examined that
Ernie is no responsible to answer any thing and also he can object in country court trial or before
the ACC examiner. It is being identified that the evidence that were being found does not present
3

any role of Ernie nor he knows the manner in which computer can be operated. Thus in this case
it being examined that Ernie can object as he is not known about the actions that are being
committed by Bill. Thus both Ernie and Bill are couple but actions of Bill are not known and
also there is no evidence related with Ernie which does not make him criminal in the present
case.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded from the present study that the privilege against the self incrimination
is considered basic as well as substantive common law right. This is being inferred that it is not
just the rule related with evidence. Further it demonstrates the longer standing antipathy of the
common law towards mandatory interrogations with respect to criminal conduct. In the present
case Bill possess privilege but his would be punished on the basis of evidence that are possessed
by the court.
4

REFERENCES
Journals and Books
Bantekas, I. and Nash, S., 2009. International criminal law. Routledge.
Bronitt, S. and McSherry, B., 2010. Principles of criminal law. Thomson Reuters.
Clopton, Z. D., 2011. Bowman Lives: The Extraterritorial Application of US Criminal Law After
Morrison v. National Australia Bank.
Cryer, R., 2010. An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. Cambridge
University Press.
Cryer, R., Friman, H., Robinson, D. and Wilmshurst, E., 2007. An introduction to international
criminal law and procedure. Cambridge University Press.
Danner, A.M. and Martinez, J.S., 2005. Guilty associations: Joint criminal enterprise, command
responsibility, and the development of international criminal law. California Law Review.
pp.75-169.
Stephen, J. F., 2014. A history of the criminal law of England (Vol. 2). Cambridge University
Press.
Online
Privilege: Other Privileges. 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/15.%20Privilege%3A%20Other%20Privileges/
privilege-respect-self-incrimination-other-proceedings>. [Accessed on 8th June 2017].
5