Admissible evidence meaning

Evidence of bad character Identify material relied on. Confirm it falls within CJA 2003 s98; if not, state its relevance. Set out the basis for admission: gateway(s) under ss101–106, reliance on conviction alone or its circumstances, key facts and proof. For unproven conduct or acquittals: outline facts, disputes, and why admission will not cause collateral litigation. Deal with each ground by the relevant gateway (ss102–106). Important explanatory evidence Under s101(1)(c): show that, without it, the tribunal would struggle to understand other evidence, and its value is substantial. Propensity to commit offences/be untruthful Under s101(1)(d): show convictions evidence propensity (same description/category), why that increases likelihood of guilt, and admission is fair. Consider number of convictions, behavioural tendency, similarities (eg modus operandi), gaps, and whether earlier untruthfulness arose (eg disbelieved accounts or false representations). Correct a false impression Under s101(1)(f): show a false impression per s105...

Private actions The CAT has issued an order in Infederation Ltd v Google LLC and Others, concerning an admissibility application in a private damages claim brought by the price-comparison website Foundem against Google, arising from the European Commission’s 2017 Google Search (Shopping) infringement decision (Case AT.39740). The CAT’s order dismisses Google’s bid to exclude the witness statements in their entirety, confirming that, where appropriate, witnesses of fact may provide opinion evidence informed by their own expertise and experience, and that such material is not automatically inadmissible solely because the witness is not independent—see further, order. NOTE—For live UK private actions that have been made public, see the UK private actions—ongoing cases tracker. Upcoming dates—For details of forthcoming UK competition developments, see the UK Competition calendar...

The EU General Court has set aside the first round of sanctions on Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, ruling that the evidence did not adequately demonstrate links to Vladimir Putin’s regime or efforts to destabilise Ukraine following Russia’s 2022 invasion. The pair—major shareholders in Alfa Group, the conglomerate behind the Russian heavyweight Alfa Bank—remain listed while their challenge to a subsequent package of measures, imposed in March 2023 after their designation, moves through the courts in a separate action. Lawyers suggest this early win may encourage some of the other 1,700 listed people and organisations with cases before the European court, especially where proceedings in England have fizzled out. Maria Nizzero, a financial crime and security specialist at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, said the decision marks a notable departure from UK court cases, where judges have shown marked deference to decision-makers and adopted a broad view of admissible evidence. The EU court delivered its judgment weeks after the Court of Appeal dismissed challenges by two other...

The SFO disclosed via a Freedom of Information Act request that it had spent £16m over a decade probing ENRC, before abandoning the prosecution in 2023 due to a lack of admissible evidence. Since 2016, the agency has further paid £12m to external lawyers, including Eversheds Sutherland LLP, on civil proceedings as it defended the original decision to commence the criminal inquiry. An SFO spokesperson on 6 November 2024 said the expenditure reflected a lengthy, complex investigation that pursued every reasonable lead, alongside a robust defence of ENRC’s claims following the launch of the probe. The figures were posted on the SFO’s website on 31 October 2024. However, ENRC’s sought damages in the civil action could yet surpass those sums. ENRC, the mining giant at the centre of the probe, was investigated for ten years, with the SFO stressing that reasonable avenues were pursued before the case was halted...

This Practice Note highlights key points when drafting and making a ‘without prejudice’ offer, ensuring any document recording it is not admissible in a court or tribunal. What is without prejudice? As relevant evidence on an issue for a court or tribunal, written communications or records of conversations between parties to a dispute are admissible in evidence. Under the law of England and Wales, parties may, in defined circumstances, stop oral statements or written communications that contain an offer, concession or admission against their interest being admitted in evidence. If protection applies, such statements or documents cannot be shown to the court or tribunal. This is known as the ‘without prejudice’ rule, which has exceptions, some listed in Exceptions to without prejudice protection. The rule is not a blanket exclusion; assessed objectively, it depends on: a dispute existing between the parties to the communication or conversation (directly or through agents); and the purpose of the communication or conversation being either to...

This Practice Note sets out whether the claim form must be sealed before service within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Does the claim form need to be sealed prior to service? Proceedings begin when the court issues the claim form (CPR 7.2(1)), which is evidenced by the application of the court seal. The CPR glossary explains that a seal is the mark placed on a document to show it has been issued by the court. When considering the seal on a claim form, note that: the court may apply the seal by hand or by printing a facsimile on the document, including by electronic means a document that appears to bear the court’s seal is admissible in evidence without further proof (section 132, Senior Courts Act 1981) General requirement—service of the original sealed claim form A claim form cannot be validly served unless the seal has been added, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Ideal Shopping...

While the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA 2016) largely superseded the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000), the Part III provisions of RIPA 2000—dealing with the ability of public bodies to issue notices requiring the decryption of encrypted information or the provision of decryption keys—remain in effect, albeit as modified by the IPA 2016. For further details on the IPA 2016, see Practice Note: The regulation of intelligence gathering—an introductory guide... Investigation of encrypted electronic data RIPA 2000, Pt III governs investigations by a public authority into electronic data protected by encryption. The statutory scheme is supplemented by a Code of Practice, which is admissible in evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings. A wide range of methods enable businesses, individuals and criminals to secure and protect their electronic data and to maintain the privacy of their electronic communications. Such protection can be implemented in various ways; at its simplest, a password may unlock the data and render it accessible in an intelligible form...