Mr. Edward Putman has been charged with the intent of wounding Mr. Kurt. Thus, as his legal defendant and lawyer, I will be addressing some of the evidential issues, such as the interview of Mr. Putman by the police, and the available evidence, including the character of Putman.

Admissibility and weight to be given to Putman’s police interview

Mr. Putman was interviewed on 12/08/2018. The interview started at 10 am and lasted within 30 minutes, being held at Letzby Avenue Police Station of Blunderwell Police. Putman was interviewed by DS Fiona Fairchild and DC Gary Goodenough. Fiona Fin was also present during the interview as a solicitor. Putman was cautioned on the fact that everything he said could have been used as evidence, and against him. Therefore, assuming that he had a defense point, it was time to use it. However, if he had not said anything it could not have been used later to defend him. Edward Putman did not answer any questions regarding the incident.

The police officers followed the set procedure, according to which they first informed Edward Putman regarding his rights. He did not ask for any legal advice meaning the officers could question him. The latter informed him that he decided to refuse from speaking or answering any questions, yet keeping quiet could harm his defense. However, in this case, under the UK Law, the Criminal Justice Act of 1994 ss 34-37, the silence of Mr. Edward Putman can be used against him through adverse inference (CPS, 2018). Section 37 stipulates that when someone refuses to account for his whereabouts at a certain time, they can be arrested and convicted. It is achieved in the case of Putman because there are existing offense proceedings in the court against him. Therefore, about Act, 38 section 3 of CJPOA of 1994, the existence of prima facie supports the conviction based on adverse inference when the subject decides to remain silent during an interview. In this case, it is assumed that Putman reuses from giving evidence since his answers could damage the proceedings of his case. In other words, the answers he provides may be deemed incriminating or he decided to keep quiet since he assumed that there was a lack of evidence to convict him.

Best Price To Buy
Type of assignment
Writer level
Number of pages
Order total: $ 12.99
First order only: $ 11.04

The advice that Putman should consider is to cooperate with the police and answer the questions since this interview has a considerable impact on a court proceeding. Cooperating helps eliminate the probability of engaging in adverse inference. The answers given to the police can be used to persuade in not to be charged, which can serve as mitigation for avoiding court proceedings. Moreover, it is possible to use the interview as a process for defending oneself. Section 34 stipulates that when an accused refuses to mention any evidence or information that can be applied during the court happenings, inference will be charged. However, in compliance with section 35, his silence cannot be used as guilt or his well-being. Thus, in the case of Edward, he is mentally and physically healthy though the prosecution cannot charge his silence as guilt. It is dependent on whether his silence had a solid reason (, 2018).

Admissibility of Allsop’s evidence

Kurt Allsop gave his statement after Putman on date 14/08/2018. Under UK law, a personal statement of the victim helps to show the effects of the crime, while the victim expresses any kind of concern they may have. It is evident in the statement that Kurt expresses concerns as his family has been threatened. Based on the police interview with Putman, he deals with a known gang. Consequently, the police ask whether there is any misunderstanding between the gang and Kurt. Therefore, the concerns that the man shows may be considered factual, whereas he may need some legal support from the police. According to the code of practice for victims under UK law, the victims are considered and provided respect without discrimination (BBC News, 2017). Moreover, they have a right to be protected from being re-victimized. Therefore, Kurt has the legal right to receive support and protection for himself and his family. The statement of the accused is admissible in the court and he can receive enhanced entitlements since he is an intimidated victim. Moreover, the support and protection that Kurt and his family require will be provided by the identified service providers according to the law (Ministry of Justice, 2015). After reporting the crime, he receives an acknowledgment, including the details of the reported crime. Kurt is informed about possible implications and what to expect from the criminal justice system. Moreover, he is aware of an assessment of the support he could attain.

First-time customers get 15%OFF

Kurt should receive the provided help, since Edward Putman, who is supposedly a member of the gang, may have the capability and resources to harm his family. Therefore, he should accept assistance from the service providers. However, it is his personal choice to decide whether they should accept further services to help resolve the given incident (Ministry of Justice, 2015). The incident may not cause major psychological problems for Kurt or other adults. However, if the family has children it would be beneficial for their upbringing to receive some kind of assistance to recover from its occurrence. It is important to identify that chapter 1 of the Code of Practice, paragraphs 1.13 and 1.14, stipulate that intimidated victims should undergo pre-trial therapy and counseling. Kurt shows concern and reluctance in reporting the crime, which is a way of showing the need for undergoing therapy and counseling. During the investigation, Kurt has the right to be informed when the suspect is charged or arrested, if he is released on bail, and when he receives a warning instead. Moreover, he has the right to be aware of the investigation occurrence to the last judgment regarding the case (Ministry of Justice, 2015). The information obtained from the police investigation is given to the Crown Prosecution Service which determines whether the case will be passed to the court.

Admissibility of Bailey’s evidence

The evidence has corresponding discrepancies, which lead to rejection in the court. Consequently, it is impossible to prove that Edward Putman was identified as the man that hurt Kurt. The taxi driver was confident that Edward was the man who had committed the crime. Moreover, the driver may have to attend court if the need arises. However, it is dependent on the proceedings of the court (gov. UK, 2018). The statement was direct and reasonable, showing that there were probably no inaccuracies in the evidence.

The given evidence can be used in court, and it is admissible since it meets the proof needed to use the statement respectively. It is signed by the witness declaring the facts, which he considers true. Any written evidence or statement is provided as an exhibit of evidence to be applied in the court proceedings. Moreover, only the court can decide whether to reject this statement as evidence or to accept it (gov. UK, 2018). Section 9 and 10 of the 1967 Criminal Justice Act stipulates that the written and signed statement can be used as evidence and that the witnesses do not have to attend the court. However, it is necessary to note that a statement from a witness, even when meeting the requirements, does not occur as conclusive evidence. Consequently, similarly to the oral evidence, the statement is to be judged and evaluated according to its significance for the court proceedings (Judicial College, 2016). Edward Putman’s legal service has the power to object to the evidence provided in written forms, which necessitates giving notice to the other parties regarding the evidence. Thus, the use and reliance of the written statement from the taxi driver will depend on the court proceedings and whether the other party objects to or accepts the statement. The criminal law approves the statement as it meets all the requirements to be admissible in court and to be used as an oral statement.

Identification evidence and Turnbull's direction

Identification of evidence is one of the problems that courts face since it determines whether the evidence can help in making the judgment of guilty or not guilty for the culprit. According to the law, when the defendant is not properly identified, the judgment should be not guilty. However, according to the Turnbull guidelines, when the culprit cannot be fully identified, it is necessary to remove the focus on such evidence. Therefore, in most cases, the identification is usually wrong. For example, the written evidence from the taxi driver does not identify the person, whom the witness identifies as the culprit. Thus, based on the given statement, there is a chance that the witness does not point to Edward Putman. Finally, in his victims’ statement, Kurt does say that Edward Putman was with Josh Marlan. Thus, the taxi driver may need to attend court proceedings to provide oral evidence of the information provided in the written statement. According to the law, it is necessary to reveal the person identified by the witness.

The case relies on the identification evidence from the victim and the witness as presented in the statements. Therefore, the Turnbull direction is evident, since numerous dangers guide the judgments of the jury. Consequently, the jury must have undeniable evidence to avoid injustices caused by the wrong identification of the defendant. The witness’s testimonies are only true and honest in their mind, the witnesses may be convincing, which stipulates that there is a possibility of their wrongness. It occurs during identification when the witnesses recognize that the defendant may be wrong (in brief, 2018). Therefore, while defending the defendant, this information may be useful due to the issues, such as the distance between the witnesses and the culprit, the time for the incident, and the state of the light, was enough for the taxi driver to consider everything he saw about the case. The identification of Edward could be due to the fact of his profile as a gang member as well as the previous encounter of the taxi driver with the defendant (Emson, 2017). Moreover, the time necessary to make an identification and many other issues are important in revealing the facts. The given information could be used to help reject the statement from the taxi driver. In addition, their silence of Edward should not be used against him when making the judgment. The case requires conducting a precise examination to determine the reasons which led to the identification of the defendant. However, knowing the issues related to the revealing of the problems, other supporting evidence should be used to make corresponding judgments (Code D, 2017). The defendant’s legal team can question the procedures used to identify Edward to ensure that mistaken identification does not occur. However, if there is information that supports the identification evidence, it will be used despite poor determination. In the case of Edward, the information or video recording of the CCTV footage of the club will be applied to define the weight of the provided statements. According to the Code of Practice for identifying criminals, the statement should accurately describe the suspect and an individual should be able to recognize this person through the description. The statement of the taxi driver does not provide irrefutable evidence and can easily be dissolved from the case. It is more appropriate to question someone orally compared to a sworn statement.

CCTV Footage

The CCTV footage is not admissible in court. Consequently, the footage does not show the clear face of the culprit (Edward) in question. However, it is supposed to record the images of certain places, such as the club, where Kurt worked. Therefore, the identification evidence is not admissible in the court, since there is a lack of information or vision to show that Edward was the one responsible for the crime committed. Moreover, the CCTV can be used as evidence if it meets the required regulations, whereas the footage should not invade the privacy of other people (, 2013). The areas, where the CCTV footage is placed, should provide warnings informing people that the CCTV camera is recording the happenings. The footage can be used if it attains the set goal, which ensures the safety of the area while ensuring control over the premises among other suspicious actions. In this case, the footage could be used in court against Edward. However, since the image in the CCTV is not clear, it cannot be admissible in court. For example, the legal team could find a person who resembles Edward Putman and show that the identification evidence could be mistaken. Therefore, despite following all the data protection rules of surveillance, the footage cannot be applied as evidence in court.

Putman’s Previous Convictions – Bad character evidence and good character evidence

Character evidence is important for case proceedings. Putman has two convictions, one refers to theft while another deals with grievous bodily harm. However, he has a good character as he currently works for a charity that rescues seals. His character is associated with moral qualities, whereas theft and harming others show a lack of morals. However, it is not limited to the moral qualities of a person and may include other non-moral characteristics. Even thouthisthe statement of Bailey may not be admissible, the jury may conclude that Edward has an aggressive attitude and that he easily irritates. Based on his second conviction, it is evident that Edward could intentionally harm a person. Therefore, since the police associated him with a gang and his previous convictions, it is easy to prove that Putman could be the victim and condemn him according to this character. It can be considered as a fixed behavior, where he acts in this aggressive mood.

However, he is currently working for a charity organization, that deals with rescuing seals that seem to be in distress. The character is considered positive, where the credibility of the witnesses will help to determine the guilt of the defendant. On the one hand, the taxi driver and Harriet Bailey are not credible witnesses, since Harriet may have been influenced to provide the second statement that may be used to convict Edward. On the other hand, the taxi driver’s statement could be refuted, since he was not close to the place to see the occurred assault. Moreover, the lighting in the club and the time of the assault may lead to misidentification. Thus, he was acquitted with Edward for a long period while in the taxi, which may have influenced the decision to pinpoint him as the culprit. Therefore, though his behavior could harm his defense, the credibility of the witnesses is the single credible and reliable source of evidence that could lead to his judgment of being guilty.

Any Judicial directions/warnings could the Jury expected to receive

  • Adverse inference and right to silence

The defendant exercised his constitutional right to remain silent. His silence should not be accepted as guilt. It could relate to the defendant concealing embarrassing facts, protecting others, distrustful attitude towards the police, especially in this case, since he has a criminal record (Justia, 2018). More importantly, silence may be used in this situation because the suspect lacked evidence to confidently prove otherwise, whereas the suspect (Edward) may have been intoxicated or tired to prove the opposite among other issues.

Moreover, the right to silence is exercised to eliminate the possible unfair investigation. It helps to ensure that the evidence provided by the police is reliable and credible stipulating that the need to remain silent does not exist. More importantly, such behavior does not influence the investigation proceedings of the police. Their investigations should provide the truth despite the silence of the defendant.

  • Makanjuola Direction

There is a lack of irrefutable proof to show that Edward committed the reported crime. Therefore, the judge should provide warnings, since the provided evidence is not completely reliable. Thus, the warning related to this section is to provide an evidential basis that can support the evidence of the witnesses (Emson, 2017).

It is worth noting that there is a lack of proof to show that he intentionally committed the crime. Thus, the defendant’s team argues that the witnesses did not see what happened, since he did not touch Kurt. Therefore, the conviction of Edward cannot be held, leading to the necessity of counsel with the Makanjuola warning to determine the proceedings of the court (Emson, 2017). More importantly, there is a risk of false testimony, which supposedly occurred in the court and may have led to corroboration. Consequently, the jury accepted the false facts and used them to make judgments about the case.

  • Lucus's Direction

The defendant was silent during his interview with the police. Moreover, Kurt, the victim, is dead, and he cannot be present in the court to determine the truthfulness of the facts. Harriet provided two different statements showing that there was a possibility of her false testimony as a witness. In addition, the footage and the statement of the taxi driver are not reliable to support the complainant’s case (Judicial College, 2016). The facts provided by the taxi driver have discrepancies thus being not reliable without supporting evidence. The defendant did not lie as he exercised his right to remain silent. Therefore, there is a lack of proof to reveal that he lied. The same refers to the statements of the witnesses used about the complainant’s case.


The provided evidence has some major discrepancies, which proves false testimonies in the court. There are some key reasons for which Edward exercised his right to silence during the interview, such as his character with previous convictions, and lack of trust in the police among others. The questions in the witness’s statements can be associated with Edward’s silence. The entire process includes discrepancies, which leads to the conclusion that Edward is not guilty of the accused crime.

Related essays

  1. Jarvis V. Ford Co. Case Analysis
  2. Modernization of Police Agencies and Administrations
  3. Juvenile Corrections
  4. Treatment Model Proposal
Chat with Support