Chain of Evidence in UK Law

"In determining what is relevant to a Royal Commission inquiry, regard must be had to its investigatory character. Where broad terms of reference are given to it, as in this case, the commission is not determining issues between parties but conducting a thorough investigation into the subject matter. This flows from the very nature of the inquiry being undertaken."

It seems to me that the line of authorities to which Mr. Serota referred, and to which I do not find it necessary to refer in detail, show that there is no general power in the police, when they have lawfully seized property which is thereafter not the subject of any charge and is clearly shown not to have beenstolen, to retain that property as against the person entitled to possession of it against some uncertain future contingency.

The substance of the test is thus that there must be grounds to apprehend danger to the witness, and those grounds must be reasonable, rather than fanciful. Other points that emerge from the cases are these:

Thus, in my judgment, it is sufficient to support a claim to privilege against self-incrimination that the answers sought might lead to a line of inquiry which would or might form a significant step in the chain of evidence required for a prosecution. I find support for this view in the judgments in In Re Westinghouse (supra) and in Rank Film Distributors v. Video Information Centre [1982] A.C. 38.

Unless the defendant consents, it is only the court applying the strict conditions of the CJA 2003 based on evidence that can admit such a statement. Any indication, let alone an assurance, can only give rise to an expectation that this will indeed happen, when if it does the impact of the evidence will be diminished and the disadvantage to the accused may result in it not being given at all.

If two or more people intend and agree to commit an act that they know to be unlawful, then knowledge or mistake as to a fact critical to the success of the conspiracy is immaterial to its proof; the intention is proxy for, or more correctly an alternative to, knowledge of such a fact.

However, in insurance Lord Mansfield's proposition did survive (in a form). Moreover, not all insurance contracts nowadays are made by those who engage in commerce. The existence of widespread insurance contracts of a consumer nature presents new problems. It may be necessary to give wider effect to the doctrine of good faith and recognise that its impact may demand that ultimately regard must be had to a concept of proportionality implicit in fair dealing.