In legal terms, a fact is considered relevant if it contributes to making the existence or non-existence of a fact in question more or less likely. However, some facts that are generally not relevant may become important under specific conditions. These facts gain relevance when they help clarify or provide context to a legal issue, making them crucial in certain situations despite their initial irrelevance.
One way facts that are not initially relevant can become significant is when they contradict a fact in issue or a relevant fact. For instance, if the issue at hand is whether someone was at a specific location at a certain time, and it is proven that they were elsewhere at that time, this becomes relevant evidence. Although the fact of the person being in a different location may not have been relevant initially, its inconsistency with the fact in question makes it significant.
Another instance where facts not initially relevant may become important is when they significantly increase or decrease the likelihood of a fact in issue or a relevant fact. For example, if the question is whether a person committed a crime, and it is shown that the person had a motive for doing so, this would be relevant evidence. Even though having a motive might not be relevant on its own, it becomes important because it makes the act in question more probable.
Here are some specific instances where facts, though not initially relevant, may become significant:
- Motive, preparation, and prior or subsequent conduct: Any fact that demonstrates motive or preparation for a fact in issue or a relevant fact becomes relevant. For example, if the case involves a murder, the fact that the accused purchased a murder weapon shortly before the crime would be considered relevant evidence, even though the mere purchase of the weapon might not otherwise be pertinent.
- Expert opinion: Facts not directly relevant may gain importance if they support or contradict the opinion of an expert when such opinions are key to the case. For instance, if the issue is whether someone was insane at the time of a crime, the expert testimony of a psychiatrist would be relevant. The expert could also present facts that either support or conflict with their opinion, such as the person’s family history of mental illness or their behavior in the days before the crime.
- Identity: Facts may become relevant if they help establish the identity of a person or thing. For example, if the question is whether a particular individual committed a crime, the fact that this person has a unique tattoo becomes relevant evidence, even though having the tattoo would not otherwise be significant.
- Existence of a course of conduct: Facts that prove the existence of a pattern of behavior or habit are also relevant. For example, in a case where the issue is whether someone was speeding at the time of an accident, the fact that they have been caught speeding multiple times in the past becomes relevant, even though their prior speeding incidents might not ordinarily matter.
It’s important to note that the court has discretion in determining whether a fact that is otherwise irrelevant becomes relevant in a particular case. The court will weigh the facts and the intended purpose of the evidence in making its decision.
Here are examples of cases where facts, though not initially relevant, became significant:
- R v Smith (1914): In this case, the defendant was charged with murdering his wife, with the prosecution alleging that he had poisoned her with arsenic. They presented evidence showing that the defendant had purchased arsenic shortly before his wife’s death. The defense argued that this evidence was not relevant, but the court ruled that it was, as it demonstrated that the defendant had the means to commit the crime.
- Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales (1894): The defendant was accused of murdering his three-year-old daughter by drowning her in a bathtub. The prosecution introduced evidence that the defendant had previously threatened to kill his daughter. Although the defense objected to the relevance of this evidence, the court determined that it was relevant, as it showed the defendant had a motive for committing the crime.
- R v Hall (1965): In this case, the defendant was charged with breaking into a house and stealing money. The prosecution claimed that the defendant had entered the house through a window. They presented evidence that the defendant had a distinctive scar on his left hand. Despite the defense’s objections that this evidence was not relevant, the court ruled that it was, as it could be used to identify the defendant as the person responsible for the break-in.
- R v Wright (1997): The defendant was charged with drug dealing, and the prosecution presented evidence that he had been involved in drug-related activities for years. They also introduced evidence showing that the defendant had previously been caught with drugs on multiple occasions. The defense argued that this evidence was irrelevant, but the court held that it was relevant, as it established a pattern of drug dealing.
These cases highlight that facts, while not immediately relevant, can become significant if they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue more or less probable. The court has discretion in determining the relevance of such facts, considering the details of the case and the purpose of the evidence.
A plea of alibi is a defense in criminal cases where the defendant asserts that they were not present at the scene when the crime occurred. While this can be a strong defense, it requires substantial evidence to support the claim.
In cases such as R v Smith, Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales, R v Hall, and R v Wright, an alibi defense would likely not succeed. The prosecution presented evidence that placed the defendants near or at the crime scene. For instance, in R v Smith, the defendant’s purchase of arsenic shortly before his wife’s death implied premeditation. In Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales, the defendant’s prior threats suggested a motive. In R v Hall, the defendant’s distinctive scar helped identify him as the person who broke into the house. Similarly, in R v Wright, a history of drug offenses established a pattern of behavior, linking the defendant to the crime.
That said, an alibi defense could succeed, even when the prosecution has strong evidence, if the defendant can provide reliable testimony or documentation that places them elsewhere at the time of the crime. For instance, witnesses confirming the defendant’s presence at a different location, or evidence that discredits the prosecution’s witnesses, could bolster an alibi.
The success of an alibi defense largely depends on the specific details of the case and the strength of the defendant’s evidence.
Tips for Presenting an Alibi Defense:
- Clearly state your whereabouts during the time of the crime.
- Provide witnesses who can confirm your alibi.
- Present supporting documentation such as receipts, phone records, or travel itineraries.
- Be ready to address the prosecution’s questions about your alibi.
If you are considering using an alibi defense, it’s crucial to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney to ensure the strongest possible case.