is an inference of guilt which the judge may, in certain circumstances, direct the jury that they are permitted to draw

a sub-species of legal professional privilege which protects from disclosure communications made with the dominant purpose of seeking or obtaining legal advice

a person acting for the authorities who sets out to provoke others into committing a crime. The use of an agent provocateur may make it unfair to prosecute the crime they have provoked

must be given by police before questioning to persons whom there are grounds to suspect of an offence. The current words of the caution, to be found in PACE Code C para 10.5(b), ‘You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.’

partner in a relationship analogous to marriage sanctioned by the state for homosexual partnerships

used of a witness whose evidence in court matches what was said before the trial

is additional evidence or evidence of a different kind that supports a proof already offered in a proceeding

the extent to which an assertion or a witness can be believed

body of rules governing procedure in criminal courts

(now called Public Interest Immunity (PII)) a claim for exemption from disclosure for government documents

procedure by which a party to litigation gives lists to the opposing party of relevant documents (including privileged documents) which are or were in his possession

(deoxyribonucleic acid) unique genetic material found in a person’s body cells and secretions

documents qualify for legal professional privilege if made for the main reason of giving legal advice or conducting litigation

finding a match for the impression left by a criminal’s ear at the scene of a crime

a procedure whereby a person may be tricked into committing an offence by undercover actions of a state official or non-state actors such as journalists. It is not recognised as a specific defence in English law, unlike the position in the United States, but abuse of the procedure may require stay of prosecution or exclusion of evidence under s78 PACE

part of the concept of fair trial under Art 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to put his case under conditions which do not place him at a substantial disadvantage compared with his opponent. Includes the requirement that a party should be able to see all the evidence before the court

used for hearings in which one side appears without notice to the other

a statement tending to exonerate its maker

a technique for matching a ­suspect or the image of a suspect with a photograph or video image

a jury is often referred to loosely as the trier of fact on the basis that the judge decides issues of law and leaves determination of the facts to the jury. A judge or tribunal without a jury acts as fact-finder as well as deciding issues of law

the weighty or serious part of an offence

a witness is presumed hostile if he testifies for the opposing party. A party can have one of his own witnesses declared hostile if the witness’s evidence turns out to be openly antagonistic or clearly prejudicial. The witness can then be asked leading questions

a statement tending to incriminate its maker

a sub-species of legal professional privilege which protects from disclosure communications made with the dominant purpose of use in litigation

(Latin for ‘guilty mind’) the state of mind required to commit an offence. Contrasts with the criminal act (‘actus reus’ in Latin). The general principle is that the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty

a rule of statutory construction requiring the court to interpret a statutory provision by reference to the wrong which the statute was intended to put right

refers to the oral examination of witnesses as a fundamental feature of the trial in English law. Oral evidence contrasts with evidence given by affidavit

is the right of a party to refuse to disclose a document or answer questions

is that which shows a pattern of prior criminal behaviour by the defendant or suspect

under the Terrorism Act 2000, are officially designated by the authorities as terrorist organizations, making membership or financial support of the proscribed organization a criminal offence

a method of predicting the psychological make-up of the perpetrator on the basis of the nature of a crime

a common law exception to the rule against hearsay, making a statement admissible as evidence of any matter stated, if its maker was so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded

the normal rule for allocating the burden of proof is that ‘he who asserts must prove’. Where there is a reverse burden the party against whom a fact is asserted must disprove it, which in criminal cases detracts from the presumption of innocence since it places the burden of proof on the defendant

a rather misleadingly named principle that evidence of the accused’s past misconduct may be admissible as evidence of guilt; since the similarity between the earlier behaviour and that in the current case is so similar, it is unlikely to be a coincidence. Previously a common law rule now covered by CJA 2003 in criminal trials and by the common law in civil cases

appointed by the government and given security clearance to represent the interests of suspects and defendants who cannot be allowed to see the evidence themselves. Primarily but not exclusively used in terrorism cases. The advocate may not reveal to the suspect sensitive materials they have seen. In ex parte hearings on PII claims, the barrister representing the absent party is known as a special counsel

an order of the court which has the effect of preventing any further moves in the case either indefinitely or for a fixed period

a term in a statute which has the effect of repealing a provision after a certain time unless additional specific legislation ­extends it

evidence given on oath

a word or phrase that has a specialised meaning within a particular occupation or field

used loosely to describe parties who are not directly involved in the primary dispute between defence and prosecution in criminal cases or claimant and defendant in civil suits

a ‘trial within the trial’ to determine, eg, the admissibility of evidence or the defendant’s fitness to plead. Also describes the process of selecting a jury, especially in the United States

unreasonableness conduct so unreasonable that no reasonable person (or body) could do it, after the public law case Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn (1948)

of a piece evidence is the extent, if any, to which the jury find it convincing of guilt