This thesis identifies what is described as “similar fact evidence properly so called”. It then proceeds to a critical examination of the historical treatment, by common law courts around the world, of additional misdeeds of a criminal accused, and argues that the current state of confusion surrounding the subject is due primarily to the failure to acknowledge that relevance is the key to admissibility.
| Date of Award | 8 Feb 2014 |
|---|
| Original language | English |
|---|
| Supervisor | Lee Stuesser (Supervisor) & William Van Caenegem (Supervisor) |
|---|
A Statutory Formula for the Admission of Similar Fact Evidence Against a Criminal Accused
Field, D. (Author). 8 Feb 2014
Student thesis: Doctoral Thesis