POL00124133
POL00124133
Royal Mail Group
Royal Mail Internal Information
Investigation Team
Appendix 1 to 5.4 Rules and
Continuity of Evidence
Version 6 Final
May 2018
Review Date: May 2020
Alan Bartholomew
Senior Intelligence Manger
Royal Mail
Telephone
Mobile
© Royal Mail 2018 ~ 5.4.1 Appendix 1 to P&S 5.4 Rules and Continuity of Evidence RM V6 — Page 1 of 8
POL00124133
POL00124133
Contents
Key Accountabilities
1. Introduction
2. Competence and Compellability of Witnesses
3. Hearsay Evidence
4. Bad Character Evidence
5. Other Types of Evidence
6. Continuity of Evidence
Change Control
Glossary
ONOnAThRARW
© Royal Mall 2018 ~ 5.4.1 Appendix 1 to P&S 5.4 Rules and Continuity of Evidence RM V6 — Page 2 of 8
POL00124133
POL00124133
Key Accountabilities
Who is What do I have to When do I have How dol do
accountable? do? to do this? this?
All members of Ensure you comply Ongoing As detailed within
Royal Mail Group with these these procedures
Security procedures
© Royal Mail 2018 ~ 5.4.1 Appendix 1 to P&S 5.4 Rules and Continuity of Evidence RM V6~ Page 3 of 8
POL00124133
POL00124133
Rules and Continuity of Evidence
1. Introduction
1.1 For the Investigator obtaining information, gathering evidence and seeking the truth are the
primary goals. The word evidence is used to describe the means by which a point of issue may
be proved, or disproved, in a manner complying with the legal rules governing the subject; these
rules are known as the “Rules of Evidence”.
1.2 Scotland and Northern Ireland. This Appendix details the rules and types of evidence in
England and Wales. The principles should be treated as good practice in Scotland and Northern
Ireland. References to advice from the Criminal Law Team (CLT) should be directed to the
Procurator Fiscal in Scotland and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland.
2. Competence and Compellability of Witnesses
2.1 Awitness is competent if he/she can lawfully give evidence. The principle is set out in Section
53 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. There are two exceptions;
2.1.1 Where it appears to the court that a person is not able to understand questions put to them
as a witness and give answers to them which can be understood,
2.1.2 A person charged in criminal proceedings is not competent to give evidence for the
prosecution.
At a trial, the Judge or the Magistrate(s) will decide if a witness is competent. Most witnesses
who are competent can be compelled to give evidence. The only exception relates to spouses
or civil partners.
2.2 Spouses or Civil Partners can only be compelled to give evidence for the prosecution against
their partner in cases which involve sexual or violent offences. However, spouses or civil
partners are generally competent to give evidence against their partners. That is to say if a
spouse or civil partner is content to be a witness against their partner then they can be. The only
exception to this is if the spouses or civil partners are jointly charged. If they are, neither is
competent or compellable on behalf of the prosecution, against the other. Former spouses and
civil partners are both competent and compellable.
2.3 Children. The test for competence applies to all witnesses; however, children under the age of
fourteen years always give unsworn evidence. Children of any age can be called to give
evidence. Their competence depends upon their understanding, not their age. The court will
apply the following test;
2.3.1 Is the child of sufficient intelligence to justify them giving evidence?
2.3.2 Does the child understand the duty to tell the truth?
2.4 Compelling Witness. If it is thought that a witness will not attend court without being compelled
then advice should be sought from the CLT as to whether their attendance is necessary. If soa
witness summons can be obtained.
3. Hearsay Evidence
3.1 Hearsay evidence is evidence of something a person does not know for him or herself, but has
been told by another. The admissibility of hearsay evidence is fairly complex and a matter for the
Court and the CLT. In order to comply with the hearsay rules Investigators should always adhere
to the principle of best evidence. This is to say, if practicable, Investigators should always go the
source of any evidence rather than relying on evidence of witnesses who had been told
something by a another party.
3.2 As an example, say an Investigator was taking a statement from a Delivery Office Manager
(DOM); the DOM had been told by one of his managers that they had witnessed a postman
sorting a large number of greeting cards to a particular selection on the sorting frame. As a result
the DOM carried out a frame check and discovered a bundle of missorted greeting cards in an
incorrect selection. The evidence from the DOM should be to the effect that as a result of a
conversation with their manager they performed a frame check and discovered a missorted
© Royal Mail 2018 ~ 5.4.1 Appendix 1 to P&S 5.4 Rules and Continuity of Evidence RM V6- Page 4 of 8
3.3
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
POL00124133
POL00124133
bundle. A separate statement should be recorded from the manager detailing exactly what they
saw. (Of course in a case where the source of the information does not want to be identified for
fear of reprisal then Investigators must be careful to protect their identity in accordance with P&S
1.1 Informants and the Intelligence Source Register.)
If you are in doubt about the admissibility or necessity of potential hearsay evidence in your case
you should seek advice from the CLT.
Bad Character Evidence
The Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003 introduced legislation in respect of the admissibility of bad
character evidence. The legislation covers the bad character of both the defendant and
witnesses in the case. Bad character evidence is defined as evidence of, or of a disposition
towards, misconduct and does not just include previous convictions. Should any Investigator at
any stage become aware of any evidence indicating a witness is of bad character they should
seek advice from the CLT.
Other Types of Evidence
Direct Evidence is evidence that directly proves the facts in question at court. It is something
that the witness themselves have knowledge of, something they have seen, heard, smelt, felt or
touched. An example of this is producing an opened Test letter in court which proves that it
exists. If the offender had the Test letter with him when he was apprehended a statement from
an Investigator should prove that it was in the offender’s possession at the time of the
apprehension.
Documentary Evidence is in simple terms information or writing contained within a document.
As well as actual documents, such as interview summaries, search records and signing on
sheets, it also includes such things as master recordings, photographs, sketch plans etc.
Circumstantial Evidence is evidence, not of the fact in question but of other issues, from which
the fact in question may be inferred. For instance, a delivery officer is handed a Test postal
packet, which he/she is due to deliver and subsequently the Test postal packet cover is found,
minus its contents, in a bin at the office. The recovery of the opened Test postal packet is direct
evidence. The fact that it was found in a bin is circumstantial evidence as it infers that the
delivery officer may have stolen the contents. For circumstantial evidence to be useful more than
one circumstance should exist. The fact that no one else was in the delivery office at the time
between the delivery officer being handed the test item and it being found in the bin would also
be circumstantial evidence. In the case R v Exall (1866) Judge Pollock described circumstantial
evidence as, “....a combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable
conviction, or more than a mere suspicion, but the whole, taken together, may create a strong
conclusion of guilt...”
Corroborative evidence is that which tends to support the truth and accuracy of evidence
already given. It is a general rule that a Courts’ decision can be made on the evidence of one
person. There are exceptions to this such as perjury and speeding which require corroboration to
secure a conviction. Corroboration should be sought, if possible, during and after any
investigation, as it will add extra weight to the existing evidence. In Scotland all evidence must
be corroborated if at all possible.
Opinion Evidence is, as a general rule, only allowed in evidence from expert witnesses, for
example a Doctor can detail someone’s injuries; a handwriting expert can state that, in their
considered opinion, similarities exist that would strongly suggest two documents were written by
the same person. A non-expert can give opinion on such things that might well be interpreted as
a fact, for example identification of a person or object, the speed of a moving vehicle,
temperature, time, value of an item and whether a person is drunk (however, the witness is
required to describe the facts upon which this opinion is based). It is important that opinion given
by non-experts does not cover prejudicial evidence for example suggesting that a suspect has
been spending a lot of money, without having supporting evidence.
© Royal Mail 2018 ~ 5.4.1 Appendix 1 to P&S 5.4 Rules and Continuity of Evidence RM V6~ Page 5 of 8
5.6
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
POL00124133
POL00124133
Real Evidence or Exhibits are the actual objects, which are produced for examination of the
court and jury. It is different to documentary evidence as documents pertain to the information
contained within it. An exhibit is physical proof of the objects existence. The recovered letter
detailed in 5.1 above is both direct evidence and real evidence
Continuity of Evidence
When items of evidence are obtained they must be given an identification reference number, have
an identification label attached to them or be placed into an identification bag.
Investigators must ensure that all items of evidence are retained in secure conditions, either
individual secure storage accommodation such as a locker, or an Investigation Team secure
storage area such as an exhibit room. If challenged Investigators must be able to prove the
integrity of the system to prove continuity.
If it is necessary for an item of evidence to leave the secure accommodation it must be sent by
Special Delivery or transferred by hand. A written record including, if relevant, the Special Delivery
number must be maintained. The receiving Investigator must also maintain a written record of
receipt and return of the item and a copy of the written record must be returned to the Investigator.
The Investigator in the case must make a record to acknowledge the return of the item. The
Special Delivery receipts should be retained until the case has been finalised.
Exhibit Book GSO0S5A can be used to control exhibits in larger individual operations and can also
be used by Investigators or teams as the written record of transfer of exhibits for all Investigations
conducted by the Investigator or team. The same records could also be maintained on a computer
database.
Rather than sending the original item of evidence to another part of the country for a witness to
make a statement the Investigator should consider whether the witness could make a statement
from a photocopy. If so the photocopy will become an item of evidence in its own right at the time
the witness makes the statement. It is suggested that the photocopy be identified by adding a
suffix to the Item reference, for example if the original item reference is ABC/1 then the photocopy
can become ABC/1a.
Original items of evidence must not be enclosed in case files but good quality copies of the items
should be. All items of evidence should be retained in accordance with the Criminal Procedure &
Investigations Act 1996
© Royal Mail 2018 ~ 5.4.1 Appendix 1 to P&S 5.4 Rules and Continuity of Evidence RM V6~ Page 6 of 8
POL00124133
POL00124133
Change Control
Status Final
Version 6
Owner Alan Bartholomew
Author Michael F Matthews
Release Date May 2018
Document Privacy Internal
Authorisation
Title Name Signature Date
Senior Intelligence Alan Bartholomew May 2018
Manager
Distribution List
Name Version Date
All Royal Mail Security via Security v1 November 2012
Sharepoint
All Royal Mail Security via Security v2 December 2013
Sharepoint
All Royal Mail Security via Security V3 December 2014
Sharepoint
All Royal Mail Security via Security V4 December 2015
Sharepoint
All Royal Mail Security via Security V5 June 2017
Sharepoint
All Royal Mail Security via Security V6 May 2018
Sharepoint
Documentation History
Issue v2 V3 V4 V5 V6
Status Final Final Final Final Final
Release Date Dec 13 Dec 14 Dec 15 Jun 17 May 18
Effective From Dec 13 Dec 14 Dec 15 Jun 17 May 18
Document Change History
Version Summary of Change Input Received From
M1 Document Produced in RM Format
V2 Annual Review undertaken. No significant
changes
V3 Annual Review undertaken. No significant
changes
V4 Annual Review undertaken. No significant
changes
V5 Annual Review undertaken. No significant
changes
V6 Annual Review undertaken. No significant
changes
© Royal Mail 2018 ~ 5.4.1 Appendix 1 to PAS 5.4 Rules and Continuity of Evidence RM V6~ Page 7 of 8
Glossary
POL00124133
POL00124133
Abbreviation or Term
Meaning
CLT
Criminal Law Team
DOM
Delivery Office Manager
CJA 2003
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Document Summary
If you have any queries please contact:
Mick F Matthews
Royal Mail Group Security
Room G54 Gatwick Mail Centre
James Watt Way
CRAWLEY
RH10 9AA
Postline: [
‘© Royal Mail 2018 ~ 5.4.1 Appendix 1 to P&S 5.4 Rules and Continuity of Evidence RM V6~ Page 8 of 8
POL00124133
POL00124133
Mobile
STD:
E mail
© Royal Mail 2018 ~ 5.4.1 Appendix 1 to P&S 5.4 Rules and Continuity of Evidence RM V6~ Page 9 of 8