|
''O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police'' () (UKHL 26 ) was an English evidence law decision of the House of Lords which held that evidence of previous bad behaviour, known as similar fact evidence, may be admitted in civil case proceedings if it is probative of a relevant matter. ==Background== The plaintiff in this case was Michael O'Brien, who had been wrongfully convicted of a murder in Cardiff in 1987. In addition to receiving compensation from the Home Office for the eleven years he spent in prison, O'Brien was seeking aggravated and exemplary damages from South Wales Police for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office.〔''O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police'' () UKHL 26 at ().〕 O'Brien's conviction was based on the "confession" of an associate of his, Darren Hall, who had been with him the night of the murder. The misconduct alleged by O'Brien included that police officers; * Applied improper pressure to Hall and himself during interviewing in an attempt to induce admissions, "without regard to the truth or reliability" of them, * Fabricated admissions of guilt, and; * Suppressed evidence which exonerated the defendants.〔''O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police'' () UKHL 26 at ().〕 O'Brien wished to have evidence admitted that would show that the two police officers leading the investigation against him had led two other cases were similar misconduct had been alleged; the Welsh bomb trial and the murder of Karen Price.〔''O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police'' () UKHL 26 at ()-().〕 At a case management conference of O'Brien's claim, Judge Graham Jones of the High Court, granted permission to O'Brien to rely on the similar fact evidence.〔''O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police'' () EWCA Civ 1085 at ().〕 The police appealed this decision unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal and subsequently appealed to the House of Lords. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「O'Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|