# An Explanation of Key Legal Terminology
This assignment will provide a clear explanation of four procedural terms commonly encountered in the study of law in England and Wales: ‘objection sustained’, ‘impeachment’, ‘affidavit’, and ‘voir dire’. Understanding these terms is fundamental to comprehending the mechanics of litigation and the rules of evidence that govern court proceedings. Each term relates to the process by which evidence is presented, challenged, and admitted in court.
## 1. Objection Sustained
The phrase ‘objection sustained’ is a judicial ruling made during a trial or hearing. In the adversarial system of England and Wales, lawyers for each party present their case, which includes questioning witnesses. An opposing lawyer may raise an ‘objection’ to a question being asked or to a piece of evidence being presented. The grounds for an objection are based on the rules of evidence, for example, that the question is a ‘leading question’ put to a witness during examination-in-chief, the evidence is irrelevant to the facts in issue, or it constitutes inadmissible hearsay (Keane and McKeown, 2020).
When an objection is raised, the judge must rule on its validity. If the judge agrees with the lawyer’s objection, they will state that the objection is ‘sustained’. The practical consequence is that the witness is not permitted to answer the question, or the piece of evidence is excluded from the proceedings and cannot be considered by the court or jury. Conversely, if the judge disagrees with the objection, they will rule it ‘overruled’, and the witness must then answer the question.
## 2. Impeachment
In a legal context, ‘impeachment’ refers to the process of discrediting a witness or challenging their credibility. It is an attempt by a party to persuade the court or jury that the witness’s testimony is not reliable and should not be believed. This is distinct from the political meaning of impeachment, which concerns the removal of a public official from office.
A lawyer can impeach a witness in several ways. These include:
* **Prior inconsistent statements**: Showing that the witness has previously said or written something that contradicts their current testimony.
* **Bias or interest**: Demonstrating that the witness has a motive to lie, such as a personal relationship with a party or a financial stake in the outcome of the case.
* **Bad character**: Introducing evidence of a witness’s previous misconduct or criminal convictions to suggest they are untrustworthy. The rules for introducing such evidence are strict, particularly in criminal proceedings, and are governed by the ‘bad character’ provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The goal of impeachment is not to prove that the opposite of the witness’s statement is true, but rather to cast doubt on the overall truthfulness of that witness’s evidence.
## 3. Affidavit
An affidavit is a written statement of fact that is voluntarily made by an individual, known as the deponent or affiant. The defining characteristic of an affidavit is that it is sworn on oath or solemnly affirmed before a person who has the legal authority to administer oaths, such as a solicitor or a commissioner for oaths (Martin, 2018). This act of swearing or affirming serves to attest to the truthfulness of the statement’s contents, and knowingly making a false affidavit can lead to prosecution for perjury.
Affidavits are used as a form of evidence in legal proceedings. They are particularly common in civil litigation for interim applications and pre-trial matters, allowing facts to be presented to the court without the need for the deponent to attend and give oral testimony at that stage. The form and content of witness statements and affidavits in civil proceedings are regulated by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, particularly under Part 32, which sets out how evidence should be prepared and presented to the court.
## 4. Voir Dire
A voir dire (an Anglo-Norman phrase meaning ‘to speak the truth’) is a hearing conducted by a judge in the absence of the jury. It is often described as a ‘trial within a trial’. The purpose of a voir dire is to determine a legal issue, most commonly the admissibility of a particular piece of evidence. This procedure ensures that the jury is not exposed to evidence which may later be ruled inadmissible, as this could unfairly prejudice their view of the case.
A classic example of a voir dire in a criminal trial is when the defence challenges the admissibility of a defendant’s confession. The defence may argue that the confession was obtained by oppression or in circumstances that make it unreliable. The judge will then hold a voir dire, hearing evidence from both the prosecution and defence (for example, from the police officers who conducted the interview) on how the confession was obtained. Based on this evidence, the judge will rule on whether the confession is admissible under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Only if the judge rules the confession admissible will the jury be allowed to hear it.
## References
- Civil Procedure Rules 1998, SI 1998/3132.
- Criminal Justice Act 2003, c. 44.
- Keane, A. and McKeown, P. (2020) The Modern Law of Evidence. 13th edn. Oxford University Press.
- Martin, E.A. (ed.) (2018) Oxford Dictionary of Law. 9th edn. Oxford University Press.
- Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, c. 60.
