Quiz
Criminal Evidence - SBAs
Create a free account to finish this quiz
Save your progress and see your final score.
Already have an account? Sign in
Questions in this quiz (26)
1Jonathan is charged with assaulting Paul. The case is to be heard in the Crown Court. The assault is alleged to have taken place in the Red Lion public house.
Identification procedures are carried out at the police station. Paul fails to identify Jonathan as his assailant. However, David (who claims to have witnessed the assault) does identify Jonathan as the person who assaulted Paul.
When interviewed by the police, Jonathan denies the offence. He says that, at the relevant time, he was playing snooker with a friend, Lee, in the Highwayman public house. Jonathan plans to call Lee as a defence witness.
When interviewed by the police Jonathan also said that Timothy told him that David had said to him (Timothy) that the assault was actually committed by Bryan. Jonathan plans to call Timothy as a witness but is unaware that he has a conviction for obtaining property by deception and another for perverting the course of justice.
Which one of the following statements, about the duties of disclosure, is correct?- AThe prosecution are not obliged to reveal to the defence the fact that Paul failed to identify Jonathan at the police station identification procedure.
- BJonathan must include in his defence statement the fact that he will be relying on an alibi but is not obliged to reveal to the prosecution the fact that he intends to call Lee to support that alibi.
- CThe prosecution are obliged to reveal to the defence the fact that Timothy has previous convictions for deception and perverting the course of justice.
- DJonathan is not obliged to reveal to the prosecution the fact that he intends to call Timothy as a witness.
2You are instructed to prosecute Thomas Cawthorne for burglary. A man was seen running from the scene of the burglary by the owner of the house, Samuel Davidson. Mr Cawthorne was arrested following a tip-off to the police by Ezekiel Smith. An identification procedure was carried out at the police station: Mr Cawthorne was picked out by Mr Davidson. When interviewed under caution by the police, Mr Cawthorne said in his police interview that he believed that a former friend of his, called Ezekiel (last name unknown), committed the burglary and is trying to frame him because they fell out over a loan which Ezekiel had failed to repay. Mr Smith has previous convictions for motoring offences (exceeding the speed limit on several occasions).
Consider the following pieces of information that are in the possession of the Prosecution:
(i) Mrs Davidson, who was standing next to her husband at the time and saw the burglar running away, failed to make a positive identification at the police station identification procedure.
(ii) Mr Davidson has a conviction for defrauding an insurance company.
(iii) The identity of the person who tipped-off the police to arrest Mr Cawthorne for the burglary.
(iv) The fact that Mr Smith has previous convictions for motoring offences.
Which of the above matters should be disclosed to the defence?- AAll of them.
- B(i) and (ii).
- C(iii) and (iv)
- D(i), (ii) and (iii).
3You represent Samantha on a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Samantha is not eligible for legal aid. She has no previous convictions and is nervous about appearing in court. She made some admissions to the police when questioned under caution. However, you think that there are good grounds for seeking to have those admissions excluded, as there were several breaches of PACE Code of Practice C.
She seeks your advice on whether she should consent to summary trial if the magistrates accept jurisdiction.
Which one of the following is NOT a valid factor to take into account when considering whether to consent to summary trial?- AThe magistrates’ cannot impose more than 6 months’ imprisonment for a single offence.
- BTrial in a magistrates’ court is cheaper than Crown Court trial
- CTrial in a magistrates’ court is less formal than Crown Court trial.
- DAn application can be made for a pre-trial ruling on the admissibility of evidence.
4In a case where the prosecution will be represented by the Crown Prosecution Service, which one of the following is NOT available as a means of commencing proceedings?
- AArrest pursuant to a warrant granted by a magistrate.
- BArrest by a police officer without a warrant.
- CThe laying of an information, followed by the issue of a summons.
- DThe issuing of a written charge and requisition.
5Susie is charged with burglary, which is triable either way.
Which ONE of the following statements is correct?- AShe must be tried in a magistrates’ court.
- BShe must be tried in the Crown Court.
- CShe may be tried in the magistrates’ Court only if she and the magistrates agree to trial in the magistrates’ court.
- DShe may be tried in the Crown Court only if she and the magistrates agree to trial in the Crown Court.
6In which ONE of the following (separate) instances does the accused have a right to elect trial in the Crown Court?
- AThe accused is charged with breaking a window at 47 Acacia Avenue; the cost of repair is £750.
- BHe is charged with breaking a window at 47 Acacia Avenue (the cost of repair is £750) and, two minutes later, a window at 49 Acacia Avenue (the cost of repair is a further £750).
- CHe is charged with vandalising a Mercedes motor car, cost of repair £4,800.
- DHe is charged with shoplifting in a case where the goods are worth £50.
7Albert and Bruce are charged jointly with burglary. At the allocation/mode of trial hearing, the magistrates accept jurisdiction, Albert the consents to summary trial. However, when Bruce is asked where he wants to be tried, he elects Crown Court trial. Which one of the following statements is correct?
- ABecause of the choices they have made, Albert will be tried in a magistrates’ court and Bruce will be tried in the Crown Court.
- BIn light of Bruce’s election of Crown Court trial, the magistrates must revisit the allocation of Albert’s trial and they must send him to the Crown Court for trial.
- CIf Bruce had elected Crown Court trial before Albert consented to summary trial, the magistrates would have been required to send Albert to the Crown Court for trial even if he would have consented to summary trial but, because Albert had already consented to summary trial, it is too late for that decision to be changed when Bruce subsequently elects Crown Court trial.
- DBurglary is triable only on indictment and so the magistrates erred in holding a mode of trial hearing.
8Patricia is charged with theft. The case has been listed for the plea before venue/mode of trial (allocation) hearing to take place. Patricia, who is on bail, fails to attend. Patricia had telephoned her solicitor to say that she didn’t feel well and so wasn’t going to attend, but she gave no details of her illness and there is no medical evidence before the court.
Which ONE of the following options is NOT open to the magistrates’ court?- AAdjourn and issue a bench warrant, not backed for bail, for her arrest.
- BAdjourn and issue a bench warrant, backed for bail, her arrest.
- CAdjourn and have a warning letter sent to her.
- DTry her in her absence.
9Which one of the following best describes the test applied by a magistrates’ court when a submission of no case to answer is made after the close of the prosecution case in a summary trial?
- AThe submission should succeed if the prosecution evidence is insufficient for any reasonable court properly to convict.
- BThe submission should succeed only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of process.
- CThe submission should succeed if the magistrates are not, at that stage of the trial, satisfied so they are sure of the defendant’s guilt.
- DThe submission should succeed only if the magistrates are satisfied that the defendant is innocent.
10Which one of the following describes most accurately the position as regards closing speeches in a trial in a magistrates’ court?
- AThe defence are always entitled to make a closing speech but the prosecution are never permitted to make a closing speech.
- BThe prosecution may make a closing speech provided that the defendant is legally represented or has introduced evidence other than his own, and any such speech must precede any defence closing speech.
- CBoth the defence and the prosecution are always permitted to make a closing speech.
- DWhere the prosecution make a closing speech, this must be done after the defence have made their closing speech.
11Which one of the following statements about the role of a magistrates’ court legal adviser is NOT correct?
- AHe or she may assist the court by giving legal advice.
- BHe or she may assist the court in reaching findings of fact.
- CHe or she may assist the court in the formulation and recording of its reasons.
- DHe or she may assist an unrepresented defendant.
12Tessa is alleged to have failed to surrender to custody today. She was due in court for a plea before venue hearing on a charge of theft. Tessa did not attend court as her son became very ill overnight and has been in hospital all day. She alerted her solicitors to the situation late this afternoon. She intends to attend court -thereby surrendering to custody tomorrow to explain her non-attendance. She wants to know how the court with deal with the matter.
Which ONE of the following is CORRECT?- AFailing to surrender is not a separate offence but merely confers a power of arrest. Tessa will therefore not be subject to any further punishment but having heard her explanation, the court will reconsider the position on bail.
- BThe fact that Tessa has arguably a reasonable excuse for not attending, provides her with a potential defence.
- CThe burden of establishing that she had does not have a reasonable excuse for not attending is on the prosecution.
- DIf Tessa is found guilty of failing to attend without reasonable excuse, it will be punishable only by way of a fine.
13You represent Jeremy who is charged with theft and awaiting trial in the magistrates’ court. Your solicitors instruct you that there is a potential defence witness who is willing to give evidence. Today you receive notification from the prosecution that they have complied with their disclosure requirements.
Which ONE of the following accurately describes the duty you have in relation to disclosure?- AYou must serve a defence statement within 28 days from today.
- BYou must serve a defence statement within 14 days from today.
- CYou must notify the court and prosecutor that you intend to call at witness at trial other than Jeremy.
- DYou have no duties of disclosure as the matter is being dealt with in the magistrates’ court.
14Selasi is arrested for robbery and is currently being detained at the police station for interview. He is deemed to be mentally vulnerable and needs an appropriate adult present.
Which of the following is NOT the role of the appropriate adult?- ATo observe whether the police are acting properly and fairly.
- BTo offer legal advice.
- CTo intervene if the police are not acting properly and fairly.
- DTo assist with communication between the detained person and the police.
15You represent the prosecution at the magistrates’ court. Your first case is the first appearance of a defendant charged with sexual assault. The defendant has been remanded in custody since arrest and is represented by a solicitor today. No documents have been served on the defendant or his representative and there has been no request for any. What obligations of disclosure do you have this morning?
- AYou must disclose initial details comprising of a summary of the circumstances of the offence; any account given by the accused in interview; any written witness statement available and the defendant’s criminal record.
- BYou need only disclose initial details of the case if the matter is to be heard in the Crown Court.
- CYou need only disclose initial details if the defendant or his representative request them.
- DYou should disclose a summary of the circumstances of the offence and the defendant’s criminal record.
16You represent Karl at a first appearance and are instructed to make a bail application. Karl is charged with manslaughter. You have a list of his previous convictions which include a conviction for rape.
Which ONE of the following statements correctly identifies the position on bail?- AThere is a rebuttable presumption in favour of bail.
- BAs Karl has been previously convicted on an offence, there is no presumption in favour of bail.
- CKarl cannot be granted bail because he has previously been convicted of rape.
- DKarl cannot be granted bail unless there are exceptional circumstances which justify it.
17Which of the following statements BEST explains the principle of admissibility in the law of evidence?
- ARelevant evidence may be admissible.
- BRelevant evidence is admissible if it is not excluded by an exclusionary rule or discretion.
- CRelevant evidence may be admissible under an inclusionary discretion.
- DRelevant evidence may be admissible if it is agreed between the parties.
18Patrick, the complainant, is giving oral evidence-in-chief for the prosecution in a case involving the discharge of a firearm by James in a public place. The prosecution’s case is that the offence was committed in the context of a feud between rival families. When, in his evidence-in-chief, Patrick is asked by prosecution counsel whether he knew the person who discharged the firearm, he (Patrick) answered that he did not know him. However, the prosecution have a written statement which Patrick made to the police, in which Patrick records that the person was called James, was a member of a rival family and he (Patrick) had known James well since youth.
Which of the following propositions represents the CORRECT course of action for the prosecution advocate to take?- AThe prosecution advocate should apply to admit Patrick’s previous statement on the basis that it identifies or describes a person, place or object.
- BThe prosecution advocate should apply to the judge in the presence of the jury to treat Patrick as a hostile witness on the basis that he has proved adverse to the prosecution, in order to put his previous inconsistent statement to him.
- CThe prosecution advocate should apply to the judge to (i) direct Patrick to answer the question truthfully, and (ii) for a judicial warning to Patrick that failure to answer truthfully places him at risk of prosecution for perjury.
- DThe prosecution advocate should apply to admit Patrick’s previous statement because he claims to be a person against whom an offence has been committed, the offence is one to which proceedings relate, the statement is a complaint by Patrick which, if proved, would constitute the offence (or part of it), it was not made as a result of a threat or promise and Patrick has given oral evidence in connection with it.
19Concerning tribunals of fact and law, which of the following statements is WRONG?
- AIn summary proceedings, magistrates sit as both the tribunal of fact and law. This means they may continue to try a case even though they may have heard prejudicial evidence which they have excluded.
- BWhere an accused is tried on indictment in the Crown Court, the jury is the tribunal of fact and decides (i) what weight to attach to admissible evidence and (ii) whether the standard of proof has been satisfied in relation to facts in issue by the party bearing the burden of proof.
- CWhere an accused is tried on indictment, the judge sitting as the tribunal of law will decide questions as to the relevance and admissibility of evidence, but whether a party has satisfied the evidential and legal burden will be decided by the jury sitting as the tribunal of fact.
- DWhere an accused is tried on indictment in the Crown Court and challenges the admissibility of prosecution evidence on the grounds that the way in which the evidence was obtained means that it would be unfairly prejudicial to admit, then unless the judge excludes the evidence, it may be heard by the tribunal of fact, and any evidence relating to how the evidence was obtained may also be heard and will be collateral evidence affecting weight.
20Which of the following statements BEST explains the principle which applies to the competence and compellability of spouses and civil partners of persons charged in proceedings?
- ASpouses and civil partners of a person charged in proceedings are generally competent but not compellable for the prosecution.
- BSpouses and civil partners of a person charged in proceedings are generally competent but not compellable for the prosecution and a co-accused charged in proceedings, except where the accused is charged with a specified offence.
- CSpouses and civil partners of a person charged in proceedings are generally competent but not compellable for a co-accused.
- DSpouses and civil partners of a person charged in proceedings are generally competent but not compellable for the prosecution except where the accused is charged with a specified offence.
21Tony is charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Ahmed and is tried on indictment in the Crown Court. He relies on the defence of self-defence. Consider the following different judicial directions to the jury.
(i) “Members of the jury the prosecution bears the burden of proving this case and must make you sure that Tony assaulted Ahmed intentionally or recklessly. However, this is one of those unusual cases where a defendant also bears a burden of proof. It is called an evidential burden and applies to certain types of defences. Self-defence is one such defence. Tony relies on the defence of self-defence, and the evidential burden on him members of the jury. This means that he must adduce sufficient evidence to raise in your minds the possibility that he might have been acting in self-defence. If you are satisfied that he has discharged this evidential burden, then it is for the prosecution to make you sure that he was not acting in self-defence.”
(ii) “Members of the jury, the prosecution bears the burden of proving this case and must make you sure that Tony assaulted Ahmed intentionally or recklessly. However, this is one of those unusual cases, where the defendant also bears a burden of proof. As Tony relies on the defence of self- defence, he must prove to you on the balance of probabilities that he was acting in self-defence. So, before you can accept his defence and acquit him, you have to be satisfied of it on a balance of probabilities.”
(iii) “Members of the jury, the prosecution bears the burden of proving this case and must make you sure that Tony assaulted Ahmed intentionally or recklessly and that he was not acting in self-defence.”
(iv) “Members of the jury, the prosecution bears the burden of proving this case and must make you sure that Tony assaulted Ahmed intentionally or recklessly. The standard of proof then is ‘sure’, and nothing less will do. In relation to Ahmed’s defence of self-defence, you have heard evidence of that and the reason why I direct you that you may consider it is because, following legal argument, I was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence of self-defence to make it a possibility.”
In respect of the above directions, which of the following propositions is CORRECT?- A(i), (iii) and (iv) are correct.
- B(ii) only is correct.
- C(iii) only is correct.
- D(i) and (iv) only are correct.
22Concerning express statutory exceptions, which one of the following statements is WRONG?
- AAn express statutory exception may not impose a legal burden on the defendant if such a burden would be incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- BIn respect of a charge of murder, the defence of diminished responsibility under the Homicide Act 1957, s 2 (an express statutory exception) imposes a legal burden on the accused to prove the defence on the balance of probabilities.
- CExpress statutory exceptions which purport to impose a legal burden on the defendant in respect of certain defences may offend the presumption of innocence and may be ‘read down’ so as to impose an evidential burden.
- DExpress statutory exceptions which impose a legal burden, require the defendant to prove the exception; this is done by adducing sufficient evidence to raise as a possibility in the minds of a reasonable tribunal of fact that the defence may be true.
23Tim is on trial for raping Davina in a hotel room. The day after the alleged rape, Davina told her friend Sadie what had happened. During cross-examination of Davina by ‘live link’, Tim’s advocate asserts that she has fabricated her claim of rape. He also asserts that she fabricated the claim of rape two weeks after the alleged incident in the hotel room, after being encouraged to do so by Sadie.
Which is the BEST advice to give to the prosecution about the principle which applies to the admissibility of Davina’s statement to Sadie.- APrevious consistent statements by a witness are generally inadmissible.
- BPrevious statements by a witness may be admissible where there is an allegation of fabrication and they are admissible as evidence of consistency in order to rebut that allegation and confirm the witness’s credibility.
- CPrevious statements by a witness may be admissible where there is an allegation of fabrication and they are admissible as evidence of consistency to rebut the allegation and confirm the witness’s credibility and as evidence of the matters stated in them.
- DPrevious statements of a witness may be admissible to identify a person as the perpetrator of an offence.
24Charlie is charged with causing death by dangerous driving, the facts being that he was driving at very high speed in a residential area. Expert opinion on the speed of the vehicle is divided, with the prosecution expert, Tariq, taking the view that the vehicle was going very fast, while the defence expert takes the view that the vehicle was going nowhere nearly as fast as Tariq suggests. The advocate for the defence is conducting the cross-examination of Tariq and wishes to put it to him that he is a relative of a person who was killed by a ‘hit and run’ driver and these facts have influenced his opinion.
Which one of the following statements is the BEST advice to give the defence advocate in relation to cross-examination on the facts about Tariq’s relative?- AThe facts are collateral facts and the rule of finality prevents cross-examination beyond a witness’s answer to a question about collateral facts, where the answer is a denial.
- BThe witness may be cross-examined about the facts because although collateral, they are relevant and admissible in relation to the reliability of the expert’s opinion.
- CThe witness may be cross-examined about the facts if they are relevant and do not fall to be excluded by the judge exercising exclusionary discretion.
- DThe witness may be cross-examined about the facts beyond the witness’s answer where it is a denial, because even though they are collateral facts, such cross-examination is permissible under the ‘bias’ exception to the rule of finality.
25Clare, aged 5 and who has learning difficulties, is due to give evidence for the prosecution at Victor’s trial for sexual offences. Victor’s advocate raises an issue as to Clare’s competence. Concerning how the issue should be dealt with, which one of the following statements is INCORRECT?
- AThe test to be applied when determining Clare’s competence is whether she can understand questions put and give answers to them which can be understood.
- BThe burden of proving that Clare is competent is on the party who raises the issue; in this case, the defence bear the burden.
- CIn determining whether Clare is competent, the judge may hear medical evidence.
- DThe issue of competence will be determined in the absence of the jury, but in the presence of all the parties.
26Matthew has just finished giving his evidence-in-chief for the prosecution as a witness to a street robbery. In his evidence-in-chief, he said he saw a man approach the complainant, produce a knife and hold it to the complainant’s throat. However, in a previous written statement to the police, Matthew made no mention of a knife being produced. In order to contradict his oral evidence that a knife was used during the robbery, the defence wish to cross-examine Matthew using his earlier statement. Concerning how the defence advocate should use the earlier statement in cross-examination, which of the following statements is CORRECT?
- AThe defence advocate should make an application to the judge to allow Matthew to refresh his memory from his earlier statement and to correct his evidence.
- BThe defence advocate may put to Matthew that he made an earlier statement in which he did not mention a knife, but if Matthew denies this, further cross-examination on the issue is impermissible; this is because the issue relates to credibility, credibility is a collateral issue, and the rule of finality prevents cross-examination on collateral issues.
- CThe defence advocate may adduce the statement in evidence as evidence of matters stated, on the basis that it is a previous statement which identifies or describes a person, object or place.
- DThe defence advocate may adduce the statement to contradict Matthew’s oral evidence, but before defence counsel does so, parts of the statement which are to be used to contradict Matthew should be drawn to his (Matthew’s attention) and the whole statement becomes admissible as evidence of any matter stated in it of which oral evidence by the witness would have been admissible.
Information
- Description
- BPTC (Criminal Evidence) Quiz on Criminal Evidence - SBAs, created by Ravi Jackson on 13/11/2016.
- Author
- Ravi Jackson
- Language
- English
- Views
- 9
- Tags
- Rating
- No ratings yet Rate this quiz