Admission MCQs Flashcards
Christopher is charged with an offence of Grievous Bodily Harm with intent, contrary to Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He was arrested and taken to the Police station to be interviewed. Just before the interview was due to commence, he admitted the offence to the Police, accepting that he had attacked the victim. He has had an initial conference with his legal team. He provides instructions that he only confessed to the offence because the Police told him immediately before the interview that it would be concluded much sooner if he did so.
What is the best advice his legal team can give on the application to make?
Seek to apply for evidence of the confession to be excluded under s.78 PACE 1984.
Seek to apply for the evidence of the confession to be excluded under ss.76 and 78 PACE 1984.
Seek to apply for evidence of the confession to be excluded under the common law.
Seek to apply for the prosecution to be stayed as an abuse of process.
Seek to apply for the evidence of the confession to be excluded under ss.76 and 78 PACE 1984.
Correct. This is the single best answer. An application under s.76 PACE 1984, probably under s.76(2)(b), would put the onus on the prosecution to prove, to the criminal standard, that the confession is admissible. This is the correct application to make in order to exclude a confession. The critical part of the test here is whether the confession was “in consequence of anything said or done”. An alternative application under s.78 usually accompanies the s.76 application. This could then be made following the Section 76(2)(b) application.
The other options were not the best advice his legal team could have given on the application to make.
Option: Seek to apply for evidence of the confession to be excluded under s.78 PACE 1984. Feedback: An application under Section 78 PACE 1984 but this is not the most appropriate application to start with when the advocate is looking to exclude a confession.
Option: Seek to apply for the prosecution to be stayed as an abuse of process. Feedback: The Court is very unlikely to grant an application to stay the case as an abuse of process. This would not be the appropriate application. The Court would expect the trial process to deal with evidential issues such as the exclusion of evidence and would not stay the proceedings if the trial process was equipped to deal with such an application. It would not be argued that Christopher cannot have a fair trial or that it is unfair for him to be tried.
Option: Seek to apply for evidence of the confession to be excluded under the common law. Feedback: This application is most likely to be used where a Judge becomes aware, after the confession has been admitted, that it should not have been.
Dennis is charged with supplying class A drugs to Michael. In police interview, Dennis admitted the offence. At trial, Dennis instructs his barrister that he only confessed to the offence at the time because the police promised him bail if he did so.
What is the single best answer as to the course that Dennis’ counsel should take?
Apply for evidence of Dennis’ confession to be excluded under ss.76 and 78 PACE 1984.
Apply for the prosecution to be stayed as an abuse of process.
Apply for evidence of Dennis’ confession to be excluded under s.78 PACE 1984.
Apply for evidence of Dennis’ confession to be excluded under the common law.
Apply for evidence of Dennis’ confession to be excluded under ss.76 and 78 PACE 1984.
Correct. An application to exclude under s.76 PACE 1984 would put the onus on the prosecution to prove - to the criminal standard - that the confession is admissible.
Charlie is being tried for robbery. During the trial, the judge allows the admission of evidence of various admissions allegedly made by Charlie to the police. This evidence is presented to the jury. Towards the end of the trial, the judge reflects and decides that the decision to allow admission of the evidence was wrong.
What is the best course of action for the judge to take?
The judge must discharge the jury.
Accept that it is too late to do anything, and certify that the case is fit for an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Direct the jury to ignore the evidence, having ruled it admissible, using the court’s common law power to exclude evidence.
The judge must direct the jury to give the evidence due weight, bearing in mind it shouldn’t have been admitted.
Direct the jury to ignore the evidence, having ruled it admissible, using the court’s common law power to exclude evidence.
Correct. The court has no power under s.76 or s.78 PACE 1984 to reconsider a decision on the admissibility of a confession ruled admissible in a voir dire, even if the evidence given at trial convinces the judge that the decision was wrong. However, the common law power of a court to exclude evidence in its discretion can be used at any point, even after the evidence is tendered.
The other options were not the best course of action for the judge to take because:
· It is not too late to do anything.
· While it is an option, it is not a requirement that the jury be discharged. Using the court’s common law powers instead of discharging the jury in this instance would help further the overriding objective of the Criminal Procedure Rules to deal with criminal cases justly which includes dealing with the case efficiently and expeditiously.
· While it is open to the judge to give a direction pointing out the to the jury matters which affect the weight of the confession evidence, this is not the best course of action when the confession should not have been admitted in the first place (i.e. no weight should be placed on it).
In a fraud trial you are prosecuting, admissions made in interview by the Defendant, David, led the police to discover a number of hard disks. As the trial progresses it emerges that David was severely deprived of sleep prior to the interview. The Defence succeed in excluding his interview pursuant to s.76(2)(b) PACE 1984. Following the Judge’s ruling on the interview, the Defence now contend that the hard disks should be excluded as evidence because without the confession, the police would never have found the disks and to admit them allows the prosecution the benefit of improper practice by the police.
What is the best response to the Defence’s submission?
The hard disks should be excluded from evidence on the basis the defence suggest
The hard disks may be admitted where it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the police investigation would likely have located them in any event
The hard disks may be admitted where the prosecution can show beyond a reasonable doubt that admitting them would not have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings they should be admitted
The hard disks are admissible as facts discovered as a result of a confession and regardless of the status of the confession itself their existence and contents should be admitted
The hard disks are admissible as facts discovered as a result of a confession and regardless of the status of the confession itself their existence and contents should be admitted
Correct. s.76(4)(a) specifically provides that facts discovered as a result of a confession are admissible.
The other answers were not the best responses to the Defence’s submission.
Option: The hard disks may be admitted where the prosecution can show beyond a reasonable doubt that admitting them would not have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings they should be admitted. Feedback: The Prosecution bear no such burden, it is for the defence to take such objections, here that objection would fail in view of s.76(4)(a).
Option: The hard disks should be excluded from evidence on the basis the defence suggest. Feedback: This would amount to a ‘fruit from the poison tree’ doctrine which is not a concept of English and Welsh law.
Option: The hard disks may be admitted where it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the police investigation would likely have located them in any event. Feedback: This is not the correct test in law.
Your client has confessed to theft but claims he was threatened in his cell by a police officer just prior to his police station interview. He was unrepresented at interview and agreed to everything put to him including his confession that he committed a theft. He now wants to plead not guilty at his first appearance before the magistrates’ court and want to know what will happen in relation to his confession.
Which of these best sets out the law in relation to his confession and the possible exclusion of his confession?
We can seek to exclude the confession on the basis that it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings.
The court will allow the evidence of the confession unless we can prove of the balance of probabilities that the confession was obtained by oppression. We can also seek to exclude the confession on the basis that it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings.
The court will not allow the evidence of the confession to be admitted unless the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained by oppression. We can also seek to exclude the confession on the basis that it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings.
The court will not allow the evidence of the confession to be admitted unless the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained by oppression.
The court will not allow the evidence of the confession to be admitted unless the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained by oppression. We can also seek to exclude the confession on the basis that it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings.
Correct. An application would be made under s.76(2)(a) of PACE. Further an application under s.78 could also be made.
The other answer while plausible are incorrect:
The defence do NOT need to prove that the confession was obtained by oppression.
The defence can make an application under s.76 as well as s.78 PACE.
The defence can make an application under s.78 as well as s.76 PACE.
A woman has died. A few days after her body was found, her husband went to a bar and became very drunk. He admitted to a friend that he had killed his wife because he was jealous of her relationship with another man. This conversation was overheard by the manager of the bar.
The man’s friend and the manager gave statements to the police detailing the man’s admission. The man has been arrested on suspicion of murder and interviewed under caution, during which he denied killing his wife and denied making the admission to his friend.
Is the man’s admission to his friend in the bar admissible at his trial as an exception to the rule against hearsay?
A. No, because the admission was made outside his trial.
B. No, because the admission was not confirmed by the man in his interview under caution.
C. Yes, because the admission can be corroborated by more than one person.
D. Yes, because it is an admission to an offence.
E. No, because the man was drunk when he made the admission.
D - Yes, because it is an admission to an offence
