CLP Flashcards
A 15 year old boy is involved in a fight outside his school. His mother is present during the fight as she had arranged to meet the boy from school. She splits up the fight and then stays with her son while the police are called. He is arrested for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and taken to the police station. His mother attends the police station as well, where she is informed that her son requires an appropriate adult. The police station is familiar to her as she has been arrested herself on numerous occasions. The boy’s mother cannot act as an appropriate adult.
Which of the following best explains why she cannot act as an appropriate adult?
a. She is a witness to the offence
b. She has previous convictions
c. She is not a solicitor
d. She is his mother
e. She does not have a duty of confidentiality to her son
Answer: A - the mother cannot act for the son because she is a witness
Note: an appropriate adult does not have a duty of confidentiality to the detainee
So the appropriate adult could become a witness to the prosecution eventually
Your client has been arrested for fraud by false representation. Your client was arrested at 08:24. Your client was taken to Gladbury Police Station and arrived at the custody suite at 08:52. Your client’s detention was authorised at 09:12. Your client spoke to their civil partner to inform them of their arrest at 10:02 and had an initial conversation with you at 10:07 over the telephone. The police have confirmed they are not yet ready for interview and will need to conduct some forensic accounting investigations before they can interview. The police are requesting a 6 hour extension to the detention time to allow this to happen.
If this is granted, what is the latest time your client can be detained?
a. 14:24 the following day
b. 14:52 the following day
c. 15:12 the following day
d. 16:02 the following day
e. 16:07 the following day
Answer: B
Pay attention to the question: it’s about how long they can detain him
We’re talking about a 6 hour extension to the 24
Arrival - clock starts ticking
Add 24
Add 6
The police are called to a supermarket where staff have witnessed a man shoplifting. He is arrested for theft and taken to the police station where his detention is authorised by the Custody Officer. The man’s solicitor arrives at the police station and he asks her how long he can be held in custody.
Which of the following most accurately explains how long the man can be held in custody?
a. You can be kept in custody for up to 24 hours from your arrival at the police station. You must be charged or released before that time.
b. You can be kept in custody for up to 24 hours from your arrival at the police station after which you will be charged.
c. You can be kept in custody for up to 24 hours from your arrival at the police station. If the Investigating Officer requires further time to prepare for interview then he can extend detention for a further period of 12 hours.
d. You can be kept in custody for up to 24 hours from your arrest. You must be charged or released before that time.
e. You can be kept in custody up to 24 hours from your arrival at the police station. If the Investigating Officer requires further time his next step will be to make an application to the magistrates’ court.
a. You can be kept in custody for up to 24 hours from your arrival at the police station. You must be charged or released before that time.
Section 41 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 states a suspect can be kept in custody up to 24 hours from the ‘relevant time’ before being charged. The relevant time is arrival at the police station which is marked on the custody record, which the solicitor should have checked on arrival.
The other options, while plausible are incorrect.
· The ‘relevant time’ does not start from the time the suspect is arrested.
· It is not clear as yet whether the suspect will be charged.
· The Investigating Officer cannot extend detention on their own. An extension under s 42 PACE 1984 must be authorised by an unconnected officer of at least superintendent rank. The superintendent or above can only grant the extension if they have reasonable grounds for believing detention is necessary to secure or preserve evidence or obtain evidence by questioning. The investigation must be being conducted diligently and expeditiously.
· The police can seek an extension of a further 12 hours under s 42 PACE 1984. That requires the authorisation of a superintendent or above. Only if they needed additional time beyond that would they be able to apply to the magistrates’ court under s 43 PACE 1984 (for an additional 36 hours). There is no suggestion here that further powers of detention under PACE would be required.
A suspect was arrested on suspicion of murder (an indictable only offence). Before the 24 hour time limit on detention has expired, a superintendent properly authorised continued detention for a further 12 hours. However, the investigating officer still requires additional time to diligently and expeditiously complete enquiries.
Which of the following best explains the next step the investigating officer should take?
a. The investigating officer should apply to the magistrates’ court for a warrant of further detention. The maximum period they can apply for in the first instance is an additional 36 hours.
b. The investigating officer should seek further authorisation from a superintendent for a period of further detention. The maximum period they can apply for in this instance is an additional 12 hours.
c. The investigating officer should apply to the magistrates’ court for a warrant of further detention. The maximum period they can apply for in the first instance is an additional 24 hours.
d. The investigating officer should seek authorisation from an inspector for a period of further detention. The maximum period they can apply for in this instance is an additional 12 hours.
e. The investigating officer should apply to the magistrates’ court for a warrant of further detention. The maximum period they can apply for in the first instance is an additional 12 hours.
a. The investigating officer should apply to the magistrates’ court for a warrant of further detention. The maximum period they can apply for in the first instance is an additional 36 hours.
This answer best reflects the position in relation to detention time limits and their extension in certain circumstances in sections 42- 44 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The maximum period of detention without charge is 24 hours from ‘the relevant time’ (when the suspect arrives at the police station). As the offence being investigated is indictable (murder is indictable only), the time limit can be extended up to a maximum of 36 hours after the relevant time by an officer of the rank of Superintendent or above. Thereafter the maximum period of detention without charge can be extended by the magistrates’ court up to a maximum of 96 hours after the relevant time.
The warrant may authorise continued detention for a further 36 hours on a first application and an additional 24 hours (up to a maximum of 96 hours) on a second application.
Whilst other answer options might sound plausible, they are each incorrect as they state:
- the investigating officer should seek authorisation from a superintendent or inspector rather than the magistrates’ court; and/ or
- the incorrect maximum period the investigating officer can apply for in the first instance.
A woman is arrested for fraud (an indictable offence). At the police station she is informed of her right to independent legal advice by the Custody Officer, and she asks for her usual solicitor to be contacted. She is put in a cell and later the Investigating Officer comes to speak with her. He says that they are delaying her access to legal advice because they have reasonable grounds to believe that information will be passed from the solicitor to other individuals who are suspected of committing fraud but not yet arrested.
Which of the following statements best describes whether the woman’s access to legal advice can be delayed?
a. Her access to legal advice can only be delayed with written authority from an officer of at least superintendent rank. She cannot be interviewed before access to legal advice takes place.
b. Her access to legal advice can only be delayed with written authority from an officer of at least inspector rank
c. Her access to a legal advice can be delayed indefinitely with written authority from an officer of at least superintendent rank
d. Her access to legal advice can never be delayed
e. Her access to legal advice can be delayed with written authority from an officer of at least superintendent rank
e. Her access to legal advice can be delayed with written authority from an officer of at least superintendent rank
The woman is in detention for an indictable offence. The superintendent has reasonable grounds to believe that the exercise of the right will lead to at least the alerting of other people suspected of committing an indictable offence but not yet arrested for it. In order to delay the right in accordance with s 58 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (and Code of Practice C Annex B), the authority to delay the exercise of the right must be granted in writing by a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent.
The other options, while plausible are incorrect:
· Access to legal advice can be delayed in limited circumstances
· Access to legal advice cannot be delayed indefinitely in any circumstances
· Access to legal advice can only be delayed with authority from an officer of at least superintendent rank
· A suspect can be interviewed before they have access to legal advice, though it can have major implications for any evidence obtained against the woman as a result.
A woman is arrested at home in relation to a complex fraud. Her husband is present at home when she is arrested and is clearly upset. The arresting officer says, ‘You’d better confess to this, or I’ll be coming back here and will arrest your husband as well’. Her interview is carried out under caution and she makes a full confession.
Which of the following statements best describes how the woman could seek to exclude her confession?
a. She can make an application to exclude the confession for unreliability because of the threat to her husband. She cannot make an application to exclude the confession because of the adverse effect it would have on the fairness of proceedings, as section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 does not deal specifically with confession evidence.
b. She can make an application to exclude the confession for oppression and because of the adverse effect it would have on the fairness of proceedings.
c. She cannot make any application to exclude her confession as her interview is carried out under caution.
d. She can make an application to exclude the confession for unreliability because of the threat to her husband and because of the adverse effect it would have on the fairness of proceedings.
e. She can make an application to exclude the confession because of the adverse effect it would have on the fairness of proceedings.
d. She can make an application to exclude the confession for unreliability because of the threat to her husband and because of the adverse effect it would have on the fairness of proceedings.
Section 76(2) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows the court to exclude the confession where something said or done renders it unreliable where it caused the confession. Section 78 grants the court the discretion to exclude any evidence (including a confession) where it would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings.
The other options while plausible are incorrect:
· There is no suggestion here of any oppression (such as threats of violence) so she could not make an application under s 76 on that basis.
· She would most likely make an application under s 78 but would also make an application under s 76 which deals specifically with confessions.
· She can make an application under s 78 which can be used to exclude any evidence on which the prosecution seeks to rely (including confession evidence).
· It is not the case that a confession is admissible simply because a correct caution has been given. An application can still be made under s 76 and/or s 78.
Your client has been arrested for attacking her ex-partner. Neighbours had heard shouting from inside her partner’s house and the police had arrested her on the street just outside the house. She was found to have a metal bar in her bag. In interview she refused to answer questions but was later charged with grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Which of these statements best sets out the situation regarding the adverse inferences a court may draw?
A. A court could draw adverse inferences for her failure to account for her presence outside her partner’s house and for her failure to account for having a metal bar in her possession, if she later relies on that information at trial.
B. A court could draw an adverse inference for her failure to account for her presence outside her partner’s house but not the metal bar as that was in her bag.
C. A court could draw adverse inferences for her failure to account for her presence outside her partner’s house and for her failure to account for having a metal bar in her possession.
D. A court could draw an adverse inference for her failure to account for having a metal bar in her possession but not for her presence as she was outside the house.
E. A court could draw adverse inferences if she was given a special warning and then later relies on something she failed to mention in interview
C. A court could draw adverse inferences for her failure to account for her presence outside her partner’s house and for her failure to account for having a metal bar in her possession.
Your client has been arrested for a commercial burglary. You obtain disclosure from the police constable and have consultation with your client. Your client has a defence and decides to answer questions. In interview, the police constable repeatedly asks questions without giving your client an opportunity to answer. You intervene and ask the officer to slow down and allow your client time to respond. The officer says that you have undermined her authority and says she will have you removed.
Which of these statements best sets out your position?
A. You can be removed from the interview as you have obstructed the interview. The client will remain in the interview unrepresented.
B. You can be removed from the interview as you have obstructed the interview. The client can request a new solicitor and the interview will be delayed until the new solicitor arrives.
C. You cannot be removed from the interview by a police constable as this must be authorised by an officer at least the rank of inspector.
D. You cannot be removed from the interview by a police constable as this must be authorised by an officer at least the rank of superintendent.
E. You cannot be removed from the interview as you have not obstructed the interview. The interview will continue with you present
E. You cannot be removed from the interview as you have not obstructed the interview. The interview will continue with you present
A woman is arrested in connection with a street robbery. She is arrested close to the location of the robbery and is found in possession of a balaclava. The victim of the robbery cannot identify the person who robbed her (she was wearing a balaclava), and there is no medical or forensic evidence. The woman denies the offence in consultation with her solicitor then she decides to go ‘no comment’ in interview. During the interview she is given a special caution and fails to account for either why she was near the location of the robbery or why she was in possession of a balaclava.
Which of these statements best sets out the woman’s position in terms of adverse inferences?
a. Adverse inferences can be drawn from her failure to account for her location or possession of the balaclava, so it is likely she would be found guilty at trial given the overwhelming evidence against her.
b. Adverse inferences are unlikely to be drawn from her failure to account for her location or possession of the balaclava if the matter reaches trial.
c. Adverse inferences can be drawn from her failure to account for her location or possession of the balaclava. However, it is highly unlikely that the matter will progress to trial if no further evidence comes to light.
d. Adverse inferences can be drawn from her failure to mention something that she then relies on at trial.
e. Adverse inferences can be drawn from her failure to account for her location or possession of the balaclava and the matter will progress to trial.
c. Adverse inferences can be drawn from her failure to account for her location or possession of the balaclava. However, it is highly unlikely that the matter will progress to trial if no further evidence comes to light.
A defendant cannot be convicted on the basis of adverse inferences alone. In this case there would appear to be no evidence against the suspect, so it will not progress to trial.
The other answers, while plausible, are incorrect:
Adverse inferences will not be drawn if the matter does not progress to trial, based on the evidence available at present, it is incorrect to state that the matter will progress to trial.
These adverse inferences would not be sufficient ‘overwhelming evidence’ to convict the defendant. A defendant cannot be convicted on inferences alone (s.38 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (‘CJPOA’)).
She has not failed to mention something she will later rely on in court (s.34 CJPOA). Inferences under ss. 36 and 37 trigger the possibility of inferences from the moment the suspect fails to account (unlike s.34).
If the matter does reach trial (if new evidence comes to light), then inferences would be drawn under s.36 and s.37 CJPOA.
A man is arrested for burglary. He is found to have a valuable ornament belonging to the victim in his possession. In consultation he informs you that he had been threatened that he would be killed if he did not commit the burglary. He is frightened of the gang that threatened him and they have made it clear that he will be harmed if he speaks to the police about them. He is willing to answer questions and admit he stole the ornament from the victim’s house, but he doesn’t want to talk about the gang, or the threats made against him. He wants to know what will happen if he fails to mention the fact that he was forced into it.
Which of these statements best reflects the advice that you should give him about the possibility of adverse inferences if he raises the defence of duress at trial?
a. The court might draw an inference that he invented the defence between interview and trial.
b. The court will not allow the defendant to raise the defence as he failed to mention it when questioned.
c. The court might draw an inference because he failed to account for his location when arrested.
d. The court might draw an inference that he failed to account for the ornament being in his possession.
e. The court will not draw any inference as long as he can explain why he did not mention the issue of duress in interview.
a. The court might draw an inference that he invented the defence between interview and trial.
A court can draw a ‘proper’ inference as they see approriate and this would appear to be a proper inference in the circumstances.
The other answers, while plausible, are incorrect:
A defendant will be cross examined as to why they did not mention something they later relied on, but no explanation will avoid a proper inference being drawn.
He admits the burglary and possession of the ornament, so there is no suggestion that there would be an inference under s.36.
The defendant would not be prohibited from raising a defence in any circumstances.
There is no suggestion that s.37 CJPOA would apply here.
You are representing a client at a police station. You advised your client to answer ‘no comment’ to the questions asked. During the interview the interviewing officer mentions some evidence that you had not been made aware of during disclosure. You request that the interview is paused so that you can take instructions. The officer says that if you ask for the interview to be paused you will be excluded from the interview.
Which of these statements best explains whether you can be excluded from the interview?
a. You can be excluded from the interview if the police arrange for another solicitor to attend the police station to advise the client properly.
b. You cannot be excluded from the interview as you were not preventing or obstructing questions being put to your client.
c. You cannot be excluded from the interview as the interviewing officer is not a rank of superintendent.
d. You can be excluded from the interview as you have interrupted the police interview after it has started.
e. You can be excluded from the interview due to your advice to your client to answer ‘no comment’ to all questions.
b. You cannot be excluded from the interview as you were not preventing or obstructing questions being put to your client.
This answer is correct because preventing or obstructing questions being put to your client are the only grounds for a solicitor’s exclusion which has not happened here. Asking for the interview to be paused so that you can take instructions from the client on new evidence is the right course of action here.
The other options, while plausible, are incorrect.
It does not matter if the interviewing officer is not a superintendent. It is merely that a superintendent must authorise you being excluded from the interview.
You can’t be excluded for advising no comment.
A solicitor needs to play an active role in advising their client at the police station which sometimes will mean interrupting/ pausing the interview to take instructions.
Another solicitor should only be requested where the original solicitor has already been excluded which has not happened here. The police cannot just arrange for another solicitor if they do not like the advice the solicitor is giving the client.
