Criminal Litigation

Question 1

R v Roble

Answer 1

Not proper to draw an adverse inference under s.34 where there has been so little disclosure that a solicitor could not usefully advise the suspect

Question 2

R v Howell

Answer 2

the absence of a written statement from the victim is not necessarily a good reason for going ‘no comment’, providing adequate oral disclosure of the complaint had been given

Question 3

R v Argent

Answer 3

courts should not be restrictive in their interpretation of ‘circumstances existing at the time’; can consider factors such as age, experience, mental capacity, state of health, sobriety, tiredness

Question 4

R v Knight

Answer 4

The drafting itself of an incomplete written statement can allow inferences to be drawn; but where D maintains at trial the account which he/she gave in the statement, no adverse inferences can be drawn

Question 5

R v Hoare and Pierce

Answer 5

Inferences from silence can still be drawn even where a defendant had genuinely relied on the advice

Question 6

R v Walsh

Answer 6

There must be significant and substantial breaches of PACE for s.78 to be triggered; although the right to legal advice (under s.58) is fundamental, it does not automatically follow that a breach of s.58 will lead to the exclusion of evidence

Question 7

R v Turnbull

Answer 7

Guidelines for assessing the accuracy of witness identification evidence:

• Amount of time under observation
• Distance between witness and accused
• Visibility at the time
• Obstructions to the view of the witness
• Known or seen before: has the witness ever seen the suspect before?
• Any special reason to remember the accused
• Time elapsed since witness seeing accused and ID procedure being held
• Error or material discrepancy between first description given by witness and actual appearance of accused

Question 8

Turnbull warning

Answer 8

• Reason for the need for the warning (mistaken witnesses can be convincing)
• Circumstances in which the ID by each witness came to be made
• Specific weaknesses in the ID evidence, under the ADVOKATE mnemonic above

Question 9

R v Hanson

Answer 9

Guidelines to assist court in considering admissibility of evidence of the defendant’s bad character:

• No minimum number of convictions, but the fewer the convictions, the weaker
• A single previous conviction will probably not show propensity unless it is unusual in the circumstances
• ‘Propensity’ is not limited to categories or types of convictions (e.g. assault conviction can be evidence of propensity to commit violence)