Criminal Litigation MCQS Flashcards
The overriding objective is to deal with criminal cases in what way?
A) Justly
B) Fairly
C) Expeditiously
A) Justly
(Correct. The overriding objective is contained in Rule 1.1(1))
Which of the following best explains how the parities should consider deadlines imposed by the court?
A) Deadlines should be adhered to and failure to do so could lead to a sanction
B) Deadlines can be ignored, the point is to ambush the other party
C) Deadlines are approximate, what is important is that documents are served and filed around the deadline
A) Deadlines should be adhered to and failure to do so could lead to a sanction
(Correct. See Part 3 of the CrimPR which provides for the effective case management of criminal cases)
Can a case progress in the defendant’s absence?
A) Yes
B) No
A) Yes
(Correct. The advocate attending the case management hearing will be asked to confirm that they have advised the defendant that his trial may go ahead in his absence if he fails to attend)
What is the classification of the offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm or wounding contrary to section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861?
A) Either-way
B) Summary
C) Indictable only
A) Either-way
(By contrast, the offence of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to section 18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is an indictable only offence)
What is the classification of the offence of simple criminal damage which is £5,000 or less?
A) Summary
B) Either-way
C) Indictable only
A) Summary
(If the criminal damage is £5,000 or less it will be treated as a summary offence. If the criminal damage exceeds £5,000 it is an either-way offence)
What is the classification of the offence of robbery?
A) Either-way
B) Indictable only
C) Summary
B) Indictable only
(Aggravated burglary is also an indictable only offence for example)
What is the classification of the offences of assault and battery?
A) Either-way
B) Indictable only
C) Summary
C) Summary
(In addition, criminal damage where the value is £5,000 or less is treated as a summary offence)
What is the classification of the offence of attempted aggravated criminal damage?
A) Either-way
B) Indictable only
C) Summary
B) Indictable only
(Aggravated criminal damage is an indictable only offence. Attempts to commit indictable only offences will be triable only on indictment)
What is the classification of the offence of theft?
A) Indictable only
B) Summary
C) Either-way
C) Either-way
(Low value shoplifting, where the value does not exceed £200, is now said to be a summary only offence. However, the statute still allows an adult defendant to elect trial in the Crown Court, so you should therefore continue to treat shoplifting as a theft which is an either-way offence)
What is the classification of the offence of burglary?
A) Indictable only
B) Either-way
C) Summary
B) Either-way
(This applies to section 9(1)(a) and9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968)
What are the three categories of offence?
A) Summary, either-way and indictable only
B) Property offences, fatal offences and non-fatal offences against the person
C) Low, medium and high
A) Summary, either-way and indictable only
(Correct. Either-way offences are also known as ‘indictable’ as they are capable of being tried on indictment)
How are the roles of tribunal of fact and tribunal of law dealt with in the magistrates’ court?
A) The magistrates are the tribunal of fact and the legal advisor is the tribunal of law
B) The magistrates are the tribunal of fact and tribunal of law
C) The magistrates are the tribunal of law, there is no tribunal of fact
B) The magistrates are the tribunal of fact and tribunal of law
(Correct. This is arguably an unsatisfactory position when the magistrates make a ruling of law that certain evidence is inadmissible but hear the evidence in order to make that decision. In contrast, in the Crown court it would be the judge that would make a ruling of law that certain evidence is inadmissible and the jury would never hear the evidence)
For which classification of offence does a plea before venue hearing take place?
A) Indictable-only offences
B) Either-way offences
C) Summary-only offences
B) Either-way offences
(Correct. Either-way offences are capable of being dealt with by either the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court. In order to decide which court is the most appropriate one, the defendant must first be invited to indicate a plea at a plea before venue hearing)
A girl picks up a gun and points it at a boy’s head. The girl and the boy know that the gun is not loaded.
Which one of the following statements best describes the legal position?
A) The girl is potentially criminally liable for an assault
B) The girl is potentially criminally liable for a battery
C) The girl has no criminal liability as has not committed either an assault or a battery
C) The girl has no criminal liability as has not committed either an assault or a battery
(Correct. The girl has not threatened unlawful violence on the boy nor touched him without consent, so does not fulfil the definitions of assault or battery)
Which one of the following best describes the mens rea of s 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861?
A) An intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful force to another
B) An intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence
C) An intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful force to another or an intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence
D) There is no mens rea requirement
C) An intention or recklessness as to applying unlawful force to another or an intention or recklessness as to causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence
(Correct. No mens rea is required for the actual bodily harm element)
Which of the following correctly describes the mens rea of s 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861?
A) Intention or recklessness as to causing serious harm
B) Intention to cause some harm
C) Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm
D) Intention to cause serious harm
C) Intention or recklessness as to causing some harm
(Correct. Intention to cause serious harm is the mens rea of s 18 OAPA 1861)
What does a custody officer do?
A) Advises on charge
B) Authorises detention and release from detention at a police station
C) Arrests the suspect
B) Authorises detention and release from detention at a police station
(Correct. A custody officer must be appointed for each designated police station and must be of the rank of at least sergeant. The custody officer is also responsible for ensuring that the detainee is treated in accordance with PACE 1984 and the Codes of Practice, noting down all the required matters on the custody record)
For how long may the police keep a suspect of an indictable offence in custody prior to charge before applying for a warrant of further detention?
A) 72 hours
B) 24 hours
C) 48 hours
D) 96 hours
E) 36 hours
E) 36 hours
(Correct. Where the offence being investigated is indictable, 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)
What is the status of the rules of conduct on police powers in criminal courts?
A) The codes are inadmissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings
B) The codes are admissible in evidence in criminal proceedings only
C) The codes are admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings
D) The codes are admissible in evidence in civil proceedings only
C) The codes are admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings
(Correct. Subject to relevance, the PACE Codes of Practice are admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings)
What rights will a detainee be told of by the custody officer?
A) The right to consult privately with a solicitor, the right to free independent legal advice and the right to have someone informed of their arrest
B) The right to consult privately with a solicitor, the right to free independent legal advice and the right to a telephone call
C) The right to consult privately with a solicitor and the right to free independent legal advice
A) The right to consult privately with a solicitor, the right to free independent legal advice and the right to have someone informed of their arrest
(Correct. The right to legal advice can be delayed in certain circumstances)
If access to an interpreter is delayed and the police wish to proceed with the interview in order to minimise physical harm to others, what rank of police officer must authorise this?
A) Inspector
B) Superintendent
C) Chief Inspector
D) Constable
B) Superintendent
(Correct. Where the custody officer has determined that a suspect requires an interpreter, that suspect must not be interviewed without an interpreter unless authorisation is given by an officer of the rank of superintendent or above who is satisfied that delaying the interview will lead to:
• interference with, or harm to, evidence; or
• interference with or physical harm to other people; or
serious loss of, or damage to, property)
Just prior to his interview, Rory is shouting that he is Napoleon and hurling himself against the wall of his cell. Which answer below correctly describes police duties here?
A) They must ensure his safety and that of their officers but nothing else
B) Police should investigate any mental health concerns, if time permits
C) If police suspect Rory may be mentally disordered he must have an appropriate adult present at the police station
D) Police should ensure access to a doctor but nothing else
C) If police suspect Rory may be mentally disordered he must have an appropriate adult present at the police station
(Correct. This is the initial action to be taken in respect of those that are mentally disordered or have other forms of vulnerability, informing the appropriate adult and asking them to come to the police station)
Which of the following can act as an appropriate adult to someone under the age of 18?
A) Estranged parent
B) Social worker
C) Solicitor
D) Police Officer
B) Social worker
(Correct. In the case of a young person looked after under the Children Act 1989 a social worker could act as an appropriate adult. Alternatively, a parent or guardian could act as an appropriate adult)
A man is arrested for fraud. At the police station he speaks to his solicitor and informs her that he believes the police are in possession of some accounting paperwork that they took from his office when he was arrested. The solicitor speaks to the investigating officer who provides a short background to the case but will not confirm whether the police have the accounting paperwork or what was found in any such paperwork. The man tells the solicitor that he is concerned about an ambush in the interview and asks the solicitor if the police are acting unlawfully regarding disclosure.
Have the police have properly complied with their disclosure obligations?
A) No because the police are obliged to provide the solicitor with any relevant disclosure that the solicitor reasonably requests.
B) Yes because the police do not have to provide information on the accounting paperwork, as long as they give the solicitor sufficient information to understand the nature of the offence and why the man is suspected.
C) No because the police are unlawfully withholding evidence.
D) No because the police have the discretion to disclose what they decide best assists their line of questioning in interview without reference to the solicitor or the man
B) Yes because the police do not have to provide information on the accounting paperwork, as long as they give the solicitor sufficient information to understand the nature of the offence and why the man is suspected
(This reflects thePolice and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 Code of Practice C 11.1A. Thereis no strict requirement to disclose particular items)
A man is arrested in connection with an assault occasioning actually bodily harm (‘ABH’). At the police station he decides he does not need a solicitor as he has been interviewed by the police on many previous occasions. Prior to the interview he is told by the officer in the case that if he confesses then they will be able to start the interview quicker and get him out on bail, otherwise he will have to hang around in the cell all day. On this basis the man decides to make a full confession. He is charged with ABH and instructs a solicitor to represent him at court.
Which of these statements best summarises the solicitor’s options regarding the man’s confession?
A) The solicitor can make an application to exclude the confession for oppression.
B) The solicitor can make an application to exclude the confession for unreliability.
C) The solicitor can make an application to exclude the confession because of the adverse effect it would have on the fairness of proceedings.
D) The solicitor can make an application to exclude the confession for unreliability and because of the adverse effect it would have on the fairness of proceedings
D) The solicitor can make an application to exclude the confession for unreliability and because of the adverse effect it would have on the fairness of proceedings
(It seems that the confession was obtained as the result of something said or done which renders the confession unreliable (section 76(2) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). However, the defence would have to show a causal link between the officer in the case’s comments and the confession. The defence can also make an application on the basis that admitting the confession would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings (section 78))
A woman is arrested by a police constable on the street outside her house for the offence of burglary. The officer arrests her, cautions her and then asks the woman where she was last night. The woman answers.
Which of the following best explains whether this an interview?
A) The police constable’s question does not amount to an interview because it’s just one question.
B) The police constable’s question does not amount to an interview as she is not being interviewed formally and her comments are not being audio recorded.
C) The police constable’s question amounts to an interview but it did not need to take place at the police station as she was cautioned.
D) The police constable’s question amounts to an interview which should have taken place at the police station
D) The police constable’s question amounts to an interview which should have taken place at the police station
(This falls within the definition of an interview under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 Code of Practice C 11.1A – she is being questioned regarding her suspected involvement in an offence. Interviews should take place at a police station unless an exception applies e.g. where delay would hinder the recovery of property. None of the exceptions seem to apply in this instance. The defence can apply under s 78 PACE 1984 to have her answers ruled inadmissible)
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 24 hours.
B) 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.
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 36 hours.
D) 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.
E) 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 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 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 does not have a duty of confidentiality to her son
B) She is not a solicitor
C) She is his mother
D) She is a witness to the offence
E) She has previous convictions
D) She is a witness to the offence
(She cannot act as an appropriate adult in these circumstances because she is a witness to the offence.
The other options while plausible are incorrect:
· A parent can act as appropriate adult. In fact this is often the case.
· Previous convictions do not bar a suitable individual from acting an appropriate adult.
· An appropriate adult does not need to be legally qualified.
· It is correct that she does not have a duty of confidentiality to her son but it is not the case that this would bar her from acting as an appropriate adult)
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 after which you will be charged.
B) 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.
C) 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.
D) 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.
E) You can be kept in custody for up to 24 hours from your arrest. You must be charged or released before that time.
C) 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 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 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 a legal advice can be delayed indefinitely with written authority from an officer of at least superintendent rank
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 legal advice can be delayed with written authority from an officer of at least superintendent rank
D) 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.
E) Her access to legal advice can never be delayed
C) 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 iscarried 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 because of the adverse effect it would have on the fairness of proceedings.
E) 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 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 alsomake 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)
Which of these best describes the role of a solicitor or accredited representative at the police station?
A) To ensure that justice is done.
B) To ensure that no court of law is misled.
C) To protect and advance the legal rights of their clients.
D) To advise the suspect properly and in accordance with the law.
E) To assist in the smooth running of the criminal justice system.
C) To protect and advance the legal rights of their clients
(This reflects the role of the solicitor as set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code of Practice C Notes for Guidance paragraph 6D)
Which of these represent a passive rather than active defence approach?
A) Challenging the investigating officer over lack of disclosure
B) Making representations to the custody officer regarding release on bail
C) Intervening during the interview where questioning is inappropriate
D) Raising breaches of PACE with the custody officer
E) Sit by and take notes
E) Sit by and take notes
(While comprehensive notetaking is an important aspect of police station practice, active defence requires more than this)
In which of these circumstances might a vulnerable suspect at the police station be interviewed without an appropriate adult?
A) An inspector determines an urgent interview is required because delay would lead to interference with evidence.
B) A superintendent determines that an urgent interview is required to ensure that the suspect is not left waiting too long, which might be a detriment to their health.
C) A superintendent determines an urgent interview is required because delay would lead to interference with evidence.
D) A superintendent determines that an urgent interview is required.
C) A superintendent determines an urgent interview is required because delay would lead to interference with evidence
(The superintendent must also be satisfied that it would not significantly harm the person’s physical or mental state.
The other options were incorrect because:
· The rank for authorisation is superintendent or above.
· It must be the case that in the reasonable opinion of the superintendent delay would lead to one of the specified outcomes in PACE Code of Practice C.
· Ensuring that the suspect is not left waiting too long, which might be a detriment to their health is not a valid reason for an urgent interview with a vulnerable person without an appropriate adult)
Which of these statements best reflects the approach you should adopt when taking your client’s instructions prior to interview?
A) You should allow your client to give a full account of their version of events before comparing that version of with the disclosure that has been supplied by the police.
B) You should explain the allegations against your client and allow them to provide you with a full account of their version of events. If they admit the offence then you should advise them to answer questions.
C) You should explain the allegations against your client then on that basis of those allegations set out how you think the client should approach the interview.
D) You should explain the allegations against your client then allow them to provide you with a full account of their version of events.
E) You should explain the allegations against your client, but you should not take any detailed instructions at this stage. Full instructions should be taken after the interview.
D) You should explain the allegations against your client then allow them to provide you with a full account of their version of events
(Your clients full account (including whether they accept any involvement) is vitally important when it comes to advising which option to take in interview.
The other options were incorrect because:
· You must take detailed instructions from your client in advance of the interview in order that you can properly advise and protect their interests.
· You must give your client the opportunity to give you their account before you can advise on which option to follow at interview. For example, your client might have a defence that you are not aware of.
· You are not testing the strength of your client’s version (this will be done in interview and possibly later in court). You need to provide them with all the information that you have available in order that they can respond to the allegations.
· While inferences might be drawn, your client is under no obligation to answer questions just because they have admitted an offence to their solicitor. In fact, it may be in the client’s best interests to go ‘no comment’ if the police have insufficient evidence to prove the offence)
Which of these is not a relevant factor when advising a client on their options for interview?
A) Disclosure
B) Physical state of the client
C) Strength of the evidence
D) Client’s account
E) Previous convictions
E) Previous convictions
(This might be a factor in relation to bail and sentencing but it is not a factor when advising a client on their options for interview.
The other answers were all relevant factors when advising a client on their options for interview:
· The client’s account- For example, does the suspect admit the offence, which might lead to a ‘no comment’ interview?
· Strength of the evidence- For example, if the evidence is weak then answering questions might cause your client to incriminate themselves.
· Physical state of the client- The court might not draw and adverse inference where a defendant was advised not to answer questions because of their physical state.
· Disclosure- Where a court considers that insufficient disclosure was provided prior to interview then it may decide not to draw an adverse inference)
Which of these statements about mixed interviews is correct?
A) Mixed interviews give the suspect the ability to control the interview and not incriminate themselves.
B) The court cannot draw adverse inferences where there were ‘no comment’ responses.
C) Mixed interviews are not lawful, and a suspect must select an option for interview.
D) Mixed interviews are not admissible in court as they contain ‘no comment’ responses.
E) A transcript of the interview will be read in court which will include both answers to questions and ‘no comment’ responses.
E) A transcript of the interview will be read in court which will include both answers to questions and ‘no comment’ responses.
(Unlike a ‘no comment’ interview, a transcript of a mixed interview is included as evidence. The impact of such a mixed response on the tribunals of fact (the jury or magistrates) is easy to imagine.
The other options were incorrect:
· While not very helpful to a suspect, they are still entitled to reply to some questions and not others.
· If the suspect wishes to remain in control then a ‘no comment’ interview or pre-prepared statement makes far more sense.
· As with interviews where questions are answered the mixed interview transcript would be read in court.
· The court can still draw adverse inferences for those issues where a response was not given)
A woman is arrested by a police constable on the street outside her house for the offence of burglary. The officer arrests her, cautions her and then asks the woman where she was last night. The woman answers.
Which of the following best explains whether this an interview?
A) The police constable’s question amounts to an interview but it did not need to take place at the police station as she was cautioned.
B) The police constable’s question amounts to an interview which should have taken place at the police station.
C) The police constable’s question does not amount to an interview because it’s just one question.
D) The police constable’s question does not amount to an interview as she is not being interviewed formally and her comments are not being audio recorded.
B) The police constable’s question amounts to an interview which should have taken place at the police station
(This falls within the definition of an interview under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 Code of Practice C 11.1A – she is being questioned regarding her suspected involvement in an offence. Interviews should take place at a police station unless an exception applies e.g. where delay would hinder the recovery of property. None of the exceptions seem to apply in this instance. The defence can apply under s 78 PACE 1984 to have her answers ruled inadmissible)
A man is arrested for fraud. At the police station he speaks to his solicitor and informs her that he believes the police are in possession of some accounting paperwork that they took from his office when he was arrested. The solicitor speaks to the investigating officer who provides a short background to the case but will not confirm whether the police have the accounting paperwork or what was found in any such paperwork. The man tells the solicitor that he is concerned about an ambush in the interview and asks the solicitor if the police are acting unlawfully regarding disclosure.
Have the police have properly complied with their disclosure obligations?
A) No because the police are unlawfully withholding evidence.
B) No because the police have the discretion to disclose what they decide best assists their line of questioning in interview without reference to the solicitor or the man.
C) Yes because the police do not have to provide information on the accounting paperwork, as long as they give the solicitor sufficient information to understand the nature of the offence and why the man is suspected.
D) No because the police are obliged to provide the solicitor with any relevant disclosure that the solicitor reasonably requests.
C) Yes because the police do not have to provide information on the accounting paperwork, as long as they give the solicitor sufficient information to understand the nature of the offence and why the man is suspected
(This reflects thePolice and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 Code of Practice C 11.1A. Thereis no strict requirement to disclose particular items)
A man is arrested in connection with an assault occasioning actually bodily harm (‘ABH’). At the police station he decides he does not need a solicitor as he has been interviewed by the police on many previous occasions. Prior to the interview he is told by the officer in the case that if he confesses then they will be able to start the interview quicker and get him out on bail, otherwise he will have to hang around in the cell all day. On this basis the man decides to make a full confession. He is charged with ABH and instructs a solicitor to represent him at court.
Which of these statements best summarises the solicitor’s options regarding the man’s confession?
A) The solicitor can make an application to exclude the confession for oppression.
B) The solicitor can make an application to exclude the confession because of the adverse effect it would have on the fairness of proceedings.
C) The solicitor can make an application to exclude the confession for unreliability and because of the adverse effect it would have on the fairness of proceedings.
D) The solicitor can make an application to exclude the confession for unreliability.
C) The solicitor can make an application to exclude the confession for unreliability and because of the adverse effect it would have on the fairness of proceedings
(It seems that the confession was obtained as the result of something said or done which renders the confession unreliable (section 76(2) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). However, the defence would have to show a causal link between the officer in the case’s comments and the confession. The defence can also make an application on the basis that admitting the confession would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings (section 78))
Which of the following is necessary in order for the court to draw an adverse inference under section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that the defendant relies on a fact that they did not offer at the time of questioning?
A) A special warning must have been given
B) The suspect must be cautioned
C) The defendant must plead guilty
B) The suspect must be cautioned
(The caution explains the possibility of an adverse inference being drawn.
The other options were incorrect because:
· There must be a trial otherwise any adverse inferences are irrelevant. If the case does not proceed to trial, or the defendant pleads guilty there will be no adverse inference.
· An ordinary language ‘special warning’ is only required for inferences under s 36 ors 37)
Which of the following correctly summarises the effect of an adverse inference?
A) No adverse inference can be drawn as every suspect has a right to silence
B) No adverse inference can be drawn where the suspect has followed legal advice
C) Any suspect can be convicted solely on the basis of an adverse inference
D) No suspect can be convicted solely on the basis of an adverse inference
D) No suspect can be convicted solely on the basis of an adverse inference
(This is the safeguard within section 38 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
The other options are incorrect because:
· No adverse inference can be drawn where the suspect has not been allowed access to legal advice. However, an adverse inference can be drawn even where the suspect has followed legal advice to give a no comment interview.
· The basic principle is that every suspect has a right to silence. However, if a suspect exercises their right to silence at interview then, provided certain statutory conditions are met, a court is allowed to draw inferences at a later trial)
A suspect is arrested in connection with an assault in a pub. He is arrested at the pub immediately after the alleged attack and is taken straight to the police station. In interview the suspect does not answer questions.
Which of the below statements is an example of why a section 36 adverse inference might later be drawn at trial?
A) He does not account for the blood stain on his clothing
B) He does not raise the fact that he was defending himself when he committed the attack
C) He does not explain why he shouted “I’m glad I hit him” on arrest
D) He has exercised his right to silence
E) He does not explain why he was in the pub at that time
A) He does not account for the blood stain on his clothing
(He has failed to account for an object, substance or mark (in this case a mark) found on him at the time of arrest.
The other options were incorrect because:
· An inference might be drawn under section 37 because he failed to account for his presence in the pub on his arrest.
· If he fails to explain why he shouted “I’m glad I hit him” on arrest or raise self-defence in interview then later does at trial then the court might be entitled to draw adverse inferences under section 34.
· He is entitled to exercise his right to silence, but this does not necessarily cause an inference to be drawn under section 36)
There are many methods by which a person can be identified.
Which of the following is a form of visual identification evidence?
A) Handwriting
B) Witness recognises and names the suspect
C) DNA
D) Fingerprints
E) Voice identification
B) Witness recognises and names the suspect
(This is a form of visual identification, just like CCTV footage. The other options were other forms of identification evidence. However, people can also be incriminated by other types of evidence such as clothing description, description of the person, the description of the car the person was driving)
When the suspect disputes being the person the eye-witness claims to have seen and the witness expresses an ability to identify the suspect or there is a reasonable chance of the eye-witness being able to identify the suspect the police must attempt an identification procedure.
Which of the following is the procedure which should be attempted first?
A) Confrontation
B) Video identification
C) Identification parade
D) Group identification
B) Video identification
(If an identification procedure is to be held, the suspect shall initially be invited to take part in a video identification unless: (a) a video identification is not practicable; or (b) an identification parade is both practicable and more suitable than a video identification)
In usual circumstances, who has responsibility for arranging the identification procedure?
A) An officer with no connection to the case of at least the rank of inspector
B) The custody officer
C) An officer with no connection to the case of at least the rank of sergeant
D) The officer in the case
A) An officer with no connection to the case of at least the rank of inspector
(The arrangements for, and conduct of, the eye-witness identification procedures shall be the responsibility of an officer not below inspector rank who is not involved with the investigation (‘the identification officer’))
Who generally provides advice on charge?
A) Investigating Officer
B) Custody Officer
C) Crown Prosecution Service
D) Charging Officer
C) Crown Prosecution Service
(Correct. The Crown Prosecution Service provide advice on charge in all but the most minor cases)
What is the time limit for charging or laying an information for a summary only offence?
A) 12 months
B) 6 months
C) 3 months
D) 24 months
E) 1 month
B) 6 months
(Correct. Six months from the date of alleged commission of the offence)
Which method of commencing criminal proceedings would a person use to bring a private prosecution?
A) Arrest and charge
B) Written charge and requisition
C) Laying an information
C) Laying an information
(Correct. Information alleging an offence is served on a magistrates’ court. The court will then issue a summons or an arrest warrant requiring the accused to attend. Private prosecutions may only be commenced by summons as they are not brought by ‘relevant prosecutors’ for the purposes of the written charge and requisition procedure under s.29 CJA 2003)
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 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.
B) 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 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.
D) 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.
E) 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.
E) 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.
(A court might draw inferences under s.36 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (‘CJPOA’) (object, substance or mark) or s.37 CJPOA (presence on arrest at a particular place). Such inferences arise as soon as she fails to account for her presence or the metal bar.
The other options, while plausible, are incorrect:
Unlike s.34 CJPOA, inferences under s.36 CJPOA or s.37 CJPOA do not require that the defendant fail to mention something they later rely on.
Inferences can be drawn here for both presence and the possession of the metal bar, the metal bar in her bag is still in her possession.
Inferences can be drawn here for both presence and the possession of the metal bar, being outside the property would still count as being present.
A special warning is required, but there is no suggested one was not given here. In any event s.36 CJPOA and s.37 CJPOA do not require later reliance on something)
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 and the matter will progress to trial.
B) 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.
C) Adverse inferences can be drawn from her failure to mention something that she then relies on at trial.
D) 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.
E) 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.
D) 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
(Correct. 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 like) 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 because he failed to account for his location when arrested.
B) The court might draw an inference that he failed to account for the ornament being in his possession.
C) The court will not allow the defendant to raise the defence as he failed to mention it when questioned.
D) The court will not draw any inference as long as he can explain why he did not mention the issue of duress in interview.
E) The court might draw an inference that he invented the defence between interview and trial
E) 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 cannot be excluded from the interview as you were not preventing or obstructing questions being put to your client.
B) You cannot be excluded from the interview as the interviewing officer is not a rank of superintendent.
C) You can be excluded from the interview as you have interrupted the police interview after it has started.
D) You can be excluded from the interview if the police arrange for another solicitor to attend the police station to advise the client properly.
E) You can be excluded from the interview due to your advice to your client to answer ‘no comment’ to all questions
A) 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)
Your client is under arrest for an alleged assault which you are told took place last night on a dark street. The victim says he only got a brief glimpse of his assailant and says he is only fairly sure he could identify him. A police officer who has dealt with your client before has however recognised your client from CCTV of the incident. Your client is under arrest and has told police in interview that although he was at the scene he was not the alleged attacker.
Do the police have to carry out an ID procedure in these circumstances?
A) Yes. The police must conduct an identification procedure because the suspect denies the offence.
B) Yes. The police must conduct an identification procedure because the suspect denies the offence and the eye-witness has expressed an ability to identify the suspect
C) Yes. The police must conduct an identification procedure because the eye-witness has expressed an ability to identify the suspect.
D) No. The police need not conduct an identification procedure because it is not disputed that the suspect is already known to the police officer.
E) No. The police need not conduct an identification procedure because the suspect has been recognised and it would serve no useful purpose.
B) Yes. The police must conduct an identification procedure because the suspect denies the offence and the eye-witness has expressed an ability to identify the suspect
(This answer is the best answer because the police must conduct an identification procedure where the suspect denies the offence and AND the eye-witness has expressed an ability to identify the suspect as here.
The other options, while plausible, are incorrect.
An identification procedure would serve a useful purpose even though the suspect has been recognised as there is an eye-witness who says he is fairly sure he could identify his attacker.
An identification procedure would serve a useful purpose in these circumstances as your client, while admitting presence at the scene, denies being the attacker and the eye-witness says he is fairly sure he could identify his attacker.
Here the relevant person is the eye-witness, who does not know your client, rather than the police officer.
Whilst the suspect denies the offence, the ID procedure is necessary as there is an eye-witness who says he is fairly sure he could identify his attacker)
Where will an adult defendant charged with robbery make their first appearance, have their trial and be sentenced?
A) In a magistrates’ court for first appearance and the Crown Court for trial and sentencing.
B) In a magistrates’ court for first appearance, trial and sentencing.
C) In the Crown Court for first appearance, trial and sentencing.
D) In a magistrates’ court for first appearance and trial, the Crown Court for sentencing.
A) In a magistrates’ court for first appearance and the Crown Court for trial and sentencing
(This is the correct procedure for indictable only offences such as robbery)
Which of the following will not take place at a first hearing in relation to an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?
A) Indication of plea
B) Legal aid
C) Consideration of bail
D) Trial
D) Trial
(If the defendant indicates not guilty then any trial will take place on a later date)
Which of the following is not required to be included in the initial details served on a defendant who is on bail at the time of the first hearing?
A) The preparation for effective trial form
B) A summary of the circumstances of the offence
C) The defendant’s criminal record
D) Any written statements and exhibits that are available and material
E) Any account given by the defendant in interview
A) The preparation for effective trial form
(This is not required under Part 8 Criminal Procedure Rules. If the defendant pleads not guilty then this will be completed as part of the ongoing case management)
Which of the following best explains where an adult defendant charged with fraud could potentially make their first appearance, have their trial and be sentenced?
A) In a magistrates’ court for first appearance and the Crown Court for trial and sentencing.
B) In a magistrates’ court for first appearance, trial and sentencing.
C) In a magistrates’ court for first appearance and either a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court for trial and sentencing.
D) In a magistrates’ court for first appearance and trial, the Crown Court for sentencing.
C) In a magistrates’ court for first appearance and either a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court for trial and sentencing.
(Fraud is an either-way offence, so after first appearance in a magistrates’ court, the court for trial and sentencing will depend on a variety of factors, the magistrates’ accepting jurisdiction, the defendant’s election and the magistrates’ sentencing powers)
Which of the following best summarises when a defendant should be committed to the Crown Court for sentence?
A) When the defendant is charged with an indictable only offence.
B) When the defendant has pleaded guilty to an either-way offence and the magistrates’ court is of the view that 6 months imprisonment will be insufficient
C) When the defendant has pleaded guilty to an either-way offence and the magistrates’ court is of the view that 12 months imprisonment will be insufficient.
B) When the defendant has pleaded guilty to an either-way offence and the magistrates’ court is of the view that 6 months imprisonment will be insufficient
(For a single either-way offence the maximum sentence is 6 months in the magistrates’ court)
Which of the following is not an appropriate consideration for the magistrates in deciding allocation for an either-way offence?
A) Whether the defendant has any previous convictions
B) There is no power to commit for sentence after trial
C) The case is of unusual legal, procedural or factual complexity
D) Any personal mitigation
B) There is no power to commit for sentence after trial
(In general, either-way offences should be tried summarily unless:
· the outcome would clearly be a sentence in excess of the court’s powers for the offence(s) concerned after taking into account personal mitigation and any potential reduction for a guilty plea; or
· for reasons of unusual legal, procedural or factual complexity, the case should be tried in the Crown Court.
Before making a decision on allocation, the court shall give the prosecution an opportunity to inform the court of the accused’s previous convictions (if any).
In cases with no factual or legal complications the court should bear in mind its power to commit for sentence after a trial and may retain jurisdiction notwithstanding that the likely sentence might exceed its powers)
Defendants routinely misuse the terms bail and remand. Which one of the following is the best meaning of remand?
A) Where the defendant is obliged to come back to court to continue with the case.
B) Where the defendant is presented to court, and the court cannot conclude the case in one hearing.
C) Where the defendant waits in custody for the next court hearing.
D) Where the defendant is on bail until the next court hearing.
A) Where the defendant is obliged to come back to court to continue with the case
(This is the correct answer. The defendant may serve the remand in custody or in the community on bail)
Who can grant bail in murder cases?
A) The Judge in the Crown Court
B) The prosecution
C) The defence
D) The jury
E) The Magistrates’ Court
A) The Judge in the Crown Court
(This is the correct answer. In other cases, the first decision in relation to bail is taken by the magistrates’ court)
The presumption in favour of bail is found in which section of the Bail Act 1976?
A) Section 3
B) Section 1
C) Section 4
D) Section 2
C) Section 4
(This is the correct answer. The court must presume that a defendant is entitled to bail, and it is only if an objection is properly made out that bail can be refused)
Which of the following is one of the ‘big three’ grounds for objecting to bail?
A) A remand in custody would be for the defendant’s own protection
B) The court has insufficient information to deal with the issue of bail
C) The defendant is already serving a sentence in custody
D) Fail to surrender to custody
D) Fail to surrender to custody
(This is the correct answer. This is one of the three primary grounds for objecting to bail for ‘indictable’ offences)
Who applies for the defendant to be remanded into custody?
A) The defendant
B) The jury
C) The prosecution
D) The Judge
C) The prosecution
(This is the correct answer. It is for the prosecution to apply to have the defendant remanded into custody if that is its desire by presenting objections to bail)
The presumption in favour of bail applies in which of the following situations?
A) To defendants being committed for sentence from the Magistrates’ Court to the Crown Court
B) On conviction whilst reports are prepared pending sentence.
C) On appeal from conviction or sentence
B) On conviction whilst reports are prepared pending sentence.
(This is the correct answer. Although the concerns about a defendant absconding may be more serious following a conviction)
Which of the following is a ground for objection to bail rather than a factor to be taken into consideration?
A) Nature and seriousness of the offence and the likely sentence
B) Bail record in the past
C) Strength of the evidence
D) Character of the defendant, his antecedents, associations and community ties
E) Commit further offences
E) Commit further offences
(This is the correct answer. This is one of the three primary grounds for objecting to bail for ‘indictable’ offences)
Who can make an application to vary bail conditions?
A) The prosecution or the defence
B) The prosecution only
C) The defence only
A) The prosecution or the defence
(This is the correct answer. The application should be made to the court which granted bail (or the Crown Court if the accused has been sent for trial or committed for sentence))
If the court was concerned that the defendant would leave town and fail to attend the next court hearing, which of the following would be the most appropriate condition to impose?
A) Restriction on who the defendant might have contact with during bail
B) Security
C) Reporting to the police station at given times
D) Surety
E) Residence at a given address
C) Reporting to the police station at given times
(This is the best answer as this condition will allow the prosecution to ensure the defendant is still in town)
How many bail conditions can the court impose on a defendant?
A) No limit
B) Two conditions
C) Just one
A) No limit
(This is the correct answer. The court can impose ‘such conditions as appear necessary’ meaning technically that there is no limit to the conditions that a court could choose to impose)
In the context of bail, which of the following is an offence?
A) The Bail Act 1976 s.7
B) Breaching a bail condition
C) Not surrendering to custody
C) Not surrendering to custody
(This is the correct answer. This is an offence punishable by up to three months’ imprisonment in the magistrates’ court or 12 months on indictment)
Under the Bail Act 1976 s.7, officers do not have the power to arrest…?
A) Those about to be in breach of a bail condition
B) Those who will breach a bail condition sometime in the future
C) Those in breach of a bail condition
B) Those who will breach a bail condition sometime in the future
(This is the correct answer. The Bail Act s.7 provides that there is a power of arrest allowing officers to arrest those either who are in breach, or who are about to be so)
Which of the following represents the maximum sentence for not surrendering to custody?
A) 3 months imprisonment
B) 12 months imprisonment
C) No sentence, as failing to surrender to custody is not an offence
B) 12 months imprisonment
(This is the correct answer. This is an offence punishable by up to three months’ imprisonment in the magistrates’ court or 12 months on indictment)
When does the custody time limit for a defendant awaiting trial in the magistrates’ court expire?
A) When the court begins hearing evidence from the defence.
B) When a jury is sworn
C) When the court begins hearing evidence from the prosecution.
C) When the court begins hearing evidence from the prosecution.
(This is the correct answer. This is considered the start of the trial for the purposes of the expiry of the custody time limit)
Within how many days of the first appearance must a trial take place in the Crown Court, if the prosecution have not successfully applied to extend the custody time limit?
A) 56 days
B) 182 days
C) 28 days
D) 182 days, less any days spent in custody prior to the case being sent to the Crown Court
D) 182 days, less any days spent in custody prior to the case being sent to the Crown Court
(This is the correct answer. Usually the defendant will not spend any days in custody prior to the case being sent to the Crown Court)
To successfully apply to extend the custody time limit, the prosecution must be able to show which of the following?
A) There is good and sufficient cause to have the defendant further remanded into custody.
B) That there was a good reason for the trial not taking place within the custody time limit.
C) It has acted with all due diligence and expedition.
D) It has acted with all due diligence and expedition and that there is good and sufficient cause to have the defendant further remanded into custody.
D) It has acted with all due diligence and expedition and that there is good and sufficient cause to have the defendant further remanded into custody.
(This is the correct answer. If the limits expire, then the defendant will be released, unless the prosecution successfully applies to extend the time limits)
Which court hears prosecution appeals against granting of bail in the magistrates’ court?
A) Crown Court
B) Court of Appeal
C) Magistrates’ court
D) High Court
A) Crown Court
(This is the correct answer. The appeal will be heard within 48 hours, excluding weekends)
In the usual case, if the defendant is having a trial at the magistrates’ court and is unsuccessful in applying for bail at first appearance, when can the issue of bail be raised for a second time?
A) 48 hours
B) 24 hours
C) One week
C) One week
(This is the correct answer. Once the defendant has had both applications, the defendant must secure a ‘certificate of full argument’ from the magistrates’ court before then appealing to the Crown Court, if he wishes to do so)
If a defendant is remanded into custody at their first hearing and their trial will take place in the magistrates’ court, their first remand must be for no longer than how many days?
A) 28 days
B) 56 days
C) 8 clear days
C) 8 clear days
(This is the correct answer. Second appearance (in person or via live link) must be within eight days of the first appearance. D can make another bail application)
How many total attempts does a defendant have at applying for bail as a general rule, if the trial is to be held at the magistrates’ court?
A) Two
B) One
C) Three
C) Three
(This is the correct answer. The defendant can have two attempts at getting bail at the magistrates’ court, and one attempt on appeal to the Crown Court)
How quickly is a prosecution appeal against bail heard by the court?
A) Within 48 hours, excluding weekends
B) Within 24 hours, excluding weekends
C) Within 24 hours, including weekends
D) Within 48, including weekends
A) Within 48 hours, excluding weekends
(This is the correct answer. This applies where the magistrates’ court and Crown court grant bail)
Which court hears prosecution appeals against granting of bail in the Crown Court?
A) High Court
B) Court of Appeal
C) Magistrates’ court
D) Crown Court
A) High Court
(This is the correct answer. The appeal will be heard within 48 hours, excluding weekends)
Your client is charged with theft and bailed to appear at the magistrates’ court the following day. She intends to plead guilty to the offence and wants to know what will happen.
Which of these statements best summarises what will happen at her first hearing?
A) The court will decide whether to allocate the case to the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court. In doing this they take into account the allocation guideline.
B) The court will send the matter straight to the Crown Court without taking a plea.
C) The court will take the guilty plea and then commit the case to the Crown Court for sentence. The Crown Court can only sentence her to the maximum sentence available in the magistrates’ court.
D) The court will decide whether their sentencing powers are sufficient. If they determine their powers are sufficient then she will be given the option to elect Crown Court for sentencing.
E) The court will decide whether their sentencing powers are sufficient. If they determine their powers are not sufficient then they will commit to the Crown Court for sentence.
E) The court will decide whether their sentencing powers are sufficient. If they determine their powers are not sufficient then they will commit to the Crown Court for sentence.
(Correct. The court would have to determine whether their sentencing powers of up to 6 months’ imprisonment per offence and/or unlimited fine per offence would be sufficient. The Crown Court would have any sentence available for the offence of theft.
The other options are incorrect:
This question is not about allocation. Allocation guidelines are only considered when a defendant pleads NOT GUILTY.
This is not an indictable only offence so will not be sent directly to the Crown Court.
The Court would not automatically commit for sentence, and if it decided to then the Crown Court would not be limited in its sentencing powers.
A defendant cannot elect Crown Court for sentencing. (And why would they?))
Your client is making her first appearance at the magistrates’ court in relation to the offence of grievous bodily harm. She is concerned that she will be refused bail because the last time she was at court (in relation to a common assault charge) she failed to attend court for sentencing and was arrested the following day. She failed to attend court due to the death of a family member. She would like to know what will happen in court when the magistrates deal with the issue of bail.
Which of these statements best sets out your advice to your client about what will happen at court in terms of bail?
A) She has a right to bail but the prosecution are likely to object on the basis of her previous convictions.
B) She will be granted bail because her previous fail to surrender relates to common assault which is a summary only offence.
C) She has a right to bail but the prosecution are likely to object on the basis that she will fail to surrender to custody if released on bail because of her previous fail to surrender.
D) She does not have a right to bail because of the previous breach of bail conditions, but you can still make representations on her behalf.
E) She will be refused bail because of the previous breach of bail conditions.
C) She has a right to bail but the prosecution are likely to object on the basis that she will fail to surrender to custody if released on bail because of her previous fail to surrender
(Correct. She has the right to bail but one of the grounds on which the prosecution will object is that she would fail to surrender on the basis of her previous bail record.
The other answers are plausible but not correct:
Previous convictions can be used as evidence of substantiating grounds on which she should be remanded in custody, but they are not grounds on their own.
She retains the right the bail under s. 4 of the Bail Act 1976.
She has breached bail conditions before, but that does not automatically mean she will be refused bail. The court will hear representations from prosecution and defence.
In this case it is the breach of her bail conditions that is relevant, not the nature of the offence. Common assault is summary only but she still failed to surrender to the court at the appointed time)
Your client is due to appear before the magistrates’ court having been charged with theft of a bottle of gin from the supermarket. Your client denies the offence and intends to plead not guilty. Your client has eight recent convictions for theft, three of which are thefts at the same supermarket and one previous conviction for failing to surrender 10 years ago. Your client lives with their mother. The prosecution object to bail on grounds that your client will commit further offences while on bail.
Which of the following would be the most appropriate bail conditions to put forward for your client?
A) A condition of residence at her mother’s address, not to enter the supermarket and to pay a surety.
B) A condition of residence at her mother’s address and not to enter the supermarket.
C) A condition of residence at her mother’s address and for your client to surrender their passport.
D) A condition of residence at her mother’s address and a night time curfew.
E) A condition of residence at her mother’s address, reporting at the police station daily and a night time curfew.
B) A condition of residence at her mother’s address and not to enter the supermarket
(Correct. Your client has a bail address (their mother’s address) therefore it would be appropriate to put forward a condition of residence. Such a condition can be imposed to address any concerns the court may have of your client failing to surrender. Even though the prosecution do not object to bail on the grounds of failing to surrender it would strengthen your argument for granting your client bail if the condition was put forward. Your client has recent previous convictions for committing the same offence at the same location. It would therefore be appropriate to put forward a condition that your client does not enter the supermarket to reduce the risk of your client committing further offences on bail.
The other answers while plausible are incorrect.
The prosecution does not object to bail on grounds that the client will fail to surrender and therefore is would not be proportionate to impose a daily reporting condition which reduces the risk of absconding. A curfew would also not be appropriate as there is nothing to suggest that the client has a pattern of offending at night.
Even though it would be appropriate to put forward a condition of residence it would not be relevant for your client to surrender their passport. There is no information to suggest that your client will leave the country and abscond.
Even though it would be appropriate to put forward a condition of residence and for your client not to enter the supermarket, it would not be relevant for your client to pay a surety as the prosecution are objecting on the basis that she would commit further offences.
Even though it would be appropriate to put forward a condition of residence a curfew would not be relevant as there is nothing to suggest that the client has a pattern of offending at night)
You are representing a man at the police station who is being investigated for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. He asks you which court will deal with his case if he is charged.
Which of these statements is the most accurate advice for your client?
A) Your first hearing will be at the magistrates’ court but your case will be tried at the Crown Court.
B) Your first hearing will be at the Crown Court, which will decide whether or not to accept jurisdiction of your case.
C) Your first hearing will be at the magistrates’ court where the magistrates will determine whether or not to accept jurisdiction of your matter.
D) Your first hearing will be at the magistrates’ court where you will be tried, but it is likely your case would be sent to the Crown Court for sentencing.
E) Your first hearing will be at the Crown Court because of the seriousness of your offence.
A) Your first hearing will be at the magistrates’ court but your case will be tried at the Crown Court.
(Correct. S.18 GBH is an indictable only offence, but the first hearing would still be at the magistrates’ court.
The other answers are not correct:
First hearings for any indictable only offence are always at the magistrates’ court.
This is not an either way offence, so there will be no plea before venue and allocation hearing.
This is not an either way offence so the magistrates would never try the case before remitting to the Crown Court for sentence.
The first hearing would be at the magistrates and the Crown Court does not determine whether or not to accept jurisdiction)
Your client is charged with multiple thefts from various shops and offices. He denies all the offences. Following interview he was kept in police custody until the following day when he was produced at the magistrates’ court. Your application for bail on that occasion was unsuccessful and he was remanded in custody. At the second hearing a week later you make a further application for bail but this is also refused. After the hearing you go and speak to your client in the court cells and explain what is going to happen next.
Which of these statements best sets out your client’s options with regard to bail?
A) He can make a further application for bail at the start of his trial.
B) He cannot appeal against the bail decision but he could make a further application in the magistrates’ court if there is a change in circumstances.
C) He can appeal the bail decision to the Crown Court. If he is unsuccessful he will not be able to make a further bail application unless there is a change in his circumstances.
D) He cannot appeal the bail decision to the Crown Court. He has made both his applications for bail in the magistrates’ court and therefore cannot apply for bail again.
E) He can appeal the decision to the Crown Court if there have been changes in his circumstances since the last application before the magistrates’.
C) He can appeal the bail decision to the Crown Court. If he is unsuccessful he will not be able to make a further bail application unless there is a change in his circumstances.
(Correct. A defendant has two attempts at bail in the magistrates’ court after which they must secure a ‘certificate of full argument’ from the magistrates before appealing. The appeal is heard by the Crown Court one business day after receipt of the appeal notice.
While plausible the other options are incorrect:
It is correct he only has 2 attempts in the magistrates’ court but he can also appeal to the Crown Court.
He cannot make a further application at the start of trial as he has made 2 applications already.
He can (as of right) appeal to the Crown Court.
He doesn’t require a change of circumstances to appeal to the Crown Court)
Which of the following will always take place prior to a trial in the Crown Court?
A) Plea and trial preparation hearing
B) Further hearings for further applications
C) Preliminary hearing
A) Plea and trial preparation hearing
(Correct. A plea and trial preparation hearing (PTPH) must happen in all cases. Further applications may be dealt with on the day of the trial, before it begins)
