Formative MCQs Flashcards
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. If the Investigating Officer requires further time to prepare for interview then he can extend detention for a further period of 12 hours.
(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 arrest. You must be charged or released before that time.
(d)
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.
(e)
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.
(e) 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 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.
(b)
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.
(c)
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.
(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 36 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.
(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 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 be delayed with written authority from an officer of at least superintendent rank
(c)
Her access to legal advice can only be delayed with written authority from an officer of at least inspector rank
(d)
Her access to legal advice can never be delayed
(e)
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 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 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 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.
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 is not a solicitor
(c) She is his mother
(d)
She does not have a duty of confidentiality to her son
(e)
She has previous convictions
(a) 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.
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 are unlikely to be drawn from her failure to account for her location or possession of the balaclava if the matter reaches trial.
(b)
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.
(c)
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.
(d)
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.
(e)
Adverse inferences can be drawn from her failure to mention something that she then relies on at trial.
(b) 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 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 will not allow the defendant to raise the defence as he failed to mention it when questioned.
(b)
The court might draw an inference that he invented the defence between interview and trial.
(c)
The court will not draw any inference as long as he can explain why he did not mention the issue of duress in interview.
(d)
The court might draw an inference that he failed to account for the ornament being in his possession.
(e)
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 invented the defence between interview and trial.
A court can draw a ‘proper’ inference as they see appropriate 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 can be excluded from the interview due to your advice to your client to answer ‘no comment’ to all questions.
(d)
You can be excluded from the interview as you have interrupted the police interview after it has started.
(e)
You cannot be excluded from the interview as the interviewing officer is not a rank of superintendent.
(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.
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 eye-witness has expressed an ability to identify the suspect.
(b)
No. The police need not conduct an identification procedure because it is not disputed that the suspect is already known to the police officer.
(c)
Yes. The police must conduct an identification procedure because the suspect denies the offence.
(d)
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
(e)
No. The police need not conduct an identification procedure because the suspect has been recognised and it would serve no useful purpose.
(d) 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.
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 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.
(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 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.
(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.
(b) 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.
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 where the magistrates will determine whether or not to accept jurisdiction of your matter.
(b) 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.
(c)
Your first hearing will be at the Crown Court, which will decide whether or not to accept jurisdiction of your case.
(d)
Your first hearing will be at the Crown Court because of the seriousness of your offence.
(e) Your first hearing will be at the magistrates’ court but your case will be tried at the Crown Court.
(e) Your first hearing will be at the magistrates’ court but your case will be tried at the Crown Court.
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 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.
(b)
He can make a further application for bail at the start of his trial.
(c)
He can appeal the decision to the Crown Court if there have been changes in his circumstances since the last application before the magistrates’.
(d)
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.
(e)
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.
(e) 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.
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
our 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 does not have a right to bail because of the previous breach of bail conditions, but you can still make representations on her behalf.
(c) She will be refused bail because of the previous breach of bail conditions.
(d)
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.
(e)
She will be granted bail because her previous fail to surrender relates to common assault which is a summary only offence.
(d) 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.
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 and a night time curfew.
(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, not to enter the supermarket and to pay a surety.
(d) A condition of residence at her mother’s address, reporting at the police station daily and a night time curfew.
(e)
A condition of residence at her mother’s address and for your client to surrender their passport.
(b) A condition of residence at her mother’s address and not to enter the supermarket.
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.
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 their sentencing powers are sufficient. If they determine their powers are not sufficient then they will commit to the Crown Court for sentence.
(b)
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.
(c)
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.
(d)
The court will send the matter straight to the Crown Court without taking a plea.
(e)
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.
(a) 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.
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?).
