Hearsay MCQs Flashcards
Darren is charged with burglary of domestic premises. The householder was away at the time of the burglary, but a neighbour, Doris, witnessed the burglary take place and called the police. Darren was seen near the scene of the burglary and arrested. Doris subsequently identified Darren as the burglar. In interview, Darren claimed that it was a case of mistaken identity. He also claimed that he was at work at the time of the burglary. The police check with Darren’s employers, and discover that he was not at work on the day in question. They prosecution want to adduce evidence of the contents of his interview, to show that he has given a false alibi.
Which one of the following statements explains the admissibility of the evidence of the false alibi?
Evidence of the false alibi is admissible evidence
Evidence of the false alibi is inadmissible hearsay
Evidence of the false alibi is inadmissible irrelevant evidence
Evidence of the false alibi is admissible hearsay
Evidence of the false alibi is admissible evidence
Correct. Under the definition of hearsay in s.115 Criminal Justice Act 2003, it seems that lies cannot be hearsay. The case of Minchin [2013] EWCA Crim 2412 allowed evidence of a false alibi to be adduced by the prosecution on the basis that the relevant issue was the fact of what the defendant said.
The other options are incorrect as: * evidence of the false alibi is not hearsay * the fact of what Darren has said is relevant- he has given a false alibi.
Frank is being tried on indictment for an offence of affray following a fight at a bar on the High Street. It is alleged that he punched Alfred in the face causing bruising around his left eye and kicked Moses in both shins, causing grazing and bruising. Both victims were other customers in the bar and the assault occurred following an argument between the three men as to the comparative merits of their football teams. The altercation was witnessed by Edward, the owner, and Emma, another member of staff, both of whom have made full statements to the police along with the two victims. Frank is claiming that he acted in self-defence.
Emma does not want to come to court and give live evidence. She has just discovered that Frank only lives around the corner from her and is afraid of what he might do if he finds out where she lives. The defence have refused to agree to her statement being read under s.9 Criminal Justice Act 1967.
Which one of the following statements best explains whether Emma’s statement will be admissible?
The statement will not be admissible if Emma’s fears about giving live evidence can be adequately overcome by the use of ‘special measures’.
The statement will be admissible under s.117 Criminal Justice Act 2003, because it was created in the course of the police officer’s duties.
The statement will be admissible under section 116(2)(e) Criminal Justice Act 2003 unless the defence are able to establish that Emma has no basis for her fear.
The statement will be admissible under s.116(2)(e) Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The statement will not be admissible if Emma’s fears about giving live evidence can be adequately overcome by the use of ‘special measures’.
Correct. This reflects the position in s.116(4) Criminal Justice Act 2003. To prevent abuse of the ‘fear’ condition, there is a safeguard that the court has to give leave to allow Emma’s statement to be admissible as hearsay evidence. The court is unlikely to consider that Emma’s statement ought to be admitted in the interests of justice, if Emma’s fears can be overcome by special measures such as the use of screens or live link.
The other options were not the best answer.
Created in the course of the police officer’s duties- to be admissible under section 117 Emma’s statement would need to satisfy one of the five conditions mentioned in section 116(2) (see s.117(5)).
Emma’s statement ‘may be’ rather than ‘will be’ admissible under s.116(2)(e) Criminal Justice Act 2003, as the court must give leave.
The defence are not required to establish that Emma has no basis for her fear. Section 116(3) notes that fear is to be widely construed.
William is accused of operating a brothel at the premises. William denies all involvement with the premises, but on entering the premises an undercover police officer was offered sexual services in return for payment by various women employed on the premises.
Which one of the following statements describes the type and admissibility of the undercover police officer’s evidence?
Evidence of the offers are inadmissible hearsay evidence.
Evidence of the offers are inadmissible, as they are irrelevant.
Evidence of the offers are admissible original evidence.
Evidence of the offers are admissible hearsay evidence.
Evidence of the offers are admissible original evidence.
Correct. The relevant issue here is that the offer of sexual services in return for payment has significance in law, aside from the truth of the offers. See Woodhouse v Hall (1980) 72 Cr App R 39.
The other answers are either incorrect or not the best answer because evidence of the offers: * is admissible and relevant- as go to the question of whether the premises is operating as a brothel; and * is not hearsay evidence- evidence of the offers are not being used to prove the truth of the offers but merely that offers had been made.
Guy is on trial for robbery. It is alleged that he accosted Hermione, an 87-year-old woman, as she was walking home from the post office. Guy got away with £25 and some change, a £50 postal order she had just bought from the post office, as well as Hermione’s gold wristwatch and the ruby and diamond engagement ring that her late husband had given her.
The following day Guy was stopped coming out of a shop which buys and sells second-hand goods. The police made enquiries with the manager and he confirmed that they had just purchased an engagement ring from Guy for which they paid him £175. Guy was arrested and taken to the police station, where he was searched, and a £50 postal order was found in one of his pockets.
The shop keeps records of all transactions in which they purchase items from customers. These records show that Guy sold them the engagement ring, how much the shop paid for it and that Guy produced his rent book, bearing his full name, address and signature, as proof of his identity. The prosecution wishes to adduce this in evidence.
Which one of the following best explains whether the shop’s records will be admissible?
The records will only be admissible if the manager comes to court and gives oral evidence of how the records were compiled.
The records will only be admissible if the creator of the document cannot reasonably be expected to have any recollection of the matters dealt with in the document.
The records may be admissible if one of the conditions in s.116(2) is satisfied.
The records will not be admissible if the judge is satisfied that their reliability is doubtful in view of the manner in which the shop compiles it records.
The records will not be admissible if the judge is satisfied that their reliability is doubtful in view of the manner in which the shop compiles it records.
Correct. This is the position in s.117(7) Criminal Justice Act 2003. The shop’s records will be admissible under s.117 if: * the person supplying the records was acting in the course of a business; * may reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the matters dealt with; and * each person through whom the records pass was acting in the course of the shop’s business. However, the court has a discretion to refuse to admit the records even if the above conditions are satisfied if the court is doubtful about the reliability of the records for a variety of reasons.
The other options were not the best answer.
Two options stated additional conditions to be satisfied for documents prepared for criminal proceedings: * one of the conditions in s.116(2) is satisfied; or * the creator of the document cannot reasonably be expected to have any recollection of the matters dealt with in the document.
While the manager is not required to come to court and give oral evidence of how the records were compiled, the court has a discretion to refuse to admit the records if it is doubtful about the reliability of the records.
Guy is on trial for robbery. It is alleged that he accosted Hermione, an 87-year-old woman, as she was walking home from the post office. The evidence is that Guy held a knife to Hermione’s throat and threatened to ‘slit her up’ if she didn’t hand over her purse and jewellery. On snatching these items, Guy pushed Hermione roughly to one side before running off, causing her to fall to the pavement heavily and break her hip.
Guy got away with £25 and some change, a £50 postal order she had just bought from the post office, as well as Hermione’s gold wristwatch and the ruby and diamond engagement ring that her late husband had given her.
The incident was witnessed by Jo and Gerry, who were on the opposite side of the street. Both got a good look at the robber.
The following day Guy was stopped coming out of a shop which buys and sells second-hand goods. The police made enquiries with the manager and he confirmed that they had just purchased an engagement ring from Guy for which they paid him £175. Guy was arrested and taken to the Police Station, where he was searched, and a £50 postal order was found in one of his pockets.
Jo and Gerry both attended an identification procedure and picked out Guy’s image. Gerry has been sent to work in Singapore by his employers and will not be available to give oral evidence at Guy’s trial. The defence contend that as Gerry’s statement includes ID evidence, which they insist is ‘notoriously unreliable’, his statement should not be admitted.
Which one of the following best explains the judge’s powers to exclude Gerry’s statement?
The judge may exclude the statement given the general discretion to exclude under s.78 PACE 1984.
The judge must exclude the statement if of the opinion that the undue waste of time involved in admitting the evidence might be more trouble than the evidence was actually worth.
The judge may exclude the statement if not satisfied that the prosecution has taken every possible effort to secure Ryan’s attendance.
The judge must exclude the statement given the inherent danger attached to identification evidence.
The judge may exclude the statement given the general discretion to exclude under s.78 PACE 1984.
Correct. The court retains a general discretion to exclude prosecution evidence under s.78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as stated in s.126(2) Criminal Justice Act 2003. The other options were not the best answers.
Hearsay evidence of identification can be admitted if an appropriate warning of the dangers of reliance on it is given.
The wording of s.126(1) Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that the court ‘may’ refuse to admit a statement if of the opinion that the undue waste of time involved in admitting the evidence might be more trouble than the evidence was actually worth.
The judge can admit the statement given Ryan is outside of the UK and it may not be reasonably practicable to secure his attendance, see s.116(2)(c) Criminal Justice Act 2003. What is reasonable to expect the prosecution to do to secure his attendance will depend on the facts, but the prosecution will need to prove a compelling and detailed reason for his absence.
A woman telephones the emergency services and speaks to a civilian call handler. She sounds in distress and is crying. She alleges that her husband, whom she names, has just assaulted her by punching her to the face. She states that she has locked herself in the bathroom of their house to make the call because she is scared that he will assault her again. She asks for police officers to attend at their address. The call is recorded.
When police officers arrive a few minutes later the husband is still in the house. The woman is locked in the bathroom and is still upset and crying. The attending police officers coax the woman out of the bathroom and note that she has reddening and bruising to her face. The husband is arrested on suspicion of assaulting the woman. The woman refuses to give a statement to the police officers.
The husband exercises his right to silence when he is interviewed by police officers under caution. He is charged with common assault. He pleads not guilty and his case is adjourned for trial. The woman refuses to come to court to give evidence stating that she is not in fear of her husband and that she wants their relationship to continue. The prosecution wishes to rely upon the account given by the woman during her telephone call to the emergency services at the husband’s trial.
Can the woman’s account given during the telephone call be admitted at the husband’s trial as part of the res gestae?
A. No, because the woman will not give oral evidence at the husband’s trial.
B. No, because the woman has not given a written statement.
C. Yes, because the account was given in circumstances where the possibility of concoction can be disregarded.
D. Yes, because the account is corroborated by the reddening and bruising to the woman’s face witnessed by the attending police officers.
E. No, because the account was not given to a police officer.
C - Yes, because the account was given in circumstances where the possibility of concoction can be disregarded.
Aliyah is charged with assaulting Jeff. Aliyah claims that she had been forced to commit the assault by a member of a local gang who threatened her at knife point. Aliyah does not know the identity of the gang member. She wants to rely on this evidence at trial.
Is this evidence admissible hearsay?
This evidence is hearsay but will be admissible if it is in the interests of justice to admit it
This evidence is not hearsay but is inadmissible as the maker of the threat is not identified
This evidence is hearsay but is inadmissible as the maker of the threat is not identified
This evidence is not hearsay but is admissible as it is relevant to Aliyah’s defence
This evidence is not hearsay but is admissible as it is relevant to Aliyah’s defence
Correct. Hearsay does not apply here because the evidence is relevant as it gives a reason why Aliyah assaulted Jeff. The purpose of Aliyah giving this evidence at trial is to support her duress defence, not to establish the threat was true. Aliyah’s evidence seeks to show that she had a fear of death if she didn’t do what the local gang member said. See Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965.
The other options were either incorrect or not the best answer because: * The evidence is not hearsay. * Aliyah not knowing the identity of the gang member is not a bar to admissibility of the evidence in these circumstances.
Guy is on trial for robbery. It is alleged that he accosted Hermione, an 87-year-old woman, as she was walking home from the post office. The evidence is that Guy held a knife to Hermione’s throat and threatened to ‘slit her up’ if she didn’t hand over her purse and jewellery. On snatching these items, Guy pushed Hermione roughly to one side before running off, causing her to fall to the pavement heavily and break her hip. Hermione made a full statement from her hospital bed, unfortunately complications arose from her injuries and she has since suffered a severe stroke. She is no longer able to speak properly and is confined to her bed.
Which one of the following best explains the admissibility of Hermione’s statement?
Her statement will be admissible as a ‘document created by a person in the course of a profession’ on the basis that she ‘cannot reasonably be expected to have any recollection of the matters dealt with in the statement.’
The statement will be inadmissible unless the judge gives leave to admit it under section 116(2) Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Her statement will be prima facie admissible
Her statement will be inadmissible unless the defence agree to it being read out in court under the provisions of s.9 Criminal Justice Act 1967.
Her statement will be prima facie admissible
Correct. Hermione’s statement is prima facie admissible as she is unfit to be a witness due to her stroke, see s.116(2)(b) Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The other answers were either incorrect or not the best answer.
There are circumstances in which statements not made in oral evidence can be admissible without the agreement of the defence or leave of the judge.
Section 117(5)(b) Criminal Justice Act 2003 might have been relied on if Hermione was unable to recall one part of her statement but was able to give evidence to the rest.
Ronnie is on trial for robbing a mail train and murdering the security guard, Jess. Ten months after the offence, coverage of the robbery on a television programme prompted a phone call from a viewer to the information hot line. The caller told the operator that they knew the robber was Ronnie and where the police were likely to find him. Acting on this information, the police arrested Ronnie. Forensic expert analysis of the bullet that killed Jess shows it to have unusual markings, and police investigations have traced the bullet to a shop that sells ammunition. A printout of the shop’s record of sales shows a sale of the type of bullet that killed Jess to a Ronnie Briggs who paid by credit card three months prior to the robbery. The sale was written down in a ledger by the sales assistant and then recorded from the ledger onto the shop’s database by the shop manager.
Which of the following best explains the admissibility of the shop records?
The shop records are admissible documentary hearsay under s.117 Criminal Justice Act 2003. It will not be necessary to satisfy one of the conditions in s.116(2).
The shop records are admissible documentary hearsay under s.116 Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The shop records are inadmissible unless the manager of the shop is called to give evidence of the compilation and custody of the shop’s database.
The shop records are admissible documentary hearsay under section 117 Criminal Justice Act 2003, but one of the conditions in section 116(2) must be satisfied
The shop records are admissible documentary hearsay under s.117 Criminal Justice Act 2003. It will not be necessary to satisfy one of the conditions in s.116(2).
Correct. The document is a business record. The prosecution will want to adduce evidence of the statement contained in it to prove that what was said was true, it is therefore hearsay. The document contains multiple hearsay. The document was not created in contemplation of criminal proceedings. For these reasons, the first limb of s.117 applies and it will not be necessary to satisfy one of the conditions in s.116(2).
The other options were incorrect.
If the document was prepared for pending criminal proceedings, then one of the conditions in s.116(2) would need to be satisfied.
Nothing in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 makes admissibility of multiple hearsay contingent on proof of proper compilation and custody of the database. However, it may be a factor considered on an application to exclude such evidence.
The document contains multiple hearsay. Section 116 only applies to first-hand hearsay.
Julia is facing trial for handling stolen goods. In police interview she accepted that she bought the goods, but stated that she had no reason to believe that they were stolen. However, when Julia’s home address was searched, the police found a private diary in which she noted that she bought some of the goods in pubs, from people whose names she does not know, at very low prices. The prosecution want to admit the diary as evidence.
Which is the best argument that the prosecution can put forward in support of the application to admit evidence of the contents of the diary?
The evidence is hearsay but admissible under the res gestae principles
The evidence is original evidence, admissible as it is relevant to rebut her defence
The evidence is original evidence, admissible as it is relevant to Julia purchasing the goods
The evidence is hearsay but is admissible in the interests of justice
The evidence is original evidence, admissible as it is relevant to rebut her defence
Correct. The contents of the diary are not hearsay and will be admissible if relevant. The contents of the diary are original evidence as it shows Julia’s state of mind. Her notes that she bought some goods in pubs from unknown persons at low prices rebut her defence that she had no reason to believe the goods were stolen.
The other options are incorrect or not the best answer because: * The evidence is not hearsay evidence because Julia did not write in the diary to cause another person to believe its contents (see s.115(3) Criminal Justice Act 2003); * While the contents of the diary are original evidence, Julia accepts that she bought the goods, so this is not the reason why the contents are relevant and therefore should be admissible.
Ronnie is on trial for robbing a mail train and murdering the security guard, Jess. Ten months after the offence, coverage of the robbery on a television programme prompted a phone call from a viewer to the information hot line. The caller told the operator that they knew the robber was Ronnie and where the police were likely to find him. Acting on this information, the police arrested Ronnie.
The caller gave the operator their name and address, but when the police called at the address a week later to take a statement, the landlord of the premises said that the tenant in question had disappeared overnight taking all their possessions with them. The witness cannot be found. The prosecution wishes to adduce the tape recording of the telephone call.
Which one of the following best explains the admissibility of the tape recording of the telephone call?
The tape recording of the telephone call is admissible hearsay evidence by virtue of s.116 Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The tape recording of the telephone call is admissible original evidence.
The tape recording of the telephone call is admissible as it forms part of the res gestae.
The tape recording of the telephone call is admissible by virtue of s.114 Criminal Justice Act 2003, but only if one of the conditions in section 116(2) is satisfied.
The tape recording of the telephone call is admissible hearsay evidence by virtue of s.116 Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Correct. The evidence is relevant and would be admissible if given orally; the identity of the witness is established; and one of the statutory reasons for not calling the maker of the statement is present – the witness cannot be found although such steps as it is reasonably practicable to take to find him have been taken, see s.116(2)(d) Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The other options were incorrect.
The criteria for admitting hearsay evidence via s.114 regarding the interests of justice are different from those contained in s.116 concerning unavailable witnesses.
None of the forms of res gestae apply here (regarding statements in response to emotionally overpowering events, statements of contemporaneous mental or bodily feelings or statements of present intention).
The tape recording of the telephone call is hearsay evidence as the prosecution will seek to admit this evidence to prove that what the caller said was true, that Ronnie was the robber.
