Issues In The Course Of Trial

Question 1

Code D doesn’t apply where ID evidence is descriptive

Answer 1

Byron

Question 2

Turnbull guidelines (to be applied where case depends wholly or substantially upon disputed ID evidence)

Answer 2

Warn jury of special need for caution if case depends wholly or partly on ID and honest Ws may be mistaken.
Must look closely at circumstances of ID eg light.
Nash: should include ref to miscarriages of justice arising out of mistaken ID
Weeder: must warn jury several honest Ws may be mistaken. One ID can support another.

Question 3

Turnbull direction required where:

Answer 3

Recognition case (Bentley)
D admits presence but denies participation (Thornton)
W is police officer (Moore)

Question 4

Turnbull not required where:

Answer 4

D claims W trying to frame him as goes to credibility (Cape)
D admits presence but has unusual features (Slater)
Vehicle (Browning)

Question 5

S 120 CJA 2003

Answer 5

Statements of ID admissible ad evidence of their truth

Question 6

Lucas direction

Answer 6

Lie must be proved to be so beyond reasonable doubt and a lie in itself is not evidence of guilt. To be evidence of guilt must:
Be deliberate
Relate to material issue
Be promoted by realisation of guilt or fear of truth

Question 7

When is Lucas direction required?

Answer 7

Burge:
Defence relies on alibi known to be false
Desirable or necessary for jury to look for supporting evidence and that evidence is D’s lies
Pros seeks to show something said was lie which was evidence of guilt
Judge considers danger jury will treat lie as evidence of guilt

Question 8

Refreshing memory from docs while giving evidence

Answer 8

S 139 CJA 2003
S 120(3) makes it admissible as to its truth

Question 9

Exceptions to previous consistent statements to support statement made from witness box

Answer 9

S 120 CJA 2003

Question 10

R v O

Answer 10

V made complaint to friend about abuse by stepdad. 4 months later made same complaint to brother. Both admissible statements

Question 11

Oyesiku

Answer 11

Previous statements made to rebut allegation of fabrication admissible under common law. Evidence as to truth (s 120(2) CJA 2003)

Question 12

Hostile Ws

Answer 12

S 3 CPA 1865

Question 13

Cross examination of D on inconsistent out of court statement

Answer 13

Ss 4 and 5 CPA 1865
S 119 CJA 2003: exception to hearsay
S 124(2)(c) out of court statement inconsistent with admitted hearsay may be used to discredit hearsay statement

Question 14

Cross examining V’s in sexual cases

Answer 14

S 41 YJCEA

Question 15

Protection of Ws from cross ex by D in person

Answer 15

As 34-39 YJCEA

Question 16

R v A

Answer 16

CA held s 41 YJCEA should be read as implying that evidence is not inadmissible if needed to comply with art 6.
D convicted of rape. Defence was consent or belief in consent & he claimed he had earlier continuing and consensual relationship with V but prevented from questioning her.

Question 17

Davarifar

Answer 17

Making of false allegation is not sexual behaviour

Question 18

R v T

Answer 18

False allegations of sexual assaults are not automatically excluded under s 41 even if go principally to credibility

Question 19

Makanjuola

Answer 19

Discretionary warning on dangers of convicting on certain pieces of evidence on case by case basis

Question 20

ID parades should always be held where ID disputed

Answer 20

Forbes:
V of attempted robbery made street ID of D. Request for ID parade wrongly refused but conviction held safe. Procedure under code D is mandatory unless D well known to W.