MCQ Formative 1 Flashcards
Your client is facing trial in relation to an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to s.18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It is alleged that he deliberately pushed someone into the path of a cyclist. The victim fell to the ground and suffered serious head injuries. The defendant denies involvement in the offence and claims that it was another person who pushed the victim. The defendant states that this is a case of mistaken identity.
Which of the following best summarises the burden and standard of proof that applies to your client’s case?
Select one alternative:
A. The burden of proving that he did not push the victim into the oncoming cyclist falls upon the defence to prove on a balance of probabilities. There is no burden on the prosecution as the offence is one of strict liability.
B. The burden of proving the elements of the offence rests upon the prosecution who must prove those elements beyond reasonable doubt, however where your client wishes to rely upon his account that he did not push the victim, the onus shifts to the defence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
C. The burden of proving the elements of the offence rests with the prosecution who must prove those elements beyond reasonable doubt. The defence does not have to prove anything.
D. The burden of proving the elements of the offence rests upon the prosecution who must prove those elements beyond reasonable doubt, however where your client wishes to rely upon his account that he did not push the victim, the onus shifts to the defence to prove that, on the balance of probabilities.
E. The burden of proving the elements of the offence rests with the prosecution who must prove them on a balance of probabilities. The defence does not have to prove anything.
C. The burden of proving the elements of the offence rests with the prosecution who must prove those elements beyond reasonable doubt. The defence does not have to prove anything.
this is the single best answer as it correctly states what the prosecution has to prove and correctly states the standard of proof placed on the prosecution (beyond reasonable doubt). See Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1. The answer makes it clear that on these facts the defence does not have to prove anything. While the other answers might sound plausible, they are incorrect. There is no burden of proof on the defence in this case. It is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant pushed the victim. In cases where there is a burden of proof on the defendant, the standard of proof is usually on the balance of probabilities. The standard of proof for the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt, not the balance of probabilities. The offence is not one of strict liability as s.18 has the mens rea of intention to cause GBH. Please review your materials on the burden and standard of proof as it applies in relation to the offences on the syllabus.
A. This is incorrect as this is not a strict liability offence. The offence of s.18 has the mens rea of intention to cause GBH. The answer also incorrectly states that the defendant has a burden of proof in this case. It is for the prosecution to prove the case against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. Please review your materials on the burden and standard of proof as it applies in relation to the offences on the syllabus.
B. This is incorrect; The answer correctly states that the burden of proving the elements rests upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The second part of the answer is incorrect as there is no burden of proof on the defendant in this case. It is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant did not push the victim. Another point to note, in the majority of cases where a burden of proof does rest with the defendant, the standard would normally be on the balance of probabilities. Please review your materials on the burden and standard of proof as it applies in relation to the offences on the syllabus.
D. This is incorrect. It is correct to state that the burden for proving the elements of the offence rests with the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. It is incorrect to state that the defendant bears a burden of proof in this case. The prosecution must prove that it was the defendant who pushed the victim, causing him the injury. There is no burden of proof placed on the defendant in this case. Please review your materials on the burden and standard of proof as it applies in relation to the offences on the syllabus.
E. This is incorrect. The answer correctly identifies that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The answer incorrectly states that the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The standard of proof on the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt. Please review your materials on the burden and standard of proof as it applies in relation to the offences on the syllabus.
Question
Your client has been arrested for an offence of robbery contrary to s.8(1) Theft Act 1968. It is alleged that your client threatened to punch the victim in the face unless he handed over his wallet. The victim states that he handed over his wallet containing £50 cash, a debit card, credit card and various store loyalty cards.
Your client was arrested two hours after the incident in the street adjacent to where the robbery took place after she matched the description provided by the victim. Upon searching your client, a credit card in the name of the victim was found in her front jacket pocket. Your client tells you she found the credit card and was about to hand it to the police station. Your client is to be interviewed under caution.
Which of the following best summarises the advice you would give to your client?
Select one alternative:
A. Under s.37 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (‘CJPOA’) a court can draw an adverse inference if your client fails to account for the credit card in her possession. No special warning is required in these circumstances as she has a solicitor to provide legal advice.
B. Under s.37 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (‘CJPOA’) a court can draw an adverse inference if your client fails to account for the credit card in her possession provided a special warning is given.
C. Under s.36 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (‘CJPOA’) a court can draw an adverse inference if your client fails to account for the credit card in her possession. No special warning is required in these circumstances as she has a solicitor to provide legal advice.
D. Under s.35 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (‘CJPOA’) a court can draw an adverse inference if your client fails to account for the credit card in her possession provided a special warning is given.
E. Under s.36 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (‘CJPOA’) a court can draw an adverse inference if your client fails to account for the credit card in her possession provided a special warning is given.
E. Under s.36 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (‘CJPOA’) a court can draw an adverse inference if your client fails to account for the credit card in her possession provided a special warning is given.
This answer correctly reflects the best advice to provide to your client. As she has been found in possession of the credit card, an adverse inference can be drawn under s.36 CJPOA if she fails to account for having the credit card in her possession. A special warning must be given. Whilst the other answers are plausible, they are each incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the court may draw an adverse inference under s.37 CJPOA if your client fails to account for the possession of the credit card provided a special warning is given. Section 37 CJPOA relates to a suspects failure to account for their presence at the scene not possession of an object. It is correct to state that, under s.36 CJPOA, the court can draw an adverse inference for the clients failure to account for possession of the credit card. It is incorrect to state that no special warning is required where the suspect has legal advice. It is incorrect to state that, under s.37 CJPOA, the court can draw an adverse inference for the client’s failure to account for possession of the credit card. Section 37 CJPOA relates to a suspect’s failure to account for their presence at the scene not possession of an object. It is also incorrect to state that no special warning is required where the suspect has legal advice. It is incorrect to state that, under s.35 CJPOA, the court can draw an adverse inference for the clients failure to account for possession of the credit card. Section 35 CJPOA relates to silence at trial. Please review your materials on adverse inferences and the relevant sections of the CJPOA.
A. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that, under s.37 CJPOA, the court can draw an adverse inference for the client’s failure to account for possession of the credit card. Section 37 CJPOA relates to a suspect’s failure to account for their presence at the scene not possession of an object. It is also incorrect to state that no special warning is required where the suspect has legal advice. Please review your materials on adverse inferences and the relevant sections of the CJPOA.
B. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the court may draw an adverse inference under s.37 CJPOA if your client fails to account for the possession of the credit card provided a special warning is given. Section 37 CJPOA relates to a suspect’s failure to account for their presence at the scene not possession of an object. Please review your materials on adverse inferences and the relevant sections of the CJPOA.
C. Incorrect. It is correct to state that, under s.36 CJPOA, the court can draw an adverse inference for the client’s failure to account for possession of the credit card. It is incorrect to state that no special warning is required where the suspect has legal advice. Please review your materials on adverse inferences and the relevant sections of the CJPOA.
D. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that, under s.35 CJPOA, the court can draw an adverse inference for the client’s failure to account for possession of the credit card. Section 35 CJPOA relates to silence at trial. Please review your materials on adverse inferences and the relevant sections of the CJPOA.
You are contacted by the DSCC in relation to two suspects who have been arrested in relation to a suspected complex fraud at their place of work. The suspects are co-workers.
Which of the following best explains whether you and/ or your firm can act for both suspects? Your firm has a criminal contract with the Legal Aid Agency.
Select one alternative:
A. Your firm can act for both suspects provided there are information barriers in place to protect confidential information
B. A firm cannot act for two suspects accused of the same offence.
C. Your firm should act for both suspects if they have substantial common interests but each suspect will need separate legal advisers at the police station.
D. You and your firm should act for both suspects unless there is a conflict of interest or risk of one.
E. You and your firm can act for both suspects provided the DSCC is satisfied there is no conflict of interests between the suspects.
D. You and your firm should act for both suspects unless there is a conflict of interest or risk of one.
In publicly funded cases, regulations require that one litigator be appointed to act for all co-defendants in a legal aid case unless there is, or is likely to be, a conflict of interest. The SRA Code of Practice paragraph 6.2 sets out the prohibition on acting in conflict situations and requires that you do not act if you have a conflict of interest or a significant risk of a conflict of such a conflict. The exceptions in paragraphs 6.2(a) and (b) are not relevant in this context.
A. Incorrect. Please review your materials on professional conduct and in particular issues of conflicts of interest. The exceptions in paragraphs 6.2(a) and (b) are not relevant in this context.
B. There is a presumption that one firm will act unless there is a conflict of interest.
C. Incorrect. Please review your materials on professional conduct and in particular issues of conflicts of interest. The exceptions in paragraphs 6.2(a) and (b) are not relevant in this context.
E. Incorrect Please review your materials on professional conduct and in particular issues of conflicts of interest. The decision as to whether there is a conflict is yours.
You represent a male who was arrested on 13 September at 02.20 hours and brought to the police station on suspicion of Robbery contrary to s.8 Theft Act 1968. You note that he arrived at the police station at 02.45 hours and his detention was authorised at 03.05 hours. The male would like to know when he would likely be released.
Which of the following best describes the advice you would give to the male?
Select one alternative:
A. The male can be detained only until 02.45 on 14th September unless his detention is lawfully extended. An extension to detain until 14.45 hours on 14th September can be authorised by a superintendent.
B. The male can be detained only until 14.45 hours on 14th September unless his detention is lawfully extended. An extension to detain until 02.45 hours on the 15th September can be authorised by a superintendent.
C. The male can be detained only until 02.20 hours on 14 September unless his detention is lawfully extended. An extension to detain until 14.20 hours on the 14th September can be authorised by a superintendent.
D. The male can be detained only until 15.05 hours on 14 September unless his detention is lawfully extended. An extension to detain until 03.05 hours on the 15th September can be authorised by a superintendent.
E. The male can be detained only until 03.05 hours on 14 September unless his detention is lawfully extended. An extension to detain until 15.05 hours on the 14th September can be authorised by a superintendent.
A. The male can be detained only until 02.45 on 14th September unless his detention is lawfully extended. An extension to detain until 14.45 hours on 14th September can be authorised by a superintendent.
Correct. This answer best reflects the position in relation the 24 hour detention time limit and the extension of it in certain circumstances. The relevant time for working out the detention time limits under s.41 PACE and periods of extension under s.42 PACE, is the time of arrival at the police station. The relevant time limit is 24 hours from the time of arrival. This can be extended upto 36 hours in certain circumstances. Whilst other answer options might sound plausible, they are each incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the male can be detained only until 03.05 hours on the 14th September unless his detention is lawfully extended. This is because 03.05 hours was the time that detention was authorised and not the time he arrived at the police station. It is also incorrect to calculate the extension based on the time of his detention. It is incorrect to state that the male can be detained only until 02.20 hours on the 14th September unless his detention is lawfully extended. This is because 02.20 hours was the time of his arrest and not the time he arrived at the police station. There was no prolonged delay between his arrest and arriving at the police station. It is also incorrect to calculate the extension based on the time of arrest. It is incorrect to state that the male can be detained until 14.45 hours on the 14th September unless his detention is lawfully extended. This is because 14.45 hours is 36 hours after the time of arrival at the police station and he can only be detained for 24 hours after his time of arrival unless his detention is lawfully extended. It is incorrect to state that the male can be detained until 15.05 hours on the 14th September unless his detention is lawfully extended. This is incorrect for two reasons. First, the time limit has been calculated from the time of detention rather than the time of arrival. Secondly, the time limit prior to any extensions is 24 hours from the time of arrival. Please review your materials on Police Powers and detention time limits including when those time limits can be extended. You should refer to s.41 and s.42 PACE 1984.
B. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the male can be detained until 14.45 hours on the 14th September unless his detention is lawfully extended. This is because 14.45 hours is 36 hours after the time of arrival at the police station and he can only be detained for 24 hours after his time of arrival unless his detention is lawfully extended. Please review your materials on Police Powers and detention time limits including when those time limits can be extended. You should refer to s.41 and s.42 PACE 1984.
C. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the male can be detained only until 02.20 hours on the 14th September unless his detention is lawfully extended. This is because 02.20 hours was the time of his arrest and not the time he arrived at the police station. There was no prolonged delay between his arrest and arriving at the police station. It is also incorrect to calculate the extension based on the time of arrest. Please review your materials on Police Powers and detention time limits including when those time limits can be extended. You should refer to s.41 and s.42 PACE 1984.
D. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the male can be detained until 15.05 hours on the 14th September unless his detention is lawfully extended. This is incorrect for two reasons. First, the time limit has been calculated from the time of detention rather than the time of arrival. Secondly, the time limit prior to any extensions is 24 hours from the time of arrival. Please review your materials on Police Powers and detention time limits including when those time limits can be extended. You should refer to s.41 and s.42 PACE 1984.
E. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the male can be detained only until 03.05 hours on the 14th September unless his detention is lawfully extended. This is because 03.05 hours was the time that detention was authorised and not the time he arrived at the police station. It is also incorrect to calculate the extension based on the time of his detention. Please review your materials on Police Powers and detention time limits including when those time limits can be extended. You should refer to s.41 and s.42 PACE 1984.
A woman is charged with one count of causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. She has pleaded not guilty and has applied for bail while the case is adjourned for trial. She has a number of previous convictions for violent offences committed whilst on bail. In all other respects, however, she has always complied with bail conditions in the past.
Which of the following statements best describes the court’s likely approach to bail?
Select one alternative:
A. In determining whether bail should be granted, the court will consider the fact that the woman has complied with bail conditions in the past and therefore none of the exceptions to the general right to bail exist.
B. In determining whether bail should be granted, the court will consider the fact that the woman has previous convictions for violent offences as evidence to support the fact that all of the exceptions to the general right to bail exist.
C. In determining whether bail should be granted, the court will consider the there is a real prospect that the woman would receive a custodial sentence, and therefore bail cannot be granted.
D. In determining whether bail should be granted, the court will consider the fact that the woman has complied with bail conditions in the past and there is no real prospect that the woman would receive a custodial sentence.
E. In determining whether bail should be granted, the court will consider the fact that the woman has previous convictions for violent offences to support the exception to the general right to bail that she is likely to commit further offences whilst on bail.
E. In determining whether bail should be granted, the court will consider the fact that the woman has previous convictions for violent offences to support the exception to the general right to bail that she is likely to commit further offences whilst on bail.
Correct. The question for the court to consider is whether an exception to the general right to bail (under s.4 Bail Act 1976) should apply here. One relevant exception is whether the woman would be likely to commit further offences whilst on bail; here, the fact that she has previous convictions for doing so could be used as evidence to support that she would do so again. Whilst the other answers might be plausible, they are each incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the court will consider the fact that the woman has complied with bail conditions in the past and that this means that none of the exceptions to the general right to bail exist. Whilst the court will consider the fact that woman has complied with bail conditions in the past when making a determination on bail, an exception to the right to bail still exists on the basis that she is likely to commit further offences on bail as evidenced by her previous convictions. It is incorrect to state that the court will consider that all of the exceptions to the general right to bail exist as evidenced by the woman’s previous convictions. The previous convictions may be used as evidence to support the exception that she will commit further offences whilst on bail but they would not be evidence to support the other exceptions, such as interfering with witnesses or failing to surrender. It is incorrect to state that the court will consider the fact that the woman has complied with bail conditions in the past and therefore there is no real prospect that the woman would receive a custodial sentence in this case. The nature of the offence and her previous convictions means that a custodial sentence is likely in this case. It is incorrect to state that bail cannot be granted because there is a real prospect of the woman receiving a custodial sentence. Whilst there is a prospect of the woman receiving a custodial sentence, this is not enough to refuse bail on its own. The court will still need to consider the general right to bail and whether any exceptions apply. Please review your materials on Bail and the exceptions to the general right to bail under s.4 Bail Act 1976.
A. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the court will consider the fact that the woman has complied with bail conditions in the past and that this means that none of the exceptions to the general right to bail exist. Whilst the court will consider the fact that the woman has complied with bail conditions in the past when making a determination on bail, an exception to the right to bail still exists on the basis that she is likely to commit further offences on bail as evidenced by her previous convictions. . Please review your materials on Bail and the exceptions to the general right to bail under s.4 Bail Act 1976.
B. It is incorrect to state that the court will consider that all of the exceptions to the general right to bail exist as evidenced by the woman’s previous convictions. The previous convictions may be used as evidence to support the exception that she will commit further offences whilst on bail but they would not be evidence to support the other exceptions, such as interfering with witnesses or failing to surrender.
C. It is incorrect to state that bail cannot be granted because there is a real prospect of the woman receiving a custodial sentence. Whilst there is a prospect of the woman receiving a custodial sentence, this is not enough to refuse bail on its own. The court will still need to consider the general right to bail and whether any exceptions apply. Please review your materials on Bail and the exceptions to the general right to bail under s.4 Bail Act 1976.
D. It is incorrect to state that the court will consider the fact that the woman has complied with bail conditions in the past and therefore there is no real prospect that the woman would receive a custodial sentence in this case. The nature of the offence and her previous convictions means that a custodial sentence is likely in this case. Please review your materials on Bail and the exceptions to the general right to bail under s.4 Bail Act 1976.
Question
Your client is under arrest for s.18 GBH. Your client matches the description given by the victim of the assault. Your client instructs you that they refuse to participate in a video identification procedure.
Which of the following best reflects what action the police can do?
Select one alternative:
A. The police can proceed with a video identification procedure without the client’s consent.
B. The police cannot proceed with any identification procedure without the clients consent.
C. The police can proceed with an identification parade but cannot proceed with a video identification procedure without the clients consent.
D. The police can proceed by arranging for a confrontation between the witness(es) and your client but cannot proceed with any other form of identification procedure without the clients consent.
E. The police can proceed with a group identification but cannot proceed with a video identification procedure without the clients consent.
A. The police can proceed with a video identification procedure without the client’s consent.
Correct. This answer is correct because a video identification procedure can be arranged without the client’s consent. The police will seek the client’s consent but if this cannot be obtained then they will arrange for an existing image of your client to be used for the video identification procedure. In such circumstances, the police are not obliged to give the suspect an opportunity to view the images used in that video identification procedure. On the facts of this case, we are told that the victim of the assault has provided a description of the person who carried out the offence and that the suspect matches that description. This is, therefore, a case where a video identification procedure would serve a useful purpose. Whilst the other answers are plausible, they are all incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the police cannot proceed with any identification procedure without the client’s consent. As mentioned above, the police do not require the client’s consent in order to proceed. It is correct to state that the police can proceed with an identification parade. It is incorrect to state that they are unable to proceed with a video identification procedure due to the lack of consent from the suspect. It is correct to state that the police can proceed with a group identification. It is incorrect to state that the police are unable to proceed with a video identification procedure due to the lack of consent from the suspect. Whilst the police can proceed by arranging a confrontation between the witness and the suspect, this is unlikely to be appropriate in this case as the witness is the victim of the offence. It is also incorrect to state that the police cannot proceed with any other form of identification procedure without the client’s consent. Please review your materials on Identification procedures including what happens in circumstances where a suspect refuses to take part in a video identification procedure and COP D 3.21.
B. It is incorrect to state that the police cannot proceed with any identification procedure without the client’s consent. As mentioned above, the police do not require the client’s consent in order to proceed. Please review your materials on Identification procedures including what happens in circumstances where a suspect refuses to take part in a video identification procedure and COP D 3.21.
C. It is correct to state that the police can proceed with an identification parade. It is incorrect to state that they are unable to proceed with a video identification procedure due to the lack of consent from the suspect. Please review your materials on Identification procedures including what happens in circumstances where a suspect refuses to take part in a video identification procedure and COP D 3.21.
D. Whilst the police can proceed by arranging a confrontation between the witness and the suspect this is unlikely to be appropriate in this case as the witness is the victim of the offence. It is also incorrect to state that the police cannot proceed with any other form of identification procedure without the client’s consent. Please review your materials on Identification procedures including what happens in circumstances where a suspect refuses to take part in a video identification procedure and COP D 3.21.
E. It is correct to state that the police can proceed with a group identification. It is incorrect to state that the police are unable to proceed with a video identification procedure due to the lack of consent from the suspect. Please review your materials on Identification procedures including what happens in circumstances where a suspect refuses to take part in a video identification procedure and COP D 3.21.
The defendant has been arrested for an offence of theft contrary to s. 1 of the Theft Act 1968 at 09.30 hours on 12 December. He arrived at the station at 09.55 hours and his detention was authorised by the Custody Sergeant at 10.10 hours.
Which of the following statements best describes the police’s obligation in respect of reviews of the defendant’s detention?
Select one alternative:
A. The defendant’s detention must be reviewed by the Review Officer no later than 16.10 hours on 12 December.
B. The defendant’s detention must be reviewed by the Review Officer no later than 15.55 hours on 12 December.
C. The defendant’s detention must be reviewed by the Review Officer no later than 18.30 hours on 12 December.
D. The defendant’s detention must be reviewed by the Review Officer no later than 15.30 hours on 12 December.
E. The defendant’s detention must be reviewed by the Review Officer no later than 19.10 hours on 12 December
A. The defendant’s detention must be reviewed by the Review Officer no later than 16.10 hours on 12 December.
This answer correctly states the time period within which the first review must be carried out in accordance with s.40 Police Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (‘PACE’). It correctly calculates that time period from the time detention was authorised. Whilst the other answer options sound plausible, they are each incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the defendant’s detention must be reviewed no later than 15.30hours on the 12th December as this calculates the time for review from the time of arrest not the time detention was authorised. It is incorrect to state that the defendant’s detention must be reviewed no later than 18.30hours on the 12th December as this uses the wrong time period to calculate review. It also calculates the time for review from the time of arrest rather than the time the detention was authorised. It is incorrect to state that the defendant’s detention must be reviewed no later than 15.55hours on the 12th December as this calculates the time for review from the time of arrival at the police station not the time detention was authorised. It is incorrect to state that the defendant’s detention must be reviewed no later than 19.10hours on the 12th December as this uses the wrong time period to calculate review. Please review your materials on detention review periods and s.40 PACE. You should review the time period within which the first review should take place and when that time is calculated from as well as the time period within which any subsequent reviews ought to take place.
B. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the defendant’s detention must be reviewed no later than 15.55hours on the 12th December as this calculates the time for review from the time of arrival at the police station not the time detention was authorised. Please review your materials on detention review periods and s.40 PACE. You should review the time period within which the first review should take place and when that time is calculated from as well as the time period within which any subsequent reviews ought to take place.
C. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the defendant’s detention must be reviewed no later than 18.30hours on the 12th December as this uses the wrong time period to calculate review. It also calculates the time for review from the time of arrest rather than the time the detention was authorised. Please review your materials on detention review periods and s.40 PACE. You should review the time period within which the first review should take place and when that time is calculated from as well as the time period within which any subsequent reviews ought to take place.
D. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the defendant’s detention must be reviewed no later than 15.30hours on the 12th December as this calculates the time for review from the time of arrest not the time detention was authorised. Please review your materials on detention review periods and s.40 PACE. You should review the time period within which the first review should take place and when that time is calculated from as well as the time period within which any subsequent reviews ought to take place.
E. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the defendant’s detention must be reviewed no later than 19.10hours on the 12th December as this uses the wrong time period to calculate review. Please review your materials on detention review periods and s.40 PACE. You should review the time period within which the first review should take place and when that time is calculated from as well as the time period within which any subsequent reviews ought to take place.
The defendant is on trial in the Crown Court for assault occasioning actual bodily harm against her boyfriend after an altercation at a local nightspot, called the Bar. Her boyfriend has refused to co-operate with police and the only witness contends that the defendant was at the Bar at the time of the assault and that he saw her hit a male, who is now accepted to be her boyfriend. The witness points the defendant out to a police officer in the street the next morning. The defendant’s defence is that she was at home all evening with her boyfriend and their dog.
The trial is just about to begin. The officer in the case has admitted that the witness was not asked to take part in a formal Identification procedure as required by Code D of PACE.
What is the best approach for the defence counsel to take in this situation?
Select one alternative:
A. Defence counsel should make the point about the lack of identification procedure in the closing speech.
B. Defence counsel should make a submission of no case to answer on the basis that the jury cannot safely convict as the witness identification has not been properly tested with a formal ID procedure.
C. Defence counsel should make an application for the case to be dismissed as an abuse of process.
D. Defence counsel should cross examine the witness on the fact that he had not taken part in a formal ID procedure.
E. Defence counsel should apply to the judge to exclude the witness identification evidence under s.78 PACE 1984.
E. Defence counsel should apply to the judge to exclude the witness identification evidence under s.78 PACE 1984.
Correct. A breach of Code D would not inevitably lead to the exclusion of the evidence. Defence counsel would have to apply for the evidence to be excluded on the basis that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings due to the failure to follow proper procedure. Whilst the other answers might sound plausible, they are each incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the best approach would be to cross examine the witness on the fact that he had not taken part in a formal procedure. Defence counsel could do this, but the evidence would already be before the court. The best approach is to apply to exclude the evidence under s.78 PACE so the jury do not hear it at all. It is incorrect to state that the best approach would be to make a submission of no case to answer. The breach of Code D would not provide an argument that the test in R v Galbraith has been met and the case should be withdrawn from the jury. Defence counsel should use the breach of Code D to argue that the evidence should be excluded from the jury under s.78 PACE. It is incorrect to state that the best approach would be to make the point about the failure to follow proper procedure under Code D in the closing speech. The jury will have already heard the evidence at this point, the better course of action would be to apply for the evidence to be excluded under s.78 PACE so the jury don’t hear it at all. It is incorrect to state that defence counsel should make an application to dismiss the case as an abuse of process. A breach of Code D would not amount to an abuse of process and there would be no merit in making an abuse of process application. Defence counsel should apply to exclude the evidence under s.78 PACE. Please review your materials on Identification evidence, the identification procedure and s.78 PACE.
A. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state the best approach would be to make the point about the failure to follow proper procedure under Code D in the closing speech. The jury will have already heard the evidence at this point, the better course of action would be to apply for the evidence to be excluded under s.78 PACE so the jury don’t hear it at all. Please review your materials on Identification evidence, the identification procedure and s.78 PACE.
B. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the best approach would be to make a submission of no case to answer. The breach of Code D would not provide an argument that the test in R v Galbraith has been met and the case should be withdrawn from the jury. Defence counsel should use the breach of Code D to argue that the evidence should be excluded from the jury under s.78 PACE. Please review your materials on Identification evidence, the identification procedure and s.78 PACE.
C. It is incorrect to state that defence counsel should make an application to dismiss the case as an abuse of process. A breach of Code D would not amount to an abuse of process and there would be no merit in making an abuse of process application. Defence counsel should apply to exclude the evidence under s.78 PACE. Please review your materials on Identification evidence, the identification procedure and s.78 PACE.
D. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the best approach would be to cross examine the witness on the fact that he had not taken part in a formal procedure. Defence counsel could do this, but the evidence would already be before the court. The best approach is to apply to exclude the evidence under s.78 PACE so the jury do not hear it at all. Please review your materials on Identification evidence, the identification procedure and s.78 PACE.
Question
Your client has been charged with an offence of grievous bodily harm contrary to s.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and is due to appear in the magistrates’ court. Your client says he is not guilty as he acted in self-defence. He would like to know what will happen when he makes his first appearance in the magistrates’ court for this offence.
Which of the following best summarises the advice you would give to your client?
Select one alternative:
A. Your client will enter his plea of not guilty, the court will then go through the allocation procedure to determine the most suitable venue for trial.
B. Your client will enter his plea of not guilty, the court will then go through the allocation procedure and determine that the trial must take place in the crown court, because of the nature of the offence.
C. Your client will indicate his plea of not guilty, the court will then go through the allocation procedure and determine whether the trial can take place on the same day or at a future date.
D. Your client will enter his plea of not guilty, the court will then go through the allocation procedure and determine that the trial must take place in the magistrates’ court, because of the nature of the offence.
E. Your client will enter his plea of not guilty at the crown court as his matter cannot be dealt with in the magistrates’ court given the nature of the offence.
A. Your client will enter his plea of not guilty, the court will then go through the allocation procedure to determine the most suitable venue for trial.
Correct. As your client is raising self-defence you should advise him to enter a not guitly plea in the Magistrates’ court. Section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is an either way offence so the court will need to go through the allocation procedure and determine the most suitable venue. Whilst the other answers sound plausible, they are each incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the court will go through the allocation procedure and then determine that the trial must take place in the magistrates’ court because of the nature of the offence. The nature of the offence does not mean that the court must allocate the trial to the magistrates’ court. There are a number of factors that will be considered during the allocation process in order to determine the most suitable venue. It is incorrect to state that the court will go through the allocation procedure and then determine that the trial must take place in the crown court because of the nature of the offence. The nature of the offence does not mean that the court must allocate the trial to the crown court. There are a number of factors that will be considered during the allocation process in order to determine the most suitable venue. It is incorrect to state that the court will go through the allocation procedure and determine whether the trial can take place on the same day or a future date. The trial will not be able to take place on the same day as the parties will not be prepared to proceed with a trial of this nature and the witnesses are unlikely to be in attendance. It is incorrect to state that the client must enter his plea at the crown court as the magistrates’ court are unable to deal with this offence. Section 20 is an either way offence not an indictable only offence; this means it can either be heard at the magistrates’ court or the crown court. Your client will be expected to enter a plea and then the court will go through the allocation process to determine the most suitable venue for the trial. Please review your materials on plea before venue hearings and the classification of offences. You should review the procedure that takes place at a plea before venue hearing and revisit your materials on the allocation process.
B. It is incorrect to state that the court will go through the allocation procedure and then determine that the trial must take place in the crown court because of the nature of the offence. The nature of the offence does not mean that the court must allocate the trial to the crown court. There are a number of factors that will be considered during the allocation process in order to determine the most suitable venue. Please review your materials on plea before venue hearings and the classification of offences. You should review the procedure that takes place at a plea before venue hearing and revisit your materials on the allocation process.
C. It is incorrect to state that the court will go through the allocation procedure and determine whether the trial can take place on the same day or a future date. The trial will not be able to take place on the same day as the parties will not be prepared to proceed with a trial of this nature and the witnesses are unlikely to be in attendance. Please review your materials on plea before venue hearings and the classification of offences. You should review the procedure that takes place at a plea before venue hearing and revisit your materials on the allocation process.
D. It is incorrect to state that the court will go through the allocation procedure and then determine that the trial must take place in the magistrates’ court because of the nature of the offence. The nature of the offence does not mean that the court must allocate the trial to the magistrates’ court. There are a number of factors that will be considered during the allocation process in order to determine the most suitable venue. Please review your materials on plea before venue hearings and the classification of offences. You should review the procedure that takes place at a plea before venue hearing and revisit your materials on the allocation process.
E. It is incorrect to state that the client must enter is plea at the crown court as the magistrates’ court are unable to deal with this offence. Section 20 is an either way offence not an indictable only offence; this means it can either be heard at the magistrates’ court or the crown court. Your client will be expected to enter a plea and then the court will go through the allocation process to determine the most suitable venue for the trial. Please review your materials on plea before venue hearings and the classification of offences. You should review the procedure that takes place at a plea before venue hearing and revisit your materials on the allocation process.
Your client is on trial for theft. The only evidence against him is that of a witness (who does not know your client) who claims that she saw him take a purse from the victim’s handbag. During cross-examination, the witness concedes that the incident took place after dark in a busy street about 40 yards from where she was standing. She also concedes that her view was partially obstructed by passers-by and that she cannot now be sure that it was your client she saw taking the purse.
Which of the following is the most appropriate course of action for the judge to take in this situation?
Select one alternative:
A. The Judge should allow the case to go to the jury but give a Turnbull warning.
B. The Judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal.
C. The Judge should allow the case to go to the jury but exclude the evidence of the identification.
D. The Judge should withdraw the case from the jury unless they feel that defendant would receive a fair trial if they gave a Turnbull warning.
E. The Judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct a conviction.
B. The Judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal.
Correct. Although the judge could allow the case to go to the jury, the witness has conceded that she cannot be sure of the identification, and as such a jury properly directed could not safely convict. The most appropriate course of action is therefore to withdraw the case from the jury under the R v Galbraith principles and direct an acquittal. Whilst the other answers might sound plausible, they are each incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the Judge should allow the case to go to the jury but give a Turnbull warning as the witness has conceded that she cannot be sure of the identification during her evidence, as such a jury properly directed should not convict. The case should be withdrawn from the jury and they should be directed to acquit. It is incorrect to state that the Judge should allow the case to go to the jury but exclude the evidence of identification. There are a number of reasons why this is incorrect. We are told that the identification evidence is the only evidence against the defendant so there would be nothing left for the jury to consider. The jury has also heard the identification evidence and the witness conceded that she cannot be sure of the identification, as such a jury properly directed could not safely convict. The case should be withdrawn from the jury and they should be directed to acquit. It is incorrect to state that the Judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct the jury to convict. The witness has conceded that she cannot be sure of the identification therefore there is no basis on which the jury could properly convict the defendant. The Judge should withdraw the case from the jury and they should be directed to acquit. It is incorrect to state that the Judge should withdraw the case from the jury unless they feel that the defendant would receive a fair trial if they gave a Turnbull warning. The witness has conceded that she cannot be sure of the identification, as such a jury properly directed could not convict. The case should be withdrawn from the jury and they should be directed to acquit. Please review your materials on Identification evidence, the Turnbull warning and the test where there is no case to answer in R v Galbraith.
Two women, both aged 18, are in police custody. they were arrested on suspicion of criminal damage, having thrown stones at the windows of a hostel causing a number of them to break. No one else is suspected of involvement in the incident, and nothing appears to have been stolen. Reliable witness evidence clearly identifies both women, and one witness also filmed them on his phone. The police have taken witness statements from all of the witnesses and the footage from the phone is with the police. Both women have been told that a decision has been taken to delay their right to legal advice.
Which of these answers best sets out whether there are reasonable grounds to delay this right?
Select one alternative:
A. There may be reasonable grounds for the delay because there is a risk that allowing access to legal advice will lead to the solicitor inadvertently or otherwise passing on information which might cause interference with evidence.
B. If all the relevant criteria are met, then the police have a right to delay the women contacting their solicitor.
C. There may be reasonable grounds for believing that allowing access to legal advice might lead to the solicitor inadvertently or otherwise passing on information alerting other persons suspected of involvement in the offence.
D. There may be reasonable grounds for the delay, given that both women have been identified by reliable evidence.
E. There are no obvious reasonable grounds to delay access to legal advice. The decision may be unlawful on that basis.
E. There are no obvious reasonable grounds to delay access to legal advice. The decision may be unlawful on that basis.
Correct. For a delay to be lawful, the decision making officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that allowing access to legal advice will lead to the solicitor inadvertently or otherwise passing on information likely to lead to one of the consequences in s. 58(8) or 58(8A) PACE 1984. No such risk appears to apply here. Please review your materials on the rights of a suspect at the police station, in particular the right to access legal advice s.58 PACE 1984.
A. Incorrect. For a delay to be lawful, the decision making officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that allowing access to legal advice will lead to the solicitor inadvertently or otherwise passing on information likely to lead to one of the consequences in s. 58(8) or 58(8A) PACE 1984. Interference with evidence is one such consequence. However, no such risk appears to apply here. There seems no risk that there might be interference with evidence. Please review your materials on the rights of a suspect at the police station, in particular the right to access legal advice s.58 PACE 1984.
B. Incorrect. Under s. 58(1) PACE 1984, the women have a right to access legal advice. The police have a power – not a right – to delay that notification. Please review your materials on the rights of a suspect at the police station, in particular the right to access legal advice s.58 PACE 1984.
C. Incorrect. For a delay to be lawful, the decision making officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that allowing access to legal advice will lead to the solicitor inadvertently or otherwise passing on information likely to lead to one of the consequences in s. 58(8) or 58(8A) PACE 1984. Interference with evidence by alerting other persons suspected of involvement in the offence is one such consequence. However, no such risk appears to apply here. No one else appears to have been involved. Please review your materials on the rights of a suspect at the police station, in particular the right to access legal advice s.58 PACE 1984.
D. Incorrect. For a delay to be lawful, the decision making officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that allowing access to legal advice will lead to the solicitor inadvertently or otherwise passing on information likely to lead to one of the consequences in s. 58(8) or 58(8A) PACE 1984. No such risk appears to apply here. The fact that the women have been identified in reliable evidence is not relevant here. Please review your materials on the rights of a suspect at the police station, in particular the right to access legal advice s.58 PACE 1984.
Question
Your client’s trial for robbery is due to begin at the Crown court. The case against her rests substantially, although not wholly, on a disputed identification.
Which of the following statements best summarises the Judge’s duties with regard to the identification evidence in this case?
Select one alternative:
A. The Judge will not give the jury a special warning if they consider that the identification evidence is strong.
B. The Judge will give the jury a special warning in relation to the identification evidence as the case against her rests substantially upon a disputed identification.
C. The Judge will withdraw the evidence from the jury and direct them to acquit if they consider that the identification evidence is weak.
D. The Judge will direct the jury to consider whether the defendant has proved that the identification evidence is weak.
E. The Judge will not give the jury a special warning as the case against her is not wholly based upon a disputed identification
B. The Judge will give the jury a special warning in relation to the identification evidence as the case against her rests substantially upon a disputed identification.
Correct. As the case rests substantially on disputed identification evidence the Judge should give the jury a special warning in accordance with R v Turnbull. Whilst the other answers sound plausible, they are each incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the Judge will not give the jury a special warning as the case against her is not wholly based upon disputed identification evidence. The guidelines in R v Turnbull state that a special warning should be given where the case rests substantially on disputed identification evidence, not wholly on it. It is incorrect to state that the Judge should withdraw the evidence from the jury and direct them to acquit if they consider the identification evidence to be weak. If the Judge was of the view that the identification evidence is weak but supported by other evidence, they would not withdraw it. The Judge should give the jury the special warning in accordance with the case of R v Turnbull. If the Judge considered the identification evidence to be weak and the case was unsupported by other evidence, then they would likely withdraw it from the jury and direct them to acquit. It is incorrect to state that the Judge will direct the jury to consider whether the defendant has proved that the identification evidence is weak. Although the defendant disputes the identification evidence, the defence does not have a burden of proof. It is for the prosecution to prove the case against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. As the identification evidence is disputed, the Judge should give the jury a special warning in accordance with R v Turnbull. It is incorrect to state that the Judge will not give a special warning if they consider the identification evidence to be strong. As the identification evidence is disputed, the Judge should give a special warning in accordance with R v Turnbull. Please review your materials on identification evidence and the Turnbull guidelines.
A. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the Judge will not give a special warning if they consider the identification evidence to be strong. As the identification evidence is disputed, the Judge should give a special warning in accordance with R v Turnbull. Please review your materials on identification evidence and the Turnbull guidelines.
C. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the Judge should withdraw the evidence from the jury and direct them to acquit if they consider the identification evidence to be weak. If the Judge was of the view that the identification evidence is weak but supported by other evidence, they would not withdraw it. The Judge should give the jury the special warning in accordance with the case of R v Turnbull. If the Judge considered the identification evidence to be weak and the case was unsupported by other evidence, then they would likely withdraw it from the jury and direct them to acquit. Please review your materials on identification evidence and the Turnbull guidelines.
D. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the Judge will direct the jury to consider whether the defendant has proved that the identification evidence is weak. Although the defendant disputes the identification evidence, the defence does not have a burden of proof. It is for the prosecution to prove the case against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. As the identification evidence is disputed, the Judge should give the jury a special warning in accordance with R v Turnbull. Please review your materials on identification evidence and the Turnbull guidelines
E. Incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the Judge will not give the jury a special warning as the case against her is not wholly based upon disputed identification evidence. The guidelines in R v Turnbull state that a special warning should be given where the case rests substantially on disputed identification evidence, not wholly on it. Please review your materials on identification evidence and the Turnbull guidelines.
Your client is 19 years of age. It is alleged that he punched his best friend, following a disagreement in the street. When his mother asked him whether he punched his friend, your client responded by saying ‘maybe.’ When the police arrive to arrest your client, his mother repeats what her son had said to her. The investigating officer believes that this is a confession.
Does your client’s response to his mother amount to a confession?
Select one alternative:
A. Your client’s response does not amount to a confession because it is equivocal.
B. Your client’s response does amount to a confession because it is an unequivocal acceptance of guilt.
C. Your client’s response does amount to a confession because it is partly adverse to him.
D. Your client’s response does not amount to a confession because it has not been made to a person in authority.
E. Your client’s response does not amount to a confession because he has not written it down and signed it
C. Your client’s response does amount to a confession because it is partly adverse to him.
Correct. This would amount to a confession as his mother asks him if he committed the offence and responded ‘maybe.’ That statement is partly adverse to him and therefore falls within the definition of a confession under s. 82 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Whilst the other answer options sound plausible, they are each incorrect. It is incorrect to state that your client’s response does not amount to a confession because it is equivocal. Whilst the response ‘maybe’ is equivocal, it is partly adverse to your client and therefore falls within the definition of a confession under s.82 PACE. It is incorrect to state that your client’s response does not amount to a confession because it has not been made to a person in authority. A confession does not have to be made to a person in authority. Refer to the full definition under s.82 PACE. It is incorrect to state that your client’s response amounts to a confession because it is an unequivocal acceptance of guilt. The word ‘maybe’ is not an unequivocal statement or an acceptance of guilt. Your client’s response is a confession because the statement made is partly adverse to him and falls within the definition of a confession under s.82 PACE. It is incorrect to state that your client’s response does not amount to a confession because he has not written it down or signed it. There is no requirement for your client to have written the statement down and signed it in order for it to be considered a confession. Please review your materials on confessions and the definition of a confession under s.82 PACE.
A man confesses to an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He subsequently tells his solicitor that he only made the confession because shortly beforehand, during his arrest, a police officer grabbed him by the throat and warned him that he would get ‘worse treatment’ unless he ‘co-operated’. At that stage the man was already handcuffed.
Which of the following best describes the position regarding the admissibility of the confession evidence?
Select one alternative:
A. The officer having grabbed the man by the throat will not constitute oppression, as it does not amount to torture. The confession will be used as evidence against him.
B. The officer having grabbed the man by the throat may constitute oppression. If so, and if that caused the confession, then the court must exclude the confession from the evidence.
C. The officer having grabbed the man by the throat may constitute oppression. If the defence can prove this, and prove that the oppression caused the confession, then the court must exclude the confession from the evidence.
D. The officer having grabbed the man by the throat may constitute oppression. If so, and if that caused the confession, then the court has a discretionary power to exclude the confession from the evidence.
E. The officer having grabbed the man by the throat may constitute oppression. If the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that oppression caused the confession, then the court must exclude the confession from the evidence.
B. The officer having grabbed the man by the throat may constitute oppression. If so, and if that caused the confession, then the court must exclude the confession from the evidence.
Correct. The officer grabbing the man by the throat and threatening him whilst he was in handcuffs may amount to oppression under s.76(8) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). If it can be shown that this is oppression and this caused the man to confess then the court must exclude the confession under s.76(2)(a) PACE 1984. Whilst the other answer options sound plausible, they are each incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the officer grabbing the man by the throat will not constitute oppression, as it does not amount to torture. Whilst the definition of oppression does refer to torture, it is not limited to torture. It may be that the officer grabbing the man by the throat amounts to oppression if it falls within the definition under s.76(8) PACE. It is incorrect to state that if the officer grabbing the man by the throat amounts to oppression and the confession was caused by that oppression, that the court have a discretionary power to exclude the confession evidence. If the officer’s actions are found to amount to oppression and this caused the confession then the court must exclude the confession evidence. It is incorrect to state that the defence would have to prove that the officer grabbing the man by the throat amounts to oppression and that this caused the man to confess. If the defence raises the issue of oppression, it is for the prosecution to prove that the confession was not obtained using oppression. The standard of proof on the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt. It is incorrect to state that if the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the confession was obtained by oppression then the court must exclude the evidence. It is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained using oppression. If they cannot do this then the court would find that the confession was obtained using oppression and must exclude it. Please review your materials on confession evidence and the courts power to exclude any confession evidence that has been obtained using oppression. You should review the relevant sections of PACE.
Question
Your client made his first appearance at the magistrates’ court yesterday charged with Actual Bodily Harm contrary to s.47 Offences Against The Person Act 1861. Your client pleaded not guilty and consented to summary trial which has been fixed for next month. The District Judge remanded your client in custody awaiting trial and your client has today appealed against that decision.
When should the appeal be heard?
Select one alternative:
A. The appeal should be heard as soon as practicable and in any event no later than seven days after the original decision on bail unless the Crown Court otherwise directs
B. The appeal should be heard as soon as practicable and in any event no later than 24 hours after it was served unless the Crown Court otherwise directs
C. The appeal should be heard as soon as practicable and in any event no later than 48 hours after it was served unless the Crown Court otherwise directs
D. The appeal should be heard as soon as practicable and in any event no later than the business day after it was served unless the Crown Court otherwise directs
E. The appeal should be heard as soon as practicable and in any event no later than the business day after the original decision on bail unless the Crown Court otherwise directs
D. The appeal should be heard as soon as practicable and in any event no later than the business day after it was served unless the Crown Court otherwise directs
Correct. Unless the Crown Court otherwise directs, the court officer must arrange for the court to hear the application or appeal as soon as practicable and in any event no later than the business day after it was served. See Crim PR 14.8 (6). Crim PR 14.8 (7) states that the Crown Court may vary a time limit under this rule. Whilst the other answers are plausible, they are each incorrect. It is incorrect to state that the appeal should be heard no later than 24 hours after the application was served unless the Crown Court otherwise directs. This is not the correct time frame set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules. The rule refers to one business day for practical reasons. It wouldn’t be possible for the court to hear the application no later than 24 hours after it was served if, for example, it was served at 5pm on a Friday evening. It is incorrect to state that the appeal should be heard no later than 48 hours after it was served unless the Crown Court otherwise directs. This is not the correct time frame set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules. This timeframe is not practical, it would not allow for the defendant to have a timely hearing in all circumstances. It is incorrect to state that the appeal should be heard no later than the business day after the original decision on bail was made, unless the Crown Court otherwise directs. This is not the correct time frame set out in the Criminal Procedure rules. From a practical point of view, notice of the application must be served prior to the appeal hearing and it may be necessary to take instructions from the client and it is not always possible to be prepared for an appeal hearing this close to the original application. It is incorrect to state that the appeal should be heard no later than seven days after the original decision on bail unless the Crown Court otherwise directs. This is not the correct time frame set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules. The timeframe is not practical, it would not allow for the defendant to have a timely hearing in all the circumstances. Please review your notes on Bail and the procedure for appealing against bail decisions, together with the relevant Criminal Procedure Rules.
