Police Station Advice MCQ

Question 1

Which of these best describes the role of a solicitor or accredited representative at the police station?

A. To ensure that justice is done.

B. To ensure that no court of law is misled.

C. To assist in the smooth running of the criminal justice system.

D. To protect and advance the legal rights of their clients.

E. To advise the suspect properly and in accordance with the law.

Answer 1

D. To protect and advance the legal rights of their clients.

This reflects the role of the solicitor as set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code of Practice C Notes for Guidance paragraph 6D.

Question 2

Which of these represent a passive rather than active defence approach?

A. Making representations to the custody officer regarding release on bail

B. Intervening during the interview where questioning is inappropriate

C. Challenging the investigating officer over lack of disclosure

D. Raising breaches of PACE with the custody officer

E. Sit by and take notes

Answer 2

E. Sit by and take notes

While comprehensive notetaking is an important aspect of police station practice, active defence requires more than this.

Question 3

Which of these statements best reflects the approach you should adopt when taking your client’s instructions prior to interview?

A. You should explain the allegations against your client then allow them to provide you with a full account of their version of events.

B. You should allow your client to give a full account of their version of events before comparing that version of with the disclosure that has been supplied by the police.

C. You should explain the allegations against your client, but you should not take any detailed instructions at this stage. Full instructions should be taken after the interview.

D. You should explain the allegations against your client then on that basis of those allegations set out how you think the client should approach the interview.

E. You should explain the allegations against your client and allow them to provide you with a full account of their version of events. If they admit the offence then you should advise them to answer questions.

Answer 3

A. You should explain the allegations against your client then allow them to provide you with a full account of their version of events.

Your clients full account (including whether they accept any involvement) is vitally important when it comes to advising which option to take in interview.

The other options were incorrect because:

· You must take detailed instructions from your client in advance of the interview in order that you can properly advise and protect their interests.

· You must give your client the opportunity to give you their account before you can advise on which option to follow at interview. For example, your client might have a defence that you are not aware of.

· You are not testing the strength of your client’s version (this will be done in interview and possibly later in court). You need to provide them with all the information that you have available in order that they can respond to the allegations.

· While inferences might be drawn, your client is under no obligation to answer questions just because they have admitted an offence to their solicitor. In fact, it may be in the client’s best interests to go ‘no comment’ if the police have insufficient evidence to prove the offence.

Question 4

Which of these is not a relevant factor when advising a client on their options for interview?

A. Client’s account

B. Strength of the evidence

C. Physical state of the client

D. Disclosure

E. Previous convictions

Answer 4

E. Previous convictions

This might be a factor in relation to bail and sentencing but it is not a factor when advising a client on their options for interview.

The other answers were all relevant factors when advising a client on their options for interview:

· The client’s account- For example, does the suspect admit the offence, which might lead to a ‘no comment’ interview?

· Strength of the evidence- For example, if the evidence is weak then answering questions might cause your client to incriminate themselves.

· Physical state of the client- The court might not draw and adverse inference where a defendant was advised not to answer questions because of their physical state.

· Disclosure- Where a court considers that insufficient disclosure was provided prior to interview then it may decide not to draw an adverse inference.

Question 5

Which of these statements about mixed interviews is correct?

A. A transcript of the interview will be read in court which will include both answers to questions and ‘no comment’ responses.

B. Mixed interviews are not lawful, and a suspect must select an option for interview.

C. Mixed interviews give the suspect the ability to control the interview and not incriminate themselves.

D. The court cannot draw adverse inferences where there were ‘no comment’ responses.

E. Mixed interviews are not admissible in court as they contain ‘no comment’ responses.

Answer 5

A. A transcript of the interview will be read in court which will include both answers to questions and ‘no comment’ responses.

Unlike a ‘no comment’ interview, a transcript of a mixed interview is included as evidence. The impact of such a mixed response on the tribunals of fact (the jury or magistrates) is easy to imagine.

The other options were incorrect:

· While not very helpful to a suspect, they are still entitled to reply to some questions and not others.

· If the suspect wishes to remain in control then a ‘no comment’ interview or pre-prepared statement makes far more sense.

· As with interviews where questions are answered the mixed interview transcript would be read in court.

· The court can still draw adverse inferences for those issues where a response was not given.

Question 6

In which of these circumstances might a vulnerable suspect at the police station be interviewed without an appropriate adult?

A. An inspector determines an urgent interview is required because delay would lead to interference with evidence.

B. A superintendent determines that an urgent interview is required.

C. A superintendent determines an urgent interview is required because delay would lead to interference with evidence.

D. A superintendent determines that an urgent interview is required to ensure that the suspect is not left waiting too long, which might be a detriment to their health.

Answer 6

C. A superintendent determines an urgent interview is required because delay would lead to interference with evidence.

The superintendent must also be satisfied that it would not significantly harm the person’s physical or mental state.

The other options were incorrect because:

· The rank for authorisation is superintendent or above.

· It must be the case that in the reasonable opinion of the superintendent delay would lead to one of the specified outcomes in PACE Code of Practice C.

· Ensuring that the suspect is not left waiting too long, which might be a detriment to their health is not a valid reason for an urgent interview with a vulnerable person without an appropriate adult.

Question 7

Which of the following is necessary in order for the court to draw an adverse inference under section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that the defendant relies on a fact that they did not offer at the time of questioning?

A. The suspect must be cautioned

B. The defendant must plead guilty

C. A special warning must have been given

Answer 7

A. The suspect must be cautioned

The caution explains the possibility of an adverse inference being drawn.

The other options were incorrect because:

· There must be a trial otherwise any adverse inferences are irrelevant. If the case does not proceed to trial, or the defendant pleads guilty there will be no adverse inference.

· An ordinary language ‘special warning’ is only required for inferences under s 36 ors 37.

Question 8

Which of the following correctly summarises the effect of an adverse inference?

A. No adverse inference can be drawn where the suspect has followed legal advice

B. No suspect can be convicted solely on the basis of an adverse inference

C. No adverse inference can be drawn as every suspect has a right to silence

D. Any suspect can be convicted solely on the basis of an adverse inference

Answer 8

B. No suspect can be convicted solely on the basis of an adverse inference

This is the safeguard within section 38 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

The other options are incorrect because:

· No adverse inference can be drawn where the suspect has not been allowed access to legal advice. However, an adverse inference can be drawn even where the suspect has followed legal advice to give a no comment interview.

· The basic principle is that every suspect has a right to silence. However, if a suspect exercises their right to silence at interview then, provided certain statutory conditions are met, a court is allowed to draw inferences at a later trial.

Question 9

A suspect is arrested in connection with an assault in a pub. He is arrested at the pub immediately after the alleged attack and is taken straight to the police station. In interview the suspect does not answer questions.

Which of the below statements is an example of why a section 36 adverse inference might later be drawn at trial?

A. He does not explain why he was in the pub at that time

B. He does not explain why he shouted “I’m glad I hit him” on arrest

C. He has exercised his right to silence

D. He does not raise the fact that he was defending himself when he committed the attack

E. He does not account for the blood stain on his clothing

Answer 9

E. He does not account for the blood stain on his clothing

He has failed to account for an object, substance or mark (in this case a mark) found on him at the time of arrest.

The other options were incorrect because:

· An inference might be drawn under section 37 because he failed to account for his presence in the pub on his arrest.

· If he fails to explain why he shouted “I’m glad I hit him” on arrest or raise self-defence in interview then later does at trial then the court might be entitled to draw adverse inferences under section 34.

· He is entitled to exercise his right to silence, but this does not necessarily cause an inference to be drawn under section 36.

Question 10

There are many methods by which a person can be identified.

Which of the following is a form of visual identification evidence?

A. Handwriting

B. Witness recognises and names the suspect

C. Fingerprints

D. Voice identification

E. DNA

Answer 10

B. Witness recognises and names the suspect

Correct
This is a form of visual identification, just like CCTV footage. The other options were other forms of identification evidence. However, people can also be incriminated by other types of evidence such as clothing description, description of the person, the description of the car the person was driving.

Question 11

When the suspect disputes being the person the eye-witness claims to have seen and the witness expresses an ability to identify the suspect or there is a reasonable chance of the eye-witness being able to identify the suspect the police must attempt an identification procedure.

Which of the following is the procedure which should be attempted first?

A. Confrontation

B. Group identification

C. Video identification

D. Identification parade

Answer 11

C. Video identification

If an identification procedure is to be held, the suspect shall initially be invited to take part in a video identification unless: (a) a video identification is not practicable; or (b) an identification parade is both practicable and more suitable than a video identification.

Question 12

In usual circumstances, who has responsibility for arranging the identification procedure?

A. An officer with no connection to the case of at least the rank of inspector

B. An officer with no connection to the case of at least the rank of sergeant

C. The officer in the case

D. The custody officer

Answer 12

A. An officer with no connection to the case of at least the rank of inspector

The arrangements for, and conduct of, the eye-witness identification procedures shall be the responsibility of an officer not below inspector rank who is not involved with the investigation (‘the identification officer’)

Question 13

Your client has been arrested for attacking her ex-partner. Neighbours had heard shouting from inside her partner’s house and the police had arrested her on the street just outside the house. She was found to have a metal bar in her bag.

In interview she refused to answer questions, but was later charged with grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Which of these statements best sets out the situation regarding the adverse inferences a court may draw?

A. A court could draw an adverse inference for her failure to account for her presence outside her partner’s house but not the metal bar as that was in her bag.

B. A court could draw adverse inferences for her failure to account for her presence outside her partner’s house and for her failure to account for having a metal bar in her possession.

C. A court could draw adverse inferences if she was given a special warning and then later relies on something she failed to mention in interview.

D. A court could draw an adverse inference for her failure to account for having a metal bar in her possession but not for her presence as she was outside the house.

E. A court could draw adverse inferences for her failure to account for her presence outside her partner’s house and for her failure to account for having a metal bar in her possession, if she later relies on that information at trial.

Answer 13

B. A court could draw adverse inferences for her failure to account for her presence outside her partner’s house and for her failure to account for having a metal bar in her possession.

A court might draw inferences under s.36 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (‘CJPOA’) (object, substance or mark) or s.37 CJPOA (presence on arrest at a particular place). Such inferences arise as soon as she fails to account for her presence or the metal bar.

The other options, while plausible, are incorrect:

Unlike s.34 CJPOA, inferences under s.36 CJPOA or s.37 CJPOA do not require that the defendant fail to mention something they later rely on.

Inferences can be drawn here for both presence and the possession of the metal bar, the metal bar in her bag is still in her possession.

Inferences can be drawn here for both presence and the possession of the metal bar, being outside the property would still count as being present.

A special warning is required, but there is no suggested one was not given here. In any event s.36 CJPOA and s.37 CJPOA do not require later reliance on something.

Question 14

A woman is arrested in connection with a street robbery. She is arrested close to the location of the robbery and is found in possession of a balaclava. The victim of the robbery cannot identify the person who robbed her (she was wearing a balaclava), and there is no medical or forensic evidence. The woman denies the offence in consultation with her solicitor then she decides to go ‘no comment’ in interview. During the interview she is given a special caution and fails to account for either why she was near the location of the robbery or why she was in possession of a balaclava.

Which of these statements best sets out the woman’s position in terms of adverse inferences?

A. Adverse inferences can be drawn from her failure to account for her location or possession of the balaclava, so it is likely she would be found guilty at trial given the overwhelming evidence against her.

B. Adverse inferences can be drawn from her failure to account for her location or possession of the balaclava. However, it is highly unlikely that the matter will progress to trial if no further evidence comes to light.

C. Adverse inferences are unlikely to be drawn from her failure to account for her location or possession of the balaclava if the matter reaches trial.

D. Adverse inferences can be drawn from her failure to mention something that she then relies on at trial.

E. Adverse inferences can be drawn from her failure to account for her location or possession of the balaclava and the matter will progress to trial.

Answer 14

B. Adverse inferences can be drawn from her failure to account for her location or possession of the balaclava. However, it is highly unlikely that the matter will progress to trial if no further evidence comes to light.

Correct
Correct. A defendant cannot be convicted on the basis of adverse inferences alone. In this case there would appear to be no evidence against the suspect, so it will not progress to trial.

The other answers, while plausible, are incorrect:

Adverse inferences will not be drawn if the matter does not progress to trial, based on the evidence available at present, it is incorrect to state that the matter will progress to trial.

These adverse inferences would not be sufficient ‘overwhelming evidence’ to convict the defendant. A defendant cannot be convicted on inferences alone (s.38 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (‘CJPOA’)).

She has not failed to mention something she will later rely on in court (s.34 CJPOA). Inferences under ss. 36 and 37 trigger the possibility of inferences from the moment the suspect fails to account (unlike s.34).

If the matter does reach trial (if new evidence comes to like) then inferences would be drawn under s.36 and s.37 CJPOA.

Question 15

A man is arrested for burglary. He is found to have a valuable ornament belonging to the victim in his possession. In consultation he informs you that he had been threatened that he would be killed if he did not commit the burglary. He is frightened of the gang that threatened him and they have made it clear that he will be harmed if he speaks to the police about them. He is willing to answer questions and admit he stole the ornament from the victim’s house, but he doesn’t want to talk about the gang, or the threats made against him. He wants to know what will happen if he fails to mention the fact that he was forced into it.

Which of these statements best reflects the advice that you should give him about the possibility of adverse inferences if he raises the defence of duress at trial?

A. The court might draw an inference that he failed to account for the ornament being in his possession.

B. The court will not draw any inference as long as he can explain why he did not mention the issue of duress in interview.

C. The court might draw an inference that he invented the defence between interview and trial.

D. The court will not allow the defendant to raise the defence as he failed to mention it when questioned.

E. The court might draw an inference because he failed to account for his location when arrested.

Answer 15

C. The court might draw an inference that he invented the defence between interview and trial.

Correct
A court can draw a ‘proper’ inference as they see approriate and this would appear to be a proper inference in the circumstances.

The other answers, while plausible, are incorrect:

A defendant will be cross examined as to why they did not mention something they later relied on, but no explanation will avoid a proper inference being drawn.

He admits the burglary and possession of the ornament, so there is no suggestion that there would be an inference under s.36.

The defendant would not be prohibited from raising a defence in any circumstances.

There is no suggestion that s.37 CJPOA would apply here.

Question 16

You are representing a client at a police station. You advised your client to answer ‘no comment’ to the questions asked. During the interview the interviewing officer mentions some evidence that you had not been made aware of during disclosure. You request that the interview is paused so that you can take instructions. The officer says that if you ask for the interview to be paused you will be excluded from the interview.

Which of these statements best explains whether you can be excluded from the interview?

A. You cannot be excluded from the interview as you were not preventing or obstructing questions being put to your client.

B. You can be excluded from the interview as you have interrupted the police interview after it has started.

C. You can be excluded from the interview if the police arrange for another solicitor to attend the police station to advise the client properly.

D. You cannot be excluded from the interview as the interviewing officer is not a rank of superintendent.

E. You can be excluded from the interview due to your advice to your client to answer ‘no comment’ to all questions.

Answer 16

A. You cannot be excluded from the interview as you were not preventing or obstructing questions being put to your client.

This answer is correct because preventing or obstructing questions being put to your client are the only grounds for a solicitor’s exclusion which has not happened here. Asking for the interview to be paused so that you can take instructions from the client on new evidence is the right course of action here.

The other options, while plausible, are incorrect.

It does not matter if the interviewing officer is not a superintendent. It is merely that a superintendent must authorise you being excluded from the interview.

You can’t be excluded for advising no comment.

A solicitor needs to play an active role in advising their client at the police station which sometimes will mean interrupting/ pausing the interview to take instructions.

Another solicitor should only be requested where the original solicitor has already been excluded which has not happened here. The police cannot just arrange for another solicitor if they do not like the advice the solicitor is giving the client.

Question 17

Your client is under arrest for an alleged assault which you are told took place last night on a dark street. The victim says he only got a brief glimpse of his assailant and says he is only fairly sure he could identify him. A police officer who has dealt with your client before has however recognised your client from CCTV of the incident. Your client is under arrest and has told police in interview that although he was at the scene he was not the alleged attacker.

Do the police have to carry out an ID procedure in these circumstances?

A. No. The police need not conduct an identification procedure because the suspect has been recognised and it would serve no useful purpose.

B. No. The police need not conduct an identification procedure because it is not disputed that the suspect is already known to the police officer.

C. Yes. The police must conduct an identification procedure because the eye-witness has expressed an ability to identify the suspect.

D. Yes. The police must conduct an identification procedure because the suspect denies the offence.

E. Yes. The police must conduct an identification procedure because the suspect denies the offence and the eye-witness has expressed an ability to identify the suspect

Answer 17

E. Yes. The police must conduct an identification procedure because the suspect denies the offence and the eye-witness has expressed an ability to identify the suspect

This answer is the best answer because the police must conduct an identification procedure where the suspect denies the offence and AND the eye-witness has expressed an ability to identify the suspect as here.

The other options, while plausible, are incorrect.

An identification procedure would serve a useful purpose even though the suspect has been recognised as there is an eye-witness who says he is fairly sure he could identify his attacker.

An identification procedure would serve a useful purpose in these circumstances as your client, while admitting presence at the scene, denies being the attacker and the eye-witness says he is fairly sure he could identify his attacker.

Here the relevant person is the eye-witness, who does not know your client, rather than the police officer.

Whilst the suspect denies the offence, the ID procedure is necessary as there is an eye-witness who says he is fairly sure he could identify his attacker.

Question 18

You represent a man suspected of the offence of battery and is charged with common assault. He is currently out of work and so receives welfare benefits.

Which of the following best explains whether you client is eligible for public funding?

A. He will pass the means test if he can show that his income and capital are below a certain limit.

B. He will automatically pass the means test because he is in receipt of welfare benefits but he must also pass the merits test to be eligible.

C. He will have to pass both the means test and the merits test in order to be granted public funding.

D. He will receive public funding because the offence of battery is an imprisonable offence.

E. He will automatically qualify for public funding because he is in receipt of welfare benefits.

Answer 18

B. He will automatically pass the means test because he is in receipt of welfare benefits but he must also pass the merits test to be eligible.

He is passported through the means test because of his receipt of welfare benefits, but he will still have to show that it is in the interests of justice for him to receive public funding for his defence.

The other answers are plausible but incorrect:

• He does not need to pass the means test – he automatically passes it
• He won’t automatically qualify for public funding because he still has to pass the merits test
• Whether the offence is imprisonable or not is not a deciding factor.

Question 19

Your client has been charged with burglary. She is in receipt of benefits and therefore is passported through the means test. You are assisting your client in completing the CRM 14 form.

She informs you that she has numerous convictions for burglary, including one last year when she was given a suspended sentence. She denies the offence and says she has an alibi. However, your client is worried about what the arresting officer will say. The arresting officer said she had admitted the offence on arrest, when she did not say anything. She’s also worried about her daughter who is only 12 and will be left on her own if she is sent to prison.

Which of these is not a matter to include in the CRM 14 form?

A. It is in the interests of her daughter that she is represented

B. An alibi witness will need to be traced and interviewed

C. She has been given a sentence that is suspended which will be activated if she is convicted of the current offence

D. The proceedings will involve the cross examination of a police officer

E. She is likely to lose her liberty

Answer 19

A. It is in the interests of her daughter that she is represented

For the purposes of the merits/ interests of justice test, the interests of another person does not include family members impacted by a sentence.

The other answers while plausible are not correct. All could be included in the relevant sections of the CRM 14 form.

Question 20

Your client is a university professor who lives alone and earns £90,000. He is suspected of the offence of battery on a student and is charged with common assault. He is due to appear before the magistrates’ court He has no previous offences and intends to plead not guilty.

Is your client likely to obtain a representation order that grants public funding for his defence?

A. He will not obtain a representation order because he is not in receipt of benefits

B. He will not obtain a representation order as will fail the means test

C. He will obtain a representation order because it is likely that he will suffer serious damage to his reputation

D. He will not obtain a representation order because it is not in the interests of justice that he be represented

E. He will obtain a representation order because it is likely he will lose his livelihood

Answer 20

B. He will not obtain a representation order as will fail the means test
In light of the university professor’s salary and the size of his household (he lives alone) he will be ineligible for public funding because his weighted gross annual income will be above the upper threshold i.e. £22, 325.

The other answers while plausible are incorrect:

· While he will suffer serious damage to his reputation, might lose his livelihood and therefore it might be in the interests of justice that he be represented, he will not pass the means test.

· While he is not in receipt of benefits that does not mean he will automatically fail the means test.