Witnesses MCQs Flashcards
You act for the prosecution in a case where Rupesh is charged with an offence of ABH against his partner, Amber. Rupesh has four previous convictions for assaults on Amber but each time they have resumed their relationship. The offences are getting more serious each time. On this occasion, it is alleged that Rupesh and Amber were in an argument, and he slapped her to the face. Since the argument Amber has told police she is not sure whether she should attend court.
Which of the following correctly sets out the position you should take in court?
You should apply for a witness summons to secure the attendance of Amber at court as the offending is getting progressively worse and it is in the public interest to pursue the prosecution.
You should should do nothing and hope that Amber changes her mind before the trial.
You should apply to adjourn the case to give the police time to convince Amber to attend court and give evidence.
You should apply to withdraw the case from court as Amber is unlikely to attend and you would not have a case without her.
You should apply for a witness summons to secure the attendance of Amber at court as the offending is getting progressively worse and it is in the public interest to pursue the prosecution.
You are instructed to represent David who is charged with an offence of murder. It is alleged that David killed Liam by punching him repeatedly then stamping on his head so hard that the tread marks from the trainers left a print on his head. The prosecution is seeking to adduce evidence from an expert witness to show that the tread marks on Liam matched the tread on David’s shoes.
You object to the admissibility of the expert evidence on the basis that many people own a pair of trainers with the same tread marks and it would be highly prejudicial to allow this evidence to go before the jury.
Who bears the burden of proving whether the evidence should be admissible?
The prosecution as it is for the party proffering the evidence to prove its admissibility
The defence as it is for the party challenging the evidence to prove its admissibility.
The prosecution as they always bear the burden of proof.
The defence will need to adduce their own expert evidence to support their reason for objecting to the evidence.
The prosecution as it is for the party proffering the evidence to prove its admissibility
Correct – the proffering the expert evidence should be the party to prove its admissibility, in this case it is the prosecution.
You represent Annabelle, who is charged with an offence of ABH. Annabelle provided a no comment interview at the police station and tells you that her solicitor advised her that this would be the best thing to do. She had made some admissions to her solicitor during the conference at the police station.
Annabelle has told you that she admitted the offence to the solicitor at the police station because she thought that she would be able to get out quicker. You are now representing her at trial where she says that she did not commit the offence and has an alibi for that day.
You warn her about the jury drawing an adverse inference against her because she did not provide details of the alibi during her police interview. She says that she will give evidence to state that she answered no comment during her police interview because she was following legal advice and requests that we call the solicitor to give evidence to confirm that.
What advice should you give to Annabelle in response to her request?
You should advise Annabelle that if you call the solicitor to give evidence then she would waive her legal privilege and the conversation could be disclosed to the court including the admissions she made.
You should advise Annabelle that if you call the solicitor to give evidence then they could only be asked about what advice they provided and it would not waive legal privilege regarding the full conversation including the admissions.
You should advise Annabelle that it is not possible to call the solicitor to give evidence because the conversation is covered by legal privilege which cannot be waived.
You should advise Annabelle that it is not possible to call the solicitor to give evidence because solicitors cannot be witnesses in a case due to legal privilege.
You should advise Annabelle that if you call the solicitor to give evidence then she would waive her legal privilege and the conversation could be disclosed to the court including the admissions she made.
Correct – if you wish to call a solicitor to confirm the advice given at the police station then this would waive her legal privilege and confidentiality and allow the solicitor to provide evidence on the conference that took place at the police station. Following legal advice would not preclude an adverse inference from being drawn in this case.
The Defendant (aged 28) has been charged with an offence of robbery at a post office contrary to s.8(1) Theft Act 1968. The case is listed for trial. The main prosecution witnesses are the manager of the post office, A, and a customer, B. Both these witnesses are over 18 years of age.
D’s defence is one of mistaken identity and maintains they were at home at the time of the alleged offence. D intends to call their spouse S and 14 year old son (R) to confirm this alibi.
Which of the following statements best summarise who is competent and compellable as witnesses?
R is not competent as a witness because of their age.
D is competent and compellable as a witness in their defence
A and B are competent and compellable for the prosecution
S as D’s spouse, is competent and compellable for the prosecution.
A and B are competent and compellable for the prosecution
Correct. A and B are ordinary witnesses and competent and compellable.
D’s spouse S is competent to give evidence for the prosecution. See s.53(1) Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and s.80(1) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 but cannot be compelled as the offence is not specified under s 80 PACE 1984.
D’s spouse is competent and compellable for the accused provided not on trial themselves.
Although R is 14, age is not the determining factor of whether they are competent; the only test is whether R can: (i) understand the questions; and (ii) can give comprehensible answers
You are representing a man for theft of a credit card. It is alleged that the man stole the credit card from his friend. Part of the prosecution evidence against your client is a statement from a police officer stating that he arrested the man and found he was in possession of the credit card. Your client confirms to you that he was in possession of the credit card but that his friend had lent it to him.
Which of these statements is the best advice to your client about the police officer’s statement?
You will be able cross examine the police officer as your client’s possession of the credit card in court.
The fact that the credit card does not belong to your client can be agreed between the parties.
The prosecution will want to agree the witness statement, but you will not agree as you don’t want to accept the police officer’s account.
The witness statement should be agreed so it will be read out in court.
The witness statement should be agreed so it will be read out in court.
Correct. Your client does not challenge the witness’s account and therefore the statement can be agreed between the parties under the Criminal Justice Act 1967 s.9. The statement will be read out in court and given the same weight as if the police officer had attended and given oral evidence.
The other options while plausible are incorrect:
The police officer’s statement does not deal with the ownership of the credit card. The fact that it doesn’t belong to your client might be agreed as a fact between the parties under CJA 1967, s.10.
There is no need to challenge the officer’s statement. Your client does not disagree with the account put forward by the officer and therefore it can be agreed under s.9.
As per the above, you are able to accept the statement as true as per CJA 1967, s.9.
