Identification Evidence Caution

During a criminal trial, the defendant, Alex, is charged with burglary. The prosecution presents eyewitness testimony and video footage linking Alex to the scene, while the defence argues that the footage is unclear and the eyewitness was mistaken. Which of the parties bears the responsibility of proving Alex’s guilt? A. The prosecution must prove Alex's guilt by a providing sufficient evidence. B. The defence must prove Alex's innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. C. The prosecution bears the legal burden of proving Alex's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. D. Both the prosecution and defence must equally prove their case to the jury. E. Both C and D

Darren is arrested on suspicion of theft and taken to the police station for questioning. He is cautioned by the officer. Darren chooses to remain silent during the interview and only later, at trial, offers an alibi for the time of the offence. Which of the following best describes the legal implication of Darren's silence during the police interview? A. Darren's silence cannot be mentioned at trial under any circumstances. B. Darren's silence means he has waived his right to testify in court. C. An adverse inference may be drawn from Darren’s failure to mention his alibi during the police interview. D. The jury must assume Darren is innocent if he exercised his right to silence. E. An adverse inference must be drawn by the jury when a defendant is silent in interview.

During a murder trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce a diary entry written by the deceased victim, which states: "I'm afraid of Mark. He threatened me yesterday and said I'd regret crossing him." The prosecution argues that the diary entry should be admitted. The defence objects, arguing it is hearsay. Will the diary entry be admissible as evidence? A. No, the diary entry is inadmissible because all hearsay evidence is excluded in criminal trials. B. Yes, the diary entry may be admissible as it falls within a statutory exception to the hearsay rule. C. Yes, the diary entry is automatically admissible because it expresses the victim’s feelings. D. No, the diary entry is admissible only if the defendant agrees to its use. E. No, the diary entry is inadmissible because it is opinion evidence and not fact.

Jo is charged with assaulting an elderly person. At the beginning of his police interview, his solicitor reads a prepared written statement setting out Jo’s version of events. Jo then remains silent and refuses to answer police questions. At trial, Jo testifies in a manner that is consistent with the initial written statement. Can the jury draw an adverse inference from Jo’s silence during the police interview? A. Yes, because s35 CJPOA applies B. No, because section * CJPOA applies. C. Yes, because s34 CJPOA applies D. No, because section * CJPOA does not apply. E. Yes, the defendant’s silence always allows the jury to draw an adverse inference at trial.

During a fraud trial, Mo, a witness is called to testify that he overheard a colleague say, "I saw the defendant forging signatures on those documents." The colleague who allegedly made the statement has since moved to Australia and is unavailable to attend court, despite reasonable efforts to locate them. The prosecution wants the witness's testimony admitted to support their case. Is this evidence likely to be admissible in court? A. Yes, because hearsay is always allowed when the original speaker is unavailable. B. No, because second-hand statements are never admissible as evidence of the truth of their contents. C. Yes, if the court is satisfied that the original speaker is genuinely unavailable. D. No, unless the defendant testifies and confirms the statement’s truth. E. Yes, but only if the statement was made under oath at a previous hearing

James is on trial for assault. The prosecution wants to call his wife, Lisa, to give evidence about what James said and did when he came home on the night of the incident. Lisa does not want to testify. The alleged victim is not related to either of them. Which of the following best describes Lisa’s position under the law regarding compellability? A. Lisa is not a competent witness and cannot give evidence in James’s trial. B. Lisa is a competent but non-compellable witness for the prosecution in this case. C. Lisa is a competent and compellable witness because she is the spouse of the defendant, regardless of the offence. D. Lisa is compellable because she has already made a statement to the police. E. None of the above.

Penelope is being interviewed by the police in connection with a grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section * OAPA *, at a pub. She is clearly under the influence of drugs and has marks on her forearms which indicate long-term drug use. She is interviewed for * hours without a break and starts to display signs of drug withdrawal. The police say that they “will let her walk free” if she gives them information. As a result, Penelope tells the police that she used a broken beer bottle to stop a man who was trying to rape her in the alleyway behind the pub. Which of the following statements best summarises the legal position? A. The statement is not a confession because it refers to self-defence. B. The statement should be excluded under section *(*) (b) PACE because there is a breach of PACE Code. C. The jury should be allowed to decide whether the statement should be excluded.

or D. The statements should be excluded under section *(*)(b) PACE because there was a breach of PACE code. E. This statement was obtained by oppression and should be excluded under section *(*)(a) PACE.

what is the correct answer

Anjan, a surgeon, is on trial for indecent assault. During the course of examination in chief, he states that he is a man of exemplary character who is loved and respected by friends and colleagues. The prosecution is aware that he has two cautions for shoplifting and a pending disciplinary for misconduct at the General Medical Council. Which statement best describes how the prosecution should seek to have this evidence adduced? A. On the basis that it is necessary to correct a false impression given by the defendant. B. On the basis that the defendant attacked someone else’s credibility. C. On the basis that the previous cautions and disciplinary go to the issue of propensity. D. On the basis that the previous cautions and disciplinary go to the issue of reprehensible behaviour. E. On the basis that defendant will not have a fair trial if the evidence is excluded.

Fatima is on trial for the theft of electrical cables from a construction site. The main prosecution witness is a security guard who was patrolling a neighbouring property. He tells the police that he saw a woman dressed in dark clothing loading cables into a vehicle around midnight. He claims that he had a clear view of her under bright floodlights and observed her for about * seconds. Fatima denies the allegation, and there is no forensic, CCTV, or other supporting evidence. How should the trial judge proceed in this case A. Refuse to allow the case to proceed due to the lack of corroborating evidence B. Admit the identification evidence and instruct the jury to convict if they find the witness credible C. Withdraw the case from the jury because it is unsafe to convict on identification evidence alone

or D. Leave the case to the jury but give a warning about the need for special caution in relying on identification evidence E. Admit the evidence without comment, as it is up to the jury to assess all testimony

Sophie confesses to a crime after being interviewed without a solicitor and while extremely tired. What must the judge consider under section * of PACE? A. Whether she had a motive to lie B. Whether there is a breach of section * PACE C. Whether the interview was recorded D. All of the above E Both B and C

Police break into Darren's home without a warrant and find incriminating documents which link him to the offence of fraud. Darren is now one of the defendants in the trial. Under which provision may the court exclude the evidence? A. Section * PACE B. Section * PACE C. Section * PACE D. Section * Criminal Justice Act * E. None of the above. In the circumstances, the court cannot exclude the evidence.

John Doe is on trial for a residential burglary. The prosecution applies to admit John’s two prior convictions – one for burglary 7 years ago and one for theft 5 years ago – arguing these show he has a propensity to commit theft/burglary offences. John objects, claiming the evidence is too prejudicial and the convictions are too old. Under the Criminal Justice Act *, should the judge allow this badcharacter evidence to show propensity?

A. Yes. Both prior convictions involve offences in the same general category (theft/burglary), satisfying s.*(*), and the court may admit them if it finds their probative value outweighs any unfair prejudice. B. Yes, but only the burglary conviction is admissible. The theft conviction is a different offence and cannot be used to show a propensity to burglarize. C. No. Both convictions are too old (more than 5 years) to be used to show current propensity, so s.*(*) requires exclusion. D. No. Bad-character evidence is categorically excluded unless the defendant consents (per s.*(*)(a)), which has not occurred here. E. No. The Criminal Justice Act prevents using past convictions simply to suggest criminal character, so neither conviction can be used

Jabeer is charged with possession of a bladed article in a public place, for which the legal defence is to have a good reason or lawful authority for being in possession of the article. He says that he was taking the knife that he found in the Street to the local police station under its knife crime amnesty programme. Which one of the following statements correctly represents the legal defence? A. The legal and evidential burden is on the prosecution to prove every element of the offence. B. The prosecution has the legal burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the defence is not satisfied. C. The legal burden of proof is on Jabber to prove that he had a good reason or lawful authority for carrying the knife. D. The evidential burden of proof is on Jabeer. E. None of the above

Tariq is on trial for armed robbery. During the incident, a passerby, Gemma, immediately called the police and said, “I just saw a man with a knife run out of that shop—he had a black hoodie and a red backpack!” Gemma is now too traumatised to give evidence and has been declared medically unfit to testify. The prosecution seeks to admit her * call recording. Which of the following best reflects the legal position? A. The statement is inadmissible because Gemma is not available to be cross-examined. B. The statement is admissible because it was made spontaneously and contemporaneously with the event. C. The statement is admissible only if the defendant agrees to it being played. D. The statement is inadmissible because it was made to the police and not under oath. E. The statement is admissible only if it was made in a formal written statement signed by the witness

Liam is on trial for assaulting a stranger during a street fight. The prosecution wishes to call Liam’s wife, Sarah, who witnessed the incident. Liam and Sarah are legally married and living together at the time of the trial. Which of the following best describes Sarah’s position regarding compellability as a witness? A. Sarah is not compellable for the prosecution because the offence was not against her or a child. B. Sarah is compellable for the prosecution because she is the defendant’s spouse. C. Sarah is only compellable if she consents to give evidence. D. Sarah can only be called by the defence, not the prosecution. E. Sarah becomes compellable because she was present at the scene of the offence.

Malik is on trial for armed robbery. The sole prosecution witness, Priya, says she saw Malik running from the scene and “thinks it was him”, as she had seen him around the neighbourhood a few times before. She was around * metres away, it was dark, and the incident lasted only a few seconds. There is no CCTV or forensic evidence. Which of the following could the judge direct? A. There is no need for a direction to be given in this case B. Warn the jury that an honest witness can be mistaken and highlight the weaknesses in the identification evidence. C. Admit the evidence without any judicial warning since Priya recognised the defendant from the area. D. Instruct the jury that prior sightings of the defendant in the area prove identity. E. Allow the jury to decide guilt solely on the witness’s belief, without further comment.