Criminal and Civil Evidence Chapter 3 Multiple-Choice Questions

QUESTION 1

Dave, Fred and Harry are charged with armed robbery. The prosecution allege that Dave and Harry carried out the robbery whilst Fred sat in the “getaway car” outside the post office in which the robbery was committed. When questioned by the police, Dave admitted that he and Harry committed the robbery, Fred admitted to the police that he been sitting in his parked car outside the post office at the time when Dave and Harry committed the robbery but, denied that he was involved in the robbery. Harry, when interviewed at the police station, denied any involvement in or knowledge of the robbery.

Consider the following four propositions.

Dave’s statement to the police is a confession.
Fred’s statement to the police is a confession.
Harry’s statement to the police is a confession.
Dave’s confession will be admissible against Harry.

Which of the above propositions are true?

[a]	They are all true.	The correct answer is [b]. See textbook 3.1.1. Dave’s statement is wholly adverse to him, so it is a confession. Fred’s statement is partly adverse to him (because it proves that he was in his car outside the post office at the time of the robbery.) so it is a confession. Harry’s statement is not adverse to him, so it is not a confession. Confessions are not normally admissible in evidence against persons other than their maker (see textbook 3.1.4, above).

[b]	(i) and (ii) only.

[c]	(i) and (iv) only.

[d]	They are all false.

QUESTION 3

Vince, a former heavyweight boxer who is now a nightclub bouncer, being suspected of robbery, is interviewed under caution, by the police, in the presence of his solicitor. At one point during the interview, during which Vince consistently denies the allegations against him, one of the interviewing officers says to Vince, “Confess or I’ll slap you in the face”. Vince ignores the threat and continues to deny the allegation. Several hours later, during a subsequent interview, Vince confesses in consequence of the advice of his solicitor given to him in private following the first interview. At Vince’s trial, Vince asserts that his confession was obtained by oppression. During the voir dire, Vince states that the police officer’s threat did not frighten him and that he confessed not because of the threat but in consequence of his solicitor’s advice.

Consider the following four propositions.

The police officer’s threat amounts to oppression.
The confession was obtained by oppression.
The burden of proving that the confession was not obtained by oppression is borne by Vince.
The confession is rendered inadmissible due to the operation of section 76(2)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Which of the above propositions are true?

[a]	(i), (ii) and (iv) only.	The correct answer is [d]. See Textbook 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.2.1. The threat of violence does amount to oppression but the confession was clearly not obtained by oppression. The burden of proving that a confession was not obtained by oppression is borne by the prosecution. The confession is not rendered inadmissible under s.76(2)(a) because it was not obtained by oppression (the accused, who is not someone who is likely to have been too worried by the threat of a slap in the face, did not confess for a considerable time after the threat was made and has admitted that it was the legal advice and not the threat which induced him to confess). .

[b]	(i) and (iii) only.

[c]	(ii) and (iv) only.

[d]	(i) only.

QUESTION 4

Shama and Anne being suspected of burglary, are separately interviewed under caution, in the presence of their solicitors by the police. Between two periods of interviewing, during which Shama consistently denies the allegations against her, Shama is permitted to see her husband, who tells Shama that their 16-year-old son has broken his arm playing football and is in hospital. Shama tells her husband, and the police officers who are present, that she hasn’t got time to worry about her son’s arm, as her own problems are much more serious. Several hours later, the police truthfully inform Shama and her solicitor of the very strong evidence which they have against Shama. Shama then consults her solicitor in private and, on returning to the interview room, she then confesses. Anne is also interviewed under caution in the presence of her solicitor by the police. She hates being in a police station so much that she confesses in the hope that she will then be allowed to go home. Nothing said to her by the police officers or by her solicitor has led her to believe that she will be allowed to go home, but her own experience of police stations has led her to believe that she is unlikely to be kept in custody once she confesses.

Consider the following two propositions.

In these circumstances it is clear that the trial judge must exclude Shama’s confession under section 76(2)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984, on the basis of its unreliability.
In these circumstances it is clear that the trial judge must exclude Anne’s confession under section 76(2)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 on the basis of its unreliability.

Which of the above two propositions is/are true?

[a]	They are both true.	The correct answer is [d]. In relation to Shama’s confession, even if the information concerning her son’s injury amounts to something said or done which was likely in the circumstances to have rendered unreliable any confession that Shama might have made in consequence of the thing said or done, the confession does not appear to have been obtained in consequence of the thing said or done (see Textbook 3.3.3.3). In relation to Anne’s confession, nothing appears to have been said or done to Anne (see Textbook 3.3.3.2).

[b]	(i) only.

[c]	(ii) only.

[d]	They are both false.

QUESTION 5

Which one of the following four propositions is true?

[a]	A confession can only be inadmissible (either in consequence of oppression or in consequence of unreliability) under section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 if the police have acted improperly.	The correct answer is [c]. A confession may be inadmissible under s.76(2)(b) (unreliability) even though there has been no impropriety (see textbook 3.3.3.1). The mere existence of oppression does not make a confession unreliable, the question for the judge being whether the confession was or may have been obtained by oppression (see textbook 3.3.2.1). Where the issue of the admissibility of a confession under s.76 of PACE arises, the legal burden of proving that the confession is admissible is borne by the prosecution (see textbook 3.3.1).

[b]	Where the suspect has been subjected to oppression during a police interview his confession is automatically inadmissible.

[c]	When the issue of a confession’s admissibility under section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 arises, the legal burden of proving that the confession is admissible is borne by the prosecution.

[d]	None of the above propositions is true.

QUESTION 6

Consider the following two propositions.

A trial judge possesses common law discretion to exclude prosecution evidence.
A trial judge possesses statutory discretion to exclude prosecution evidence.

Which of the above propositions is/are true?

[a]	(i) only.	The correct answer is [b]. See textbook 3.4.. A trial judge possesses both common law and statutory discretion to exclude prosecution evidence.

[b]	They are both true.

[c]	(ii) only.

[d]	Neither of the above propositions is true.

QUESTION 7

Alf, a man of low but not subnormal I.Q., being suspected of rape, is interviewed by two police officers who unlawfully refuse him access to legal advice and do not caution him in a deliberate breach of his rights under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Alf believes that he is obliged to answer police questions, and, by subtle questioning combined with periods when the officers scream questions at him, is trapped into giving a series of increasingly incriminating answers until the officers, in a deliberate lie, falsely inform Alf that they have forensic and ID evidence proving that Alf committed the offence. This is a deliberate lie. The officers also tell Alf that if he confesses he will only be given a caution but that if he does not confess he will go to prison. Alf immediately gives a full confession.

Which one of the following answers is true?

[a]	It appears that the judge should exclude Alf’s confession under section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.	The correct answer is [a]. See textbook 3.4.3. In relation to the operation of s.76(2) of PACE, the burden of proof is borne by the prosecution, not by the accused (see textbook 3.3.1). It is difficult to see how the prosecution (in the context of serious and deliberate breaches of requirements of PACE and the Codes of Practice by the interviewing officers, the officers screaming at the accused and telling him deliberate lies and Alf’s low I.Q.) the prosecution could possibly satisfy the judge to the criminal standard of proof that Alf’s confession was not obtained by oppression, thus exclusion appears to be required under s.76(2)(a) (see textbook 3.3.2). Moreover, it is equally difficult to see (in the context of the matters referred to immediately above plus the inducement that Alf will only be given a caution if he confesses) how the prosecution could possibly satisfy the judge to the criminal standard of proof that Alf’s confession was not obtained in consequence of something said or done to Alf that was likely in the circumstances to have rendered unreliable any confession that Alf might have made, thus exclusion appears to be required under s.76(2)(b) (see textbook 3.3.3). Had the judge not been required to exclude this confession under s.76(2), it seems that exclusion would clearly have been appropriate under s.78 as it appears that admitting Alf’s confession in the context of serious, substantial and deliberate breaches of requirements of PACE and the Codes of Practice, the deliberate lies re the existence of evidence and his low I.Q. would clearly have such an adverse affect on the fairness of the proceedings that the confession should not be admitted.

[b]	The judge is not entitled to exclude Alf’s confession under section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but may be entitled to exclude it under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

[c]	The judge must admit Alf’s confession unless Alf proves on the balance of probabilities that the police misconduct caused him to confess.

[d]	None of the above propositions is true.

QUESTION 8

Reg is charged with burglary. When Reg was taken to the police station he informed the custody officer that he wished Jim, his solicitor, to attend the police station. Due to a misunderstanding between the interviewing officers and the custody officer, the interviewing officers mistakenly believed that Reg did not desire a legal representative and, consequently, Reg was interviewed in the absence of a solicitor before Jim had arrived at the police station. In the course of the interview, Reg confessed. At Reg’s trial, the defence assert that Reg’s confession is either inadmissible under section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal evidence Act 1984 or should be excluded under section 78 of that Act.

Which one of the above propositions is true?

[a]	The confession must be admissible because the police did not deliberately deny Reg access to legal advice but merely made a mistake.	The correct answer is [d]. See textbook 3.3.2, 3.3.3 and 3.4.3. It is for the prosecution to prove that the confession was not obtained in either of the two ways specified by s.76(2). Since the failure to give Reg access to legal advice was not deliberate, it is submitted that the judge is unlikely to regard it as oppressive. It is certainly possible that the judge will decide that the confession is inadmissible on the basis of unreliability, but much may depend upon whether (taking into account his personal characteristics) Reg was affected by non-access to a solicitor. Equally, it is certainly possible that the judge will form the view that the admission of the confession in the context of the breach of the requirements of s.58 of the 1984 Act would render the proceedings so unfair that the confession should be excluded under s.78, as the breach appears to be significant and substantial, but the breach of the requirements of s.58 of the 1984 Act was not deliberate and much may depend upon whether (taking into account his personal characteristics) Reg was affected by non-access to a solicitor.

[b]	The confession must be excluded under section 78 because Reg was improperly denied access to legal advice.

[c]	The confession must be inadmissible under section 76(2) because Reg was improperly denied access to legal advice.

[d]	None of the above propositions is true.

QUESTION 9

Dan is charged with burglary. The prosecution wish to call undercover police officers to give evidence against Dan..

Consider the following four propositions.

Evidence obtained by undercover police officers is always admissible in criminal proceedings, the trial judge having no power to exclude it.
Evidence obtained by undercover police officers is never admissible in criminal proceedings, the trial judge having no power to admit such evidence.
Evidence obtained by undercover police officers may be excluded in criminal proceedings by the trial judge in the exercise of his exclusionary discretion.
Where undercover police officers have allegedly taken part in entrapment of the accused, the judge may find it necessary to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process.

Which of the above four propositions are true?

[a]	(i) and (iv) only.	The correct answer is [c]. See textbook 3.4.4.1. There is no rule of law to the effect that such evidence is inadmissible but the judge does possess discretion under PACE s.78 to exclude prosecution evidence the admission of which would adversely affect the farness of the proceedings such that it should not be admitted and might find it necessary to stay proceedings as an abuse of process in the context of alleged entrapment.

[b]	(ii) and (iv) only.

[c]	(iii) and (iv) only.

[d]	(iii) only.

QUESTION 10

Doug is charged with burglary. The trial judge admits identification evidence obtained in breach of requirements of Code D.

Which one of the following propositions is true?

[a]	Identification evidence is automatically admissible, the trial judge having no power to exclude it.	The correct answer is [c]. See textbook 3.4.4.2. Illegally obtained evidence is not automatically inadmissible. Rather, the admissibility of such evidence will depend upon the exercise by the judge of his exclusionary discretion under s.78 of PACE.

[b]	Identification evidence is automatically inadmissible if there have been breaches of Code D requirements, thus the trial judge was not entitled to admit the identification evidence.

[c]	The admissibility of the identification evidence in the context of the breaches of Code D would have depended upon the exercise by the trial judge of his exclusionary discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

[d]	None of the above propositions is true.

QUESTION 11

Dan is charged with murder. At his trial, the prosecution intend to adduce the identification evidence of Anne. Anne identified Dan at an identification parade at which a trivial breach of a requirement of Code D occurred. The breach of Code D was not deliberate.

Consider the following two propositions.

If the trial judge admits the identification evidence this will give rise to a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The trial judge must exclude the evidence in the exercise of his exclusionary discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Which of the above propositions are true?

[a]	(i) and (ii).	The correct answer is [d]. See textbook 3.4.4.2 and 3.4.5. The breach of Code D is not significant and substantial and was not in bad faith so it appears unlikely that the trial judge will exclude the identification evidence in the exercise of his s.78 discretion. So far as the Convention is concerned, the admissibility of evidence is essentially a question for English Law. If the admission of evidence for the prosecution renders a trial unfair, then there will be a violation of Article 6, but here there is no reason to believe that the admission of the identification evidence would render the trial unfair.

[b]	(i) only.

[c]	(ii) only.

[d]	Neither of the above propositions is true.

QUESTION 12

Paul, being suspected of rape and kidnapping, is interviewed by two police officers in the absence of his solicitor. Paul refuses to say anything until he has spoken to a solicitor. The officers beat Paul up, breaking his arm, and he immediately confesses to both offences. In the course of his confession, Paul indicates that an item of clothing belonging to his victim can be found in his locker at work. In answering the police questions, Paul uses a number of unusual phrases and pronunciations in his speech that are identical to phrases and pronunciations that the kidnapper used in a telephone call that the police recorded.

Which one of the following propositions is true?

[a]	The confession will be admissible if the prosecution prove on the balance of probabilities that it was not obtained by oppression.	The correct answer is [d]. See textbook 3.5.1.2. Under s.76(2) of PACE the requisite standard of proof that the prosecution must satisfy in order to discharge the legal burden that the section imposes upon them is proof beyond reasonable doubt (see textbook 3.3.1). Even if the prosecution discharge this burden of proof in relation to s.76(2)(a) (oppression, see textbook 3.3.2), the judge might still find it necessary to exclude the confession under s.76(2)(b) (unreliability, see textbook 3.3.2) or might exclude it in the exercise of his exclusionary discretion under s.78 (see textbook 3.4.2). The exclusion of the confession will not render admissible either evidence of the discovery of the clothing (see textbook 3.5.1.1) or evidence of the unusual phrases and pronunciation. .

[b]	If the confession is excluded, evidence of the discovery of the item of clothing will be inadmissible.

[c]	If the confession is excluded, evidence of the unusual phrases and pronunciations that Paul used during the interview will be inadmissible.

[d]	None of the above propositions is true.

QUESTION 13

Arthur and Brad are jointly charged with the murder of Clinton. In the course of an interview in the presence of his solicitor, during which one of the interviewing officers at times scream threats and abuse at Arthur, Arthur, a tough and experienced criminal, confesses that he killed Clinton. At the trial, Arthur asserts that his confession was obtained by oppression and the prosecution fail to disprove this beyond reasonable doubt. The judge is, however, satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Arthur’s confession was not obtained by oppression. Arthur pleads not guilty and testifies that Brad committed the murder, whereas Brad’s defence is that the murder was committed by Arthur.

Which one of the following propositions is true?

[a]	The confession will be admissible for the prosecution under section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 because it is relevant to an issue in the proceedings.	The correct answer is [b]. See textbook 3.5.2. The confession appears to be admissible for Brad under s.76A(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 because it seems to be relevant to an issue in the proceedings and it appears that the burden of proof imposed by section 76A(2) has been discharged to the standard that the law requires (i.e. proof on the balance or probabilities). The s.78 exclusionary discretion only applies to evidence tendered by the prosecution (see textbook 3.4.2) and is thus inapplicable to a confession that is admissible under s.76A as this is defence evidence. The confession will not be admissible for the prosecution because the prosecution have failed to discharge the burden of proof which s. 76(2) of the 1984 Act imposes upon them to the standard which the law requires (i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt) (see textbook 3.3.1).

[b]	The confession appears to be admissible in Brad’s defence under section 76A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

[c]	The confession will be admissible in Brad’s defence under section 76A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 unless the judge excludes it in the exercise of his exclusionary discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

[d]	None of the above propositions is true.

QUESTION 14

Alf, who is mentally handicapped, was charged with rape. At the police station Alf was questioned by two police officers in the absence of an independent person. Alf was wrongfully refused access to legal advice and continuously denied the allegations that the interviewing officers put to him for three hours until one of them hit him and told him that he would be hit again if he did not confess. Alf immediately confessed. At Alf’s trial, the trial judge held that Alf’s confession would normally have been inadmissible under section 76(2)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 but held that, because Alf was mentally handicapped, he (the judge) was obliged to admit the confession under section 77 of the 1984 Act provided that he (the judge) directed the jury in compliance with section 77.

Which one of the following propositions is true?

[a]	The trial judge properly admitted Alf’s confession under section 77.	The correct answer is [d]. See textbook 3.6. The operation of section 77 does not render an inadmissible confession admissible, rather, s.77 merely imposes a warning requirement in relation to admissible confessions. S.78 of PACE does not give the trial judge an inclusionary discretion, rather, it gives him an exclusionary discretion (see textbook 3.4.2). The judge should have excluded the confession unless the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that it had not been obtained by oppression (see textbook 3.4.1).

[b]	Alf’s confession was inadmissible under section 76(2) of the 1984 Act but could have been admitted in the exercise of the trial judge’s inclusionary discretion under section 78 of the 1984 Act.

[c]	Unless the prosecution proved on the balance of probabilities that the confession was not obtained by oppression, the trial judge should have excluded it.

[d]	None of the above three propositions is true.

QUESTION 15

Consider the following two propositions.

A confession made by one co-accused that is excluded by the trial judge in the exercise of his exclusionary discretion is inadmissible as defence evidence for his co-accused.
A confession that was made by a person who is not a party to criminal proceedings is always admissible in those proceedings, under section 76A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as defence evidence.

Which of the above propositions are true?

[a]	They are both true.	The correct answer is [d]. See textbook 3.5.2 and 3.7. A confession made by one co-accused that is excluded by the trial judge in the exercise of his exclusionary discretion may be admissible as defence evidence for his co-accused under s.76A of PACE. A confession that was made by a person who is not a party to criminal proceedings is not admissible in those proceedings under s.76A of PACE because it was not made by an accused person.

[b]	(i) only.

[c]	(ii) only.

[d]	Neither proposition is true.

QUESTION 16

Manoj is charged with the murder of Vince. Asif, who is mentally ill and prone to delusions, confessed to the murder but was not charged. At his trial, Manoj wishes to adduce Asif’s confession in evidence in his defence.

Which of the following four propositions is true?

[a]	Asif’s confession will be admissible for Manoj under section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.	The correct answer is [c]. See textbook 3.1.2, 3.4.3 and 3.7. A confession that was not made by an accused person cannot be admissible under PACE s.76 or under PACE s,76A. Evidence is never rendered admissible under PACE s.78, which confers a discretion to exclude evidence that is otherwise admissible. Due to s.128(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, sA confession made by an accused person can only be admissible under PACE s.76 or s.76A but since Asif is not an accused person the s.128(2) prohibition does not apply and, consequently, the confession is potentially admissible under hearsay exceptions created by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the most likely being that created by section 114(1)(d).

[b]	Asif’s confession will be admissible for Manoj under section 76A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

[c]	Asif’s confession may be admissible for Manoj under section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

[d]	Asif’s confession may be admissible for Manoj under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

[a]	Cannot be held in the Crown Court.	The correct answer is [d]. See Textbook 3.2. A voir dire may be held in the Crown Court or in a magistrates’ court. Where a voir dire takes place in the Crown Court the jury will not be present.

[b]	Cannot be held in a magistrates’ court.

[c]	Must be held in the presence of the jury.

[d]	None of the above propositions are true.

Quality sites