Multiple-Choice Questions Chapter 3
Criminal and Civil Evidence 12th ed. (2011-2012)
(a) 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.
(i) Dave’s statement to the police is a confession.
(ii) Fred’s statement to the police is a confession.
(iii) Harry’s statement to the police is a confession.
(iv) Dave’s confession will be admissible against Harry.
Which of the above propositions are true?
[a]They are all true. [b] (i) and (ii) only. [c] (i) and (iv) only. [d] They are all false.
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) Which one of the following propositions is true?
A voir dire:
[a] Cannot be held in the Crown Court.
[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.
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.
(c) 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.
(i) The police officer’s threat amounts to oppression.
(ii) The confession was obtained by oppression.
(iii) The burden of proving that the confession was not obtained by oppression is borne by Vince
(iv) 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. [b] (i) and (iii) only. [c] (ii) and (iv) only. [d] (i) 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).
(d) 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.
(i) 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.
(ii) 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. [b] (i) only. [c] (ii) only. [d] They are both false.
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).
(e) 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.
[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.
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).
(f) Consider the following two propositions.
(i) A trial judge possesses common law discretion to exclude prosecution evidence.
(ii) A trial judge possesses statutory discretion to exclude prosecution evidence.
Which of the above propositions is/are true?
[a] (i) only. [b] They are both true.. [c] (ii) only. [d] Neither of the above propositions is true.
The correct answer is [b]. See textbook 3.4. A trial judge possesses both common law and statutory discretion to exclude prosecution evidence.
(g) 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.
[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.
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.
(h) 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.
[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.
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.
(i) Dan is charged with burglary. The prosecution wish to call undercover police officers to give evidence against Dan.
Consider the following four propositions.
(i) Evidence obtained by undercover police officers is always admissible in criminal proceedings, the trial judge having no power to exclude it.