Evidence - MCT Questions:

Instructions
You should endeavour to undertake these questions under exam conditions and allow 1 and half hours to undertake them.

1. Charlie, sees a man crushed at a bus stop by a car. Alan immediately turns up and asks Charlie what he saw. Charlie answers "Oh my god, that driver was out of control, he saw him swerving all over the place up the road, and he was driving like a maniac"

Charlie has not been seen since. However the prosecution want to admit the statement when Alan is called to give evidence, as proof of the accused's dangerous driving. Which is true?

(a) The evidence is hearsay but the judge has an inclusionary discretion

(b) The evidence is original evidence so can be admitted

(c) The evidence is technically hearsay, but is likely to be admitted because the acts will have dominated Charlie's thoughts as part of the res gestae

(d) The evidence cannot be admitted as the witnesses opinion is irrelevant and can't be called upon by the court

2. At the retrial of the same case, Charlie is found and testifies for the prosecution. Charlie makes the following statements about the driver, - which is not admissible?

a "He was driving like he was drunk"

b "He certainly had a blood alcohol level of at least 80mg/100ml"

c "He was of asian appearance"

d " It was lucky that no one else was hurt"

3. PC Jones stops a man, Ben, who is acting suspiciously by a coal deposit, suspecting that the man has been trying to steal coal; PC Jones requests an explanation for the coal marks on his persona. Ben refuses to account as requested.

At court Ben claims that he was "riding on a security fence" and had fallen into the coal by accident but was too ashamed to admit it

Which is correct?

(a) No inferences can be drawn by Ben's failure to account

(b) Inferences may be drawn from the silence

(c) Inferences may be drawn form the silence only if PC Jones issued a special caution before the question

(d) Inferences may be drawn form the silence only if Ben was in a place of custody

4. P makes a confession which is later judged to be inadmissible as it is unsafe. P made a revelation about 3 guns used in the robbery that he was charged with, saying "okay I done it - the guns are in the back of Jeff's car". The Prosecution now seeks to adduce evidence that the guns have been found. What is the correct statement of law?

(a) The prosecution can divulge that the items were found but not reveal to the jury how the items were discovered

(b) The prosecution can reveal how the items were discovered but not the items themselves

(c) The prosecution is precluded from revealing either

(d) The prosecution can reveal both what was found and how it was found.

5. Jay makes a confession but there is evidence that he was denied the right to a solicitor, and was kept in a cell without light, upon holding a voir dire, which is correct?

(a) The judge must hold that the evidence is inadmissible under PACE section 76

(b) The judge, under PACE 76, if he thinks that the confession would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings, must not admit it

(c) The judge despite thinking either (a) or (b) can admit the evidence at his discretion

(d) The judge should order a misdemeanour of process and direct a mistrial

6. At court, the prosecution seeks to admit evidence from Jimmy of conversations between him and Bugsy. He states that he was constantly threatened by Bugsy, and that this amounted to duress, causing Jimmy to run drugs for him. Which is correct?

(a) The statement cannot be admitted as Jimmy seeks to rely on the statement for the truth of the facts that it contains

(b) The statement is inadmissible because of the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act 1998

(c) The statement, although hearsay, is admissible because it is not relied upon for the truth of the facts within it

(d) The statement, is not hearsay, and is admissible because it is not relied upon for the truth of the facts within it

7.Under intense cross examination, Leonard, who is charged with the trafficking of class A drugs, is asked how, being unemployed, if he was not dealing drugs, could he account for the £3,000 found under his mattress. Counsel asks if it was true that he used his girlfriend as a professional shop thief to provide him with money. What is the correct supposition?

(a) Leonard should not reply at all, and counsel must move on with questioning

(b) The judge, should advise the accused that he need not say anything that may tend to incriminate himself

(c) Counsel should be asked to withdraw the question as it is on a collateral matter

(d) Leonard must answer the question, or the jury can draw such inferences form his silence as they deem reasonable.

8. Kerry is charged with the sexual assault of an underage teenage girl. She is found with many items of teenage girls clothing at her house. She has no daughter or other girls living with her. Is this evidence admissible?

(a) Yes, because it shows a propensity towards an attraction to young girls

(b) No because it's probative effect outweighs its prejudicial value

(c) No because its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value

(d) Yes because its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value

9. Counsel for the defence seeks to have the evidence of a medical expert for the prosecution on the victims wounds precluded because the expert did not personally inspect the wound. Which is incorrect?

(a) The expert need not have personally perceived the wound

(b) The expert can offer evidence upon the wound if a witness proves the relevant facts

(c) The expert cannot comment on the evidence as the facts were beyond his personal perception

(d) The expert can offer evidence upon them based on admissible documentary evidence

10. Fonz, who has previous convictions, and a wife Jill, and Waz who has no previous convictions and is single, are both charged with armed robbery. The defence has advised them that they should testify to help their case. What is the correct position?

(a) Fonz is competent and compellable but Waz is not

(b) Waz is competent and compellable but Fonz is not

(c) Both waz and Fonz are competent and compellable

(d) Both Waz and Fonz are competent but not compellable

11. Julia Is charged with theft. She decides not to testify, which under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is correct?

(a) Adverse inferences cannot be drawn as she is not a compellable witness for the defence

(b) Adverse inferences can be drawn because she is competent, but not compellable for the defence

(c) Adverse inferences cannot be drawn as she ahs a right not to incriminate herself

(d) Adverse inferences can be drawn form the decision not to testify

12. Billy is charged with taking a motor vehicle without consent on the 24th of April 2002 outside Manor Park House, Greenwich. His defence counsel maintains that he has already been charged and acquitted. What is the correct position?

(a) Billy can plead autrefois acquit, and cannot be charged again unless the proceedings don't contain substantially the same facts as the earlier proceedings.

(b) Billy can plead autrefois acquit regardless of whether or not the proceedings do not contain substantially the same facts as the earlier proceedings.

(c) Billy must stand trial again

(d) Billy can plead autrefois convict as a bar to subsequent proceedings

13.Which of these is an incorrect statement of law as regards to hostile witnesses?

(a) Evidence may be adduced to contradict the witness

(b) With the leave of the judge the party that called the witness may prove that the party made a pervious inconsistent statement

(c) The evidence of the witness will be deemed unsafe

(d) With the leave of the judge the witness can be cross examined

14. Which of these is a real difference between section 25 and section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988?

(a) Under section 25 the party that is seeking to adduce the evidence must show that it is in the interests of justice to do so whilst under section 26 the party that objects to the evidence must demonstrate that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so

(b) Section 26 applies to documentary statements under section 23 and 24 that are made for the purpose of pending or contemplated criminal proceedings and Section 25 applies to all other statements coming under the sections

(c) Section 26 applies to documents of direct oral testimony only and section 25 to all those that are made in the course of a business/profession

(d) Under section 25 the judge has complete discretion to rule in admissible any evidence but under section 26 he does not

(15) As regards to hearsay, only one of these is a not a genuine exception to the rule. Which one?

(a) Dying declarations as to the cause of death can generally be admitted

(b) Statements that go to the show the state of mind of the maker can generally be admitted

(c) Statements closely associated with a dramatic event can generally be admitted

(d) Statements that provide probative value can generally be admitted

(16) Consider the accuracy of these four propositions,

(i) For hearsay evidence to come within the ambit of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 24 it must be in a document

(ii) For hearsay evidence to come under Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 23 the maker of the statement must have been able to give direct oral evidence of the facts contained within it

(iii) For hearsay evidence to come under Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 23 the statement must have been in writing

(iv) There must be a statutory reason shown for not been able to call the maker of the statement coming under the ambit of Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 23

Which is correct?

(a) iv only

(b) ii, and iv

(c) i, iii, and iv

(d) i, ii iii, and iv

17. On the same subject, which one of these is not a valid statutory reason for pleading that the maker of the statement under the CJA section 23 could not come to court?

(a) He is unfit to attend by way of his bodily or mental condition

(b) He has refused to come to court

(c) It is not reasonably practible to secure his attendance or he is outside the UK

(d) He cannot be found

18.Which of these witnesses is both competent and compellable for the defence?

(a) The accused

(b) The accuseds wife for any offence

(c) The accused wife for certain offences, but not all offences

(d) None of the above

19.Which of these statements about the losing of the accuseds shield is incorrect?

(a) The accused may lose his shield by bringing his character into issue

(b) The accused may lose his by using the right to silence

(c) The accused may lose his shield by personally casting imputations on defence witnesses

(d) The accused may lose his shield by his counsel casting imputations on defence witnesses

20. George is charged with murdering Oli. On his death bed, Kieran signs a statement to say that he killed Oli not George. Kieran dies before the trail, on what basis is the statement admissible?

(a) As a dying declaration, under he hearsay exceptions

(b) Under one of the other exceptions to hearsay

(c) Under the Criminal justice Act Section 1988 section 23

(d) Under PACE as a confession

21.Under a Lucas Direction on lies, the judge must ensure that the jury are satisfied of all the below apart form

(a) That the lie relates to a material issue

(b) That the lie was deliberate

(c) That the lie was in written in documentary form

(d) That there was not other innocent motive for the lie

22. The case against Wendy substantially rests on identification evidence given by Jill, however Jill is partially blind; the id was on an unlit street at 2am in the morning and was only for 2 seconds. What is the most likely action that the judge will take?

(a) Leave the identification evidence with the jury but tell them to use precaution

(b) Withdraw the evidence from the jury and direct an acquittal

(c) Tell the jury that there can be other reasons that the identification may be wrong

(d) Refuse to allow the evidence as it is technically unsafe hearsay

23. Walter has been convicted of causing GBH by throwing bottles at old age pensioners twice previously. He is charged with throwing a ball at a 10 year old boy. The prosecution seeks to adduce evidence of these past convictions. Which is correct?

(a) The evidence would not be admitted because despite the probative value of the evidence outweighing the prejudicial value there is no striking similarity

(b) The evidence would not be admitted because there despite the probative value of the evidence outweighing the prejudicial value there is no striking similarity

(c) The evidence would be admitted as the probative value outweighs the prejudicial value despite there been no striking similarity

(d) The evidence would be admitted despite the probative value being outweighed by the prejudicial value because there was striking similarity

24.When is similar fact evidence admissible?

(a) Whenever it is relevant to an issue before the court

(b) When it is relevant to an issue before the court and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial value

(c) As evidence that the accused has done something before and so is probable to have done it again

(d) When it is relevant to an issue before the court and its probative value is not outweighed by its prejudicial value

25. Which of these need the court not consider in deliberating whether or not the confession is unreliable under section 76(2) (b),

(a) The nature of the circumstances existing at the time when the thing alleged was said or done

(b) The gravity and moral culpability of the offence, and the propensity for the accused to lie

(c) Whether in the circumstances, the thing said or done was likely to render any confession which the accused might have made in consequence of the thing said or done unreliable

(d) Whether there was oppression of the person who made the confession

26. Tamsin is a witness to a boating incident. Speaking through an interpreter she describes the accident as she recalls it. Defence Counsel then questions her on her ability to speak English - accusing her of faking her German nationality. Tamsin, again through her interpreter denies this. Which is correct?

(a) Counsel can adduce evidence to show that she is lying

(b) The matter is a collateral fact and the rule of finality applies

(c) Tamsin has put her character in issue and loses her shield by asserting that she is not lying

(d) The matter is not a collateral fact and but nevertheless, as Tamsin is an independent witness the rule of finality applies

27. Pat is charges with assault, however he denies this and pleads self defence as he asserts that Wu Yang tried to hit him first. Which statement is most accurate?

(a) The legal and evidential burden lays with Pat to prove that self defence was justified and that he is not guilty of the offence.


(b) The legal and evidential burden lays with Pat to prove that self defence was justified and the prosecution bears the legal burden in showing that he is guilty of the offence.

(c) The legal and evidential burden lies with the prosecution to prove that self defence was not justified and that he is guilty of the offence.


(d) The evidential burden lies with Pat in bringing evidence that there was the use of self defence and the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the self defence and the legal burden in showing that he is guilty of the offence.

28. Greg witnesses Johnny say to Ian in an argument at the local pub "I'm going to stab you in the neck if you don't give me the money." Some weeks later Ian is found dead with six stab wounds to the neck. The prosecution seek to have the evidence admitted whilst Greg Give testimony. What best describes the law here?

(a) The statement is admissible, even though it is hearsay, because it goes to show the state of mind of Johnny at the time and goes to show the truth of the facts within it

(b) The statement is admissible, even though it is hearsay, because it goes to show the state of mind of Johnny at the time but it is not admissible for the truth of the facts within it

(c) The statement may be admissible as the it goes to show the state of mind of Johnny at the time but it is not admissible for the truth of the facts within it

(d) The statement is admissible as original evidence through testimony

29.Kevin visits his doctor complaining of gastric pain. It later transpires that Kevin may have been poisoned. The prosecution seeks to adduce evidence from the doctor that Kevin said "I'm in a lot of pain I feel like I've been given poison". What is the correct position?

(a) The evidence is not admissible as it is hearsay

(b) The evidence is admissible to show that Kevin was poisoned and in pain, even though it is hearsay.

(c) The evidence is not hearsay and is admissible

(d) The evidence is admissible to show that Kevin was in pain, and not that he was poisoned even though it is hearsay it

30.Karina sees two men running away from the scene of a crime. They had pushed over a bin in the park. She then tells her friend Karen, (who did not witness the attack) what happened, moments after it occurs. Which of these is correct?

(a) Karina cannot give direct testimony as the evidence would be hearsay

(b) Karina can give testimony as she had experienced the events directly

(c) Karina cannot give evidence as the fact that she told Karen makes her evidence at risk of collusion

(d) Karina cannot give evidence as despite been hearsay the statement was not sufficiently connected with a dramatic event

31.The accused remains silent to certain questions asked at his trial. Which factors have to be present for inferences to be drawn from section 35 of the CJPOA?

(i) the accuseds guilt must be in question

(ii) the accused must be judged to have no good cause for his silence

(iii) the accused must have relied on his right to silence before the trial

(iv) the accused must be in a physical/mental condition that makes testimony desirable

(a) i ii iii iv

(b) i iii iv

(c) ii iii iv

(d) i ii iv

Legal Notice - None of our work is to be passed off as your own or as anyone else's, nor is it to be reproduced either in whole or in part. This a breach of copyright. It also constitutes plagiarism and will breach University Regulations, consult your guidelines if you are unsure. If we suspect that any law essays or materials are being used for such purposes then we will refuse to carry out that work and all future essay work for the person involved.

Refund Policy : Law Essays UK has a strict no refund policy due to the highly specialised and individual nature of the services we provide. Our services are provided as is, and accordingly the customer orders on their own initiative. However, for your peace of mind, we guarantee that if you are not satisfied with an essay, for whatever reason, then we can amend it accordingly to your specifications. In addition, under our crystal clear guarantee, we will clarify anything contained within an essay or study material free of charge

Note: We offer a wholly independent law and legal research service. We are not affiliated with the Bar Council or any other organisation in any other way. Nor are they affiliated with us. We regret that we are unable to take on work from members of the public and businesses outside of doing model answers as law essays, legal essays, research and tutoring as to do so would contravene Bar Council regulations. All research services and materials offered are subject to availability. 5 day completion for law essays of 5,000 words or less only. All services are subject to availability. All trademarks and copyrights of other bodies and organisations are recognised and respected.

order-now

Visitors have also looked at...

  • 1Law Essay Scams

    Essay writing scams can be hard to spot.
    Click here to find out how to avoid the essay scams

  • 2Essay writing in the press

    Find out what the press say about essay writing in the 21st century.

  • 3 Meet the Law Essays UK Team

    Find out more about the individuals that provide this first class essay writing service.