Criminal Litigation SGS 5 Introduction to evidence

Card Set Information

Author:
billsykes
ID:
210145
Filename:
Criminal Litigation SGS 5 Introduction to evidence
Updated:
2013-03-29 15:10:33
Tags:
Criminal Litigation SGS
Folders:

Description:
Criminal Litigation SGS 5
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user billsykes on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. Which one of the following judge’s directions to the jury is CORRECT?

    [A] (In a rape case) ‘It is the prosecution who bring this case, and it is the prosecution who must establish that the complainant did not consent. The standard of proof required from them is a heavy one. Unless you are satisfied so that you are reasonably sure that Maureen was not consenting, it is your duty to acquit.’

    [B] (In a burglary case) ‘The burden of proving this case is on the prosecution, and before you can convict, you have to be satisfied so that you are sure of the defendant’s guilt. If at the end of the day you are in reasonable doubt about whether the prosecution has proved its case, then you must acquit.’

    [C] (In an unlawful wounding case) ‘The prosecution brings this case and the prosecution must prove it. This means that unless you are satisfied at the end of the day that the prosecution has established its case against the defendant so that there is no doubt left in your minds about the truth of what the prosecution says, then the defendant must be acquitted.’

    [D] (In a theft case) ‘The prosecution have brought this case and it is for them to prove it. Unless, at the end of the day, you are satisfied that they have done so, you must acquit the defendant.’
    [B] (In a burglary case) ‘The burden of proving this case is on the prosecution, and before you can convict, you have to be satisfied so that you are sure of the defendant’s guilt. If at the end of the day you are in reasonable doubt about whether the prosecution has proved its case, then you must acquit.’

    CORRECT
  2. Emma is on trial in the Magistrates’ Court accused of possession of a bladed instrument contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. She claims that she had the knife in question with her because several young women had been attacked in the area where she lives recently, and it was to be used to defend herself with if the need arose. Section 139(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides: “It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section (having any article which has a blade, or is sharply pointed, in a public place) to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.”

    Which one of the following statements is CORRECT?

    [A] Emma has the evidential burden to raise evidence to suggest that she had a good reason for possession of the knife, and it is then for the prosecution to disprove this beyond reasonable doubt.

    [B] Emma has the legal burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that she had a good reason for possession of the knife in a public place.

    [C] Emma has the evidential burden to raise evidence to suggest that she had a good reason for possession of the knife, and it is then for the prosecution to disprove this on a balance of probabilities.

    [D] Emma has the legal burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that she had a good reason for possession of the knife in a public place.
    [D] Emma has the legal burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that she had a good reason for possession of the knife in a public place.

    CORRECT.
  3. Terry is accused of kidnapping Hardeep, who was 17 at the date of the alleged kidnapping. The prosecution wish to call Lara, who is 10, as a witness to the alleged kidnapping.

    Which of the following is CORRECT:

    [A] Lara is not competent to give evidence because she is only 10 years old.

    [B] Lara will not be competent to give evidence if it appears to the court that she is not able to understand questions put to her and to give answers that can be understood.

    [C] Lara will only be competent to give evidence if she has a sufficient appreciation of the solemnity of the occasion and of the particular responsibility to tell the truth which is involved in taking an oath.

    [D] Lara will be competent to give evidence if it appears to the court that she understands it is her duty to speak the truth and that she has sufficient understanding to justify her evidence being heard.
    [B] Lara will not be competent to give evidence if it appears to the court that she is not able to understand questions put to her and to give answers that can be understood.

    CORRECT. Section 53(1) is subject to these qualifications which are contained in section 53(3).
  4. Everard Prong is charged with rape. His defence is one of complete denial of involvement in the offence. DNA extracted from semen found on the complainant’s clothing is compared to DNA extracted from cheek cells obtained from a mouth swab taken from Prong after his arrest. The prosecution proposes to tender evidence from a professor of genetics who has concluded that (1) the DNA profiles match and (2) having examined DNA databases the chances of an innocent individual, chosen at random, matching the profile of the DNA in the semen are approximately 4 million to 1.

    Which ONE of the following statements is CORRECT?

    [A] The evidence is inadmissible because the professor is not competent.

    [B] The evidence is inadmissible because it is irrelevant.

    [C] Evidence regarding the ‘match probability’ is inadmissible hearsay because the professor is basing his conclusion on information contained in a database.

    [D] If the evidence is admissible, with the leave of the court the evidence may be read without having to call the professor to testify.
    [D] If the evidence is admissible, with the leave of the court the evidence may be read without having to call the professor to testify.

    CORRECT. See S.30 CJA 1988
  5. What is evidence?
    Material used by a party to prove or disprove a fact in issue
  6. What is the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence?
    Direct: goes directly to the fact in issue - eye witness of a murder

    Circumstantial: does not establish guilt in a straight forward sense - gives rise to an inference of guilt
  7. What is real evidence?
    Something tangible - usually become exhibits in the trail (like clothing, weapon, drugs)

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview