Bill and Ben are accused of robbery outside BPP’s Law School in Holborn. No forensic evidence linking either man with the scene was obtained, but the incident was witnessed by a number of people who claim they saw the robbers escape on a motorbike. One witness, George, made a note of the registration number of the motorbike, as GRO 1T. He gave this note to PC Pandy at the scene. Another witness, Zippy, told PC Pandy that he had seen the registration number GRO 1T on the motorbike; the officer made a note of this information. DVLA records show that the motorbike was registered to Bill. George has since been the victim of a road traffic accident and is in a coma from which his doctors think it is unlikely he will ever recover. Zippy is in Paraguay on a field trip for his University degree course.
Examine the following options:
i) George’s note is admissible hearsay under section 116 CJA 2003.
ii) What Zippy told PC Pandy is admissible hearsay under section 117 CJA 2003.
iii) The DVLA records are admissible hearsay under section 117 CJA 2003.
iv) What Zippy told PC Pandy cannot be given in evidence unless PC Pandy got Zippy to verify his note of the conversation.
Which of the above options are CORRECT?
[A] i), ii) and iii)
[B] i) and iii)
[C] i), iii) and iv)
[D] ii) and iii)
A] i), ii) and iii)
i) George’s note is admissible hearsay under section 116 CJA 2003. CORRECT. see S.116(2)(b) CJA 2003
ii) What Zippy told PC Pandy is admissible hearsay under section 117 CJA 2003. CORRECT – see S.117((5) and cases such as Kelsey (1982) 74 Cr.App.R.213 and MCLEAN (1967) 52 Cr.App.R.80
iii) The DVLA records are admissible hearsay under section 117 CJA 2003. CORRECT. see first limb of s.117 CJA 2003