Chapter 11 Multiple Choice Questions

. Res gestae includes which of the following? Please select all that apply.

Contemporaneous declarations of the physical or mental state of the speaker of a statement.

Statements by persons who are dying, i.e. 'dying declarations'.

Statements by persons emotionally overpowered by events.

Statements accompanying and explaining relevant acts.

. A defendant is charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm after allegedly throwing boiling water over two people in a nightclub. A witness testifies that X, who was also at the scene, stated: 'He's put sugar in the kettle' immediately after the defendant is said to have thrown the water. Is this statement admissible if X is unable to attend the trial to testify?

No, it is inadmissible hearsay.

Yes, it may be part of the res gestae if it was a spontaneous statement.

Yes, it may be, but only if X made it as a 'dying declaration', as that is a preserved common law exception to the rule against hearsay. Such declarations are admissible if they are contemporaneous declarations.

Yes, it may be part of the res gestae, if it coincided exactly with the incident in question, but not otherwise.

. 'The hearsay statements that fall into in the 'non-fear' categories of s. 116(2)(a)-(d) are only admissible with leave of the court where it is in the 'interests of justice, per s. 116(4)'.

True

False

. Which of the following is one of the conditions listed in s. 116(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which must be satisfied if a statement not made in oral evidence is to be admissible as evidence of any matter stated therein?

That the relevant person cannot be found, although steps have been taken to find him.

That through fear the relevant person does not give (or does not continue to give) oral evidence in the proceedings, either at all or in connection with the subject matter of the statement, and the court gives leave for the statement to be given in evidence.

That the relevant person is outside the United Kingdom and his/her attendance cannot be secured.

That, at the time the statement was made, the relevant person was unfit to attend because of his bodily or mental condition and the court gives leave for the statement to be given in evidence.

. A vital prosecution witness says that she has received a number of threatening telephone calls and is now unwilling to testify. The prosecution may take what action in order to secure this witness's evidence? Please select all that apply.

Require the witness to attend by serving a witness summons.

Make an application under s. 116(2)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 on the basis that the witness has been put in fear.

Make an application under s. 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 on the basis that the witness has been put in fear and that it is in the interests of justice that the witness should attend.

Write a letter to the witness informing her that it is her public duty to attend and threatening her with contempt of court proceedings.

. Which of the following are potentially admissible as business documents under s. 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003? Please select all that apply.

A prosecution witness statement.

A Pre-sentence Report.

An expert witness's report.

A document setting out the conditions of the licence, when a prisoner is released on licence.

. In trials on indictment, there is a duty for a judge to stop a case in which of the following circumstances?

Under s. 125 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: where the case against the defendant is based wholly or substantially on a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings, and the evidence provided by the statement is so implausible that, considering its importance to the case against the defendant, his conviction of the offence would be unsafe.

Under s. 125 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: where the case against the defendant is based wholly or partly on a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings, and the evidence provided by the statement is so unconvincing that, considering its importance to the case against the defendant, his conviction of the offence would be unsafe.

Under s. 125 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: where the case against the defendant is based wholly or partly on a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings, and the evidence provided by the statement is uncorroborated so that, considering its importance to the case against the defendant, his conviction of the offence would be unsafe.

Under s. 125 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: where the case against the defendant is based solely or substantially on a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings, and the evidence provided by the statement is so implausible that, considering its importance to the case against the defendant, his conviction of the offence would be unsafe.

. If there is a duty under s. 125 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to stop a case in certain circumstances, what is the function of s. 126 of the 2003 Act?

Under s. 126, a court must exclude a statement made other than in oral evidence in the proceedings where the case for excluding it, taking into account of the danger that to admit it would result in undue waste of time, substantially outweighs the case for admitting it.

Under s. 126, a court may exclude a statement made other than in oral evidence in the proceedings where the case for excluding it, taking into account of the danger that to admit it would result in undue waste of time, substantially outweighs the case for admitting it.

Under s. 126, a court may exclude a statement made other than in oral evidence in the proceedings, where the case for excluding it substantially outweighs the case for admitting it, taking into account the value of the evidence.

Under s. 126, a court may exclude a statement made other than in oral evidence in the proceedings, where the case for excluding it, taking into account of the danger that to admit it would result in undue waste of time, substantially outweighs the case for admitting it, taking into account the value of the evidence.

. After the decisions in Horncastle and in Al-Khawaja & Tahery, which of the following can be said to represent the current position regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence?

'The law is and must be accepted to be, as stated in UK statute, viz the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, following the Grand Chamber's judgment in Al-Khawaja, only in limited circumstances, where it is apparent that hearsay evidence is 'demonstrably reliable', will domestic courts be able to conclude that it is admissible in evidence'.

'The importance of hearsay evidence to a case is undoubtedly a vital consideration when deciding upon its admissibility and treatment. Following Al-Khawaja …this is governed by clear jurisprudence from Strasbourg, which domestic courts are obliged to prefer to earlier domestic guidance'.

'In the absence of…special circumstances, there are no counterbalancing measures that are sufficient to justify the introduction in evidence of an untested statement which was the "sole or decisive" basis for the conviction of a defendant'.

'If, on close analysis, there are any differences between the Supreme Court's judgment in Horncastle and the Grand Chamber's judgment in Al-Khawaja, domestic courts are obliged to follow the Supreme Court'.

. Which of the following are factors that may be taken into account in estimating the weight (if any) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings? Please select all that apply.

Whether it would have been reasonable and practicable for the party by whom the evidence was adduced to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness.

Whether the original statement was made contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the matters stated. .

Whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay

Whether the witness's evidence is of central importance to the claim

Quiz Content