Chapter 6 Multiple Choice Questions

. What is that the general rule of competence in criminal proceedings?

At every stage in criminal proceedings all persons are (whatever their age) competent to give evidence.

At every stage in criminal proceedings persons are competent to give evidence provided that they can give sworn evidence.

At every stage in criminal proceedings persons are presumed competent to give evidence provided that it is proved that they: (a) have attained the age of 16, and (b) are not under a disability.

At every stage in criminal proceedings all persons are (whatever their age) competent to give evidence provided that they have sufficient appreciation of the solemnity of the occasion and of the particular responsibility to tell the truth.

. Witnesses may not be sworn for the purpose of giving evidence unless…

The witness has 'attained the age of 14 and has sufficient appreciation of the solemnity of the occasion and of the particular responsibility to tell the truth which is involved in taking an oath'.

The witness has 'attained the age of 16 and has sufficient appreciation of the solemnity of the occasion and of the particular responsibility to tell the truth which is involved in taking an oath'.

The witness has 'a sufficient appreciation of the solemnity of the occasion and the added responsibility to tell the truth, which is involved in taking an oath, over and above the duty to tell the truth, which is an ordinary duty of normal social conduct'.

The witness has 'attained the age of 16 and also has a sufficient appreciation of the solemnity of the occasion and the added responsibility to tell the truth, which is involved in taking an oath, over and above the duty to tell the truth, which is an ordinary duty of normal social conduct'.

. In relation to the competence of defendants specifically, which of the following statements is correct? Please select all that apply.

A defendant is competent as a witness for a co-defendant at every stage of the proceedings.

A defendant is competent as a defence witness at every stage of the proceedings, unless he/she is unable to give sworn evidence.

A defendant is never competent as a witness for the prosecution.

A defendant is not competent as a witness for the prosecution, unless he/she pleads guilty, so is no longer liable to be convicted of any offence in the proceedings.

. In a case, the defence indicates that the defendant will not testify because it has expert medical evidence that if he gives evidence it is likely he will 'self-harm', causing himself serious injury. The defence advocate refers the judge to s. 35(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and invites her not to direct the jury to draw an adverse inference. The defendant's evidence is of only marginal importance to the case and the potential risk of serious injury from self-harm is high. Does it follow from this that that the judge must not invite the jury to draw an adverse inference under s. 35?

True

False

. s. 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 permits a jury to draw certain inferences from the defendant's failure to testify or answer any questions at trial. What form does the 1994 Act state these inferences will take?

Adverse inferences.

Such inferences as appear proper to the trial judge.

Such inferences as appear proper to the court or jury.

Such adverse inferences as appear proper to the judge.

. A jury in the Crown Court cannot find an accused guilty only on the basis that the accused failed to give evidence or did not answer questions.

True

False

. The rules on competence and compellability of spouses only apply to married spouses and not to civil partners.

True

False

. In which of the following scenarios will a defendant's spouse or civil partner be compellable to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution? Please select all that apply.

Where the defendant is accused of common assault in relation to his 18-year-old stepson.

Where it is alleged that the defendant has sexually assaulted his 14-year-old daughter, contrary to s. 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Where the defendant is accused of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in relation to his wife, contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Where the defendant is accused of threatening to burn down his wife's empty house while she is on holiday, contrary to s. 2(a) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

. 'The rule of evidence relating to the incompetence of spouses (and now civil partners) survives the termination of the marriage or civil partnership, but only in relation to matters that arose during the subsistence of the marriage or civil partnership'.

True

False

. Are persons suffering from a degree of mental disability generally incompetent in law to give evidence in criminal proceedings?

Under the rules of competence in criminal proceedings, laid down by ss. 53-57 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, persons suffering from a degree of mental disability do not form a separate category from other witnesses. They are subject to the same test as other witnesses.

Under the rules of competence in criminal proceedings, laid down by ss. 53-57 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, persons suffering from a degree of mental disability form a separate category from other witnesses. There is a presumption that such witnesses are incompetent, but this may be rebutted where the party provides 'some evidence' of their competence.

Under the rules of competence in criminal proceedings, laid down by ss. 53-57 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, persons suffering from a degree of mental disability form a separate category from other witnesses. It is necessary for the party calling the witness to prove their competence to a higher standard of proof than other witnesses.

Under the rules of competence in criminal proceedings, laid down by ss. 53-57 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, persons suffering from a degree of mental disability do not form a separate category from other witnesses. However, such evidence as they may provide is only admissible in exceptional circumstances and proof of competence is, unusually, to the criminal standard of proof.

Quiz Content