Chapter 4 Multiple choice questions

. Which of the following statements is correct?

The common law discretion is not retained in PACE

Section 78 PACE applies to confession but not to non-confession evidence

There is no rule of law requiring the exclusion of evidence which has been improperly obtained

The common law discretion applies to prosecution as well as defence evidence

. To which case does the following scenario apply?
A covert listening device had been planted in a suspect's home and police had unlawfully entered the home to replace batteries. The Court of Appeal held that the evidence should not be excluded. It was authentic, probative and relevant. The quality of the evidence had not been affected by the police action.

Nottingham City Council; v Amin (2001)

R v Chalkley and Jeffries (1998)

R v Smurthwaite (1994)

R v Sang (1980)

. Police were concerned about a spate of heroin dealing in a local park. Police officer, Jane, in plain clothes, takes part in an undercover operation. One evening she noticed a group of young people huddled in a dark corner who dispersed hurriedly when they saw her approaching. One of the group, Harry, remained seated on a bench smoking. Jane asked him for a cigarette, and they begin chatting. Harry mentioned that he knew where to get hold of duty free 'smokes'. Jane asked if she can buy some from him but adds that what she really is desperate for is a heroin fix and she would pay three times the going rate for it. Harry replied that he had never dealt in heroin before but after Jane pressed him further he agreed to try to get some for her. He returned in half an hour and Jane gave him the high price she had offered for the heroin. Harry is charged with dealing in heroin. Advise Harry.

Harry may claim entrapment as a defence

Harry's only remedy is to apply for exclusion of evidence under s78 PACE

Harry has no remedy since entrapment is not a defence

Harry may rely claim that on that one consideration in cases of entrapment is whether the police did no more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime. Arguably here this applies since he had not dealt in heroin before and Jane is enticing him with an excessive offer of payment.

. In A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) (2006) the House of Lords held that evidence obtained by torture was not admissible in English courts. Which of the following propositions is correct?

The House cited only Articles 3 and 6 ECHR as authority for this ruling

The House upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal on this issue

The House cited the common law prohibition on torture, Articles 3 and 6 ECHR, and general principles of international law as authority for the proposition

The ruling does not apply to evidence obtained by torture outside the UK

. The following list includes the test set out in R v Smurthwaite (1994) for the treatment of evidence allegedly obtained by entrapment. Which item is wrongly included?

Is there an unassailable record of what occurred or is it strongly corroborated?

How active or passive was the officer's role?

What was the nature of the entrapment- was it evidence of admission of a completed offence, or does it consist of the actual commission of an offence?

Is the case being tried summarily or on indictment?

. Residents in Amgate were concerned about a spate of thefts of roof racks from their parked cars. Police had been slow to investigate and no culprits were caught. Chloe made an indelible mark on her car rack which was then stolen a few weeks later. She put an appeal on the Whatsapp Group, for 'a secondhand car roof rack, no questions asked'. Gary replied by email that he had one and they agreed to meet in the car park of the local pub and that Chloe would be identified by carrying a copy of The Sun newspaper. Chloe paid for the car rack and, seeing that it contained her indelible mark, she secretly filmed Gary leaving in his car. She informed the police. Gary was traced and arrested, Advise Gary.

Gary should be advised that in principle the law on entrapment applies to the actions of a non-state actor.

Gary should be advised that the judiciary are likely to condone actions by private citizens such as Chloe.

Gary should be advised that there is no case law on entrapment by private citizens.

Police advice is to encourage such actions by private citizens.

. On what grounds did the court order a stay of prosecution in R v Grant (2005)?

Oppressive questioning

Unreliability of the evidence

Breach of legal professional privilege

Criminal damage by the police

. Who gave the dissenting judgment in In McE v Prison Service (2009)?

Lord Hutton

Lord Phillips

Lord Oliver

Lord Bingham

. Craig is suspected of drug dealing and in order to gather evidence police place a listening device on the outside of his house. The evidence is admitted by the domestic court, and he is convicted. What is the likely outcome of a referral to the ECtHR?

There had been a breach of Article 6 only

There had been a breach of Article 6 and Article 8

There had been a breach of Article 8 only

There had been no breach of any articles of the Convention

. Which of the following propositions can be derived from the judgment of R v Loosely (2001)?

If there has been an abuse of state power, the appropriate remedy is not stay of the indictment but exclusion of evidence under s78 PACE

It would be not an abuse of process if a person had been lured, incited, or pressurized into committing a crime which he would not otherwise have committed

It would be objectionable if the law enforcement officer, behaving as an ordinary member of the public, did no more than give the person an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime

The court must balance the need to uphold the rule of law by convicting and punishing those who committed crimes with the need to prevent law enforcement agencies acting in a way which offended ordinary notions of fairness

Chapter 4 Multiple choice questions

Quiz Content