Chapter 7 Multiple choice questions

. Which of the following statements can be derived from the judgment in R v Cowan (1996) concerning directions to the jury when the defendant fails to testify?

The burden of proof remains on the prosecution

The defendant was not entitled to remain silent

An inference from failure to testify is sufficient without other evidence to prove guilt

A defendant's failure to testify is contempt of court

. Alan and Bert are jointly charged with theft. Alan pleads not guilty and Bert pleads guilty. The prosecution wish to call Alan's wife, Clara, and Bert's wife, Dora, to give evidence. Are Clara and Dora competent and compellable for the prosecution?

Clara is competent and compellable. Dora is competent but not compellable

Clara is competent but not compellable. Dora is competent and compellable

Both Clara and Dora are competent but not compellable

Both Clara and Dora are competent and compellable

. Which of the following statements correctly represents the position of non-defendant witnesses under s16 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 which applies "Special Measures" to groups of witnesses?

Those under eighteen years old are covered by the section

Those under sixteen years old are covered by the section

Those under twenty years old are covered by the section

Those under fifteen years old are covered by the section

. Phillip who is 15 years old is charged with wounding Sunita who is 13 years. He pleads not guilty. Sunita is called as a witness and Philip wishes to speak in his own defence. Which of the following statements is correct?

S29 YJCEA 1999 could allow the examination and cross- examination of Phillip to be through an intermediary.

SS 27-29 YJCEA 1999 allow video recorded examination and cross- examination of Sunita

Section 55 (2)(a) YJCEA 1999 allows Sunita to give sworn evidence

None of the above

. Which of the following correctly outlines the position in relation to Article 6 and special measures for witnesses?

In T v UK (2000) the Strasbourg court found no breaches of Article 6 in the UK's treatment of child defendants

In R v E (2011) the right to a fair trial had been compromised by failure to put the defence case to the child victim in cross- examination.

In R (on the application of D) v Camberwell Green Youth Court (2005) the House of Lords held that the provision whereby it is mandatory that a child non-defendant witness in need of special protection should give evidence-in- chief by video is a violation of Article 6

Provision for certain accused to be examined through a live link is set out in ss 33A,B&C, YJCEA 1999

. Which of the following statements is correct in relation to anonymous witnesses?

The Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity Act) 2008 reversed the ruling in R v Davis (2008)

The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 ss 86-96 apply to undercover police but not to civilian witnesses

In R v Davis (2008) the House of Lords held that measures preserving the anonymity of a civilian witness constituted a violation of Article 6 but not of common law principles

Under s87 Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the same procedures with regard to anonymous witnesses apply to defence and prosecution

. Which of the following is correct in relation to child witnesses in civil proceedings?

The Children Act 1989 provides that in civil proceedings a child under 18 who does not understand the nature of an oath may give unsworn evidence provided he or she understands the duty to speak the truth and has sufficient understanding to justify the evidence being heard

The presumption in civil proceedings is that all witnesses are competent and compellable

A child's evidence may not be given by hearsay in civil proceedings

A child's evidence in civil proceedings must always be given unsworn

. To which case do the following facts apply? The defendant's long term unmarried partner made statements which were prejudicial to him. At trial she gave answers which were inconsistent with her statement and was cross-examined as a hostile witness by the prosecution. The defendant's appeal that the ECHR required that she be treated as his wife with regards to compellability was dismissed.

R v Cowan (1996)

R v Pearce (2002)

R v Cruttenden (1991)

R v Pitt (1983)

. Harry is on trial for causing criminal damage and pleads not guilty. The prosecution case is that, after a row over rubbish being dumped with his neighbour Frank, he smashes Frank's front gate. Penny, Harry's neighbour, makes a statement to the police which blames Harry for the damaged gate. She is called as a prosecution witness. When she testifies her evidence is inconsistent with her pre- trial statement. The prosecution make a successful appeal to the judge to have her declared a hostile witness. Harry is convicted and appeals. Advise Harry.

If the non-compellable spouse has taken the oath (s)he must be held to be a compellable witness

The trial judge should explain to such witnesses without the jury and before the oath that they are not compellable but that she became compellable once she had begun to testify.

A spouse has no choice about giving evidence once (s)he has made a pre-trial statement

Whether the conviction is upheld in such a circumstance depends on the seriousness of the offence

. What is the position of a woman who has gone through a valid form of marriage but one which is not recognized in English law?

She is in the same position as a woman who had not gone through a ceremony at all and is competent and compellable

She is a spouse for the purposes of s80 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. (PACE)

The judge has discretion whether to treat her as a spouse under PACE

She is competent but not compellable for the prosecution

Chapter 7 Multiple choice questions

Quiz Content