Chapter 8 Multiple choice questions

. Which of the following statements gives the correct account of s32 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994?

The legal requirement for corroboration warnings in cases where the evidence emanates from an alleged accomplice of the accused, or from a child, or from a complainant in a sexual offence was abrogated

The legal requirement for corroboration warnings in cases where the evidence emanates from an alleged accomplice of the accused or from a complainant in a sexual offence was abrogated

The legal requirement for a corroboration warning in cases where the evidence emanates from an alleged accomplice of the accused was abrogated

All statutory corroboration warnings are abrogated

. Which case is the leading authority for the proposition that the judge must give a mandatory warning where identification evidence is disputed?

R v Makanjuola (995)

R v Slater (1995)

R v Weeder (1980)

R v Turnbull (1977)

. Are the police allowed to show a witness a photograph of a suspect?

Never

Only if there is no suspect available to attend an identification and there is to be no video identification or parade

Yes, in addition to a video identification or parade

Yes, but only in the case of very serious offences

. In which of the following factual situations will a Turnbull warning be required?
- i) If it is a recognition case
- ii) If the accused claims a witness is trying to 'frame' him
- iii) If the accused admits his presence at the scene of the crime but denies participation and the scene is crowded
- iv) Where the accused who admits his presence at the scene of the crime has unusual features.

In i) only

In i) and iii) only

In all four cases

In i), iii), and iv)

. Which of the following statements gives the correct position before a lie may be evidence of guilt according to R v Lucas (1981)?

The lie must be deliberate

The lie must be in writing

The lie must be proved on the balance of probabilities

The lie may be prompted by an innocent reason

. Ruth's husband is charged with assaulting the police officer who came to arrest him on another matter. Ruth who was there at the time of the alleged assault told her husband's solicitor the next day that the policeman had attacked her husband first. When she repeated this allegation at the trial the prosecution claimed she had just made up this version of events. Which of the following is the most likely course to be adopted by the court?

Ruth's statement to the solicitor will be admitted under the common law to rebut the allegation of recent fabrication but it will only be evidence of consistency

Ruth's statement to the solicitor will be admitted under the hearsay exceptions listed in Criminal Justice Act 2003

Ruth's statement to the solicitor is inadmissible under the common law rule against the admissibility of previous consistent statements

Ruth's statement to the solicitor is admissible under the common law as an exception to the rule against previous consistent statements in that it rebuts an allegation of recent fabrication. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 it is admissible evidence of any matter stated of which oral evidence by her would be admitted

. Tom, aged 15, came home after school one day with a large bruise on his arm. His father, Jo, applied first aid and asked Tom, 'I am sure that brute Dan did this to you. I am right am I not?' Tom replied, 'Yes, it was Dan.' Dan was charged with assaulting Tom and pleads not guilty and claims that Tom had originally said he got the injury from falling off a wall. The prosecution plan to adduce as evidence the response by Tom to his father's question. Advise on evidence.

Tom's response is inadmissible as a 'recent complaint' which are limited to complainants in sexual cases

Tom's statement is inadmissible since it was a response to a leading question by Jo.

Tom's statement may be admissible since it was made by an alleged victim of the offence which is the subject of the charge

None of the above.

. Which of the following is true?

Complainants in sexual cases may not be cross-examined in person by the defendants about the alleged sexual offence or about any other offence whether sexual or not with which the defendant is charged in the proceedings

Child complainants who are victims of a non-sexual assault offence may be cross examined in person by the defendant

Complainants in sexual cases can be cross- examined by defendants in person

Complainants in sexual cases may not be cross-examined in person by the defendant in person in relation to that sexual offence but may be so cross examined about any other offence with which the defendant is charged in the proceedings

. To which case do the following facts refer?
The victim of an attempted robbery made a street identification of the defendant. A request for an identification parade was refused. The defendant was convicted. The House of Lords rejected his appeal. There should have been an identification parade but in this case the conviction was safe.

R v Turnbull (1977)

R v Weeder (1980)

R v Forbes (2001)

R v Slater (1995)

. Gerry is on trial for burglary. A witness identified a car like the one Gerry owns near the scene of the offence. Gerry denies his car was there and disputes the identification of the car. What should the judge do?

Give the jury a Turnbull warning

Give the jury a Turnbull warning and also refer to the danger of miscarriages of justice in such situations

He need not give any specific directions in relation to the car identification

None of the above

Chapter 8 Multiple choice questions

Quiz Content