Homework answers / question archive / Law of Evidence There is a word limit for each exam question of between 1000-1250 words

Law of Evidence There is a word limit for each exam question of between 1000-1250 words

Law

Share With

---

Law of Evidence
There is a word limit for each exam question of between 1000-1250 words. This is provided as a guide as to what we would expect a student to write for each answer. It is not a requirement that every answer must be at least 1000 words. However, anything after the maximum word count of 1250 will not be marked, in line with UWE’s Word Count Policy.

Part A

Question 1 (Compulsory) (1250 Words)

At 10.30pm on the 15th March, Rash was attacked outside the Ocean Bar. A man (male 1) punched him to ground and then repeatedly kicked him to the head. There was a second man (male 2) with male 1. During the attack Rash heard male 2 repeatedly shouting at male 1, “Go on Manuel, kill the bastard”. After the attack, the two males ran off.

When PC Hassan arrived 15 minutes later, he was talking to a paramedic when he was approached by a woman, who appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. She said to the officer, “The kicker was Manuel.” By the time PC Hassan had finished talking to the paramedic the woman had left the scene and PC Hassan was unable to find out who she was.

The fight was witnessed by a woman called Laisha. The next day Laisha made a statement to the police, giving a detailed account of the fight, and identifying male 1 as Manuel Yasin, a man she knew well from college. But Laisha claims to be too frightened to come to court to give evidence.

Manuel Yasin is now on trial for ABH on Rash.

 

[A]          Consider whether Rash will be able to give evidence that he heard male 2 shouting, “Go on Manuel, kill the bastard.” (20%)

 

[B]          In relation to the statement by the unknown female, consider the application of the following three exceptions to the hearsay rule: s.116 CJA 2003, res gestae, and s.114(1)(d) CJA 2003 (40%)

 

[C]          Consider whether the prosecution will be allowed to rely on the written witness statement of Laisha (40%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part B

Students must answer one question from this section (1250 words)

 

2.            Question

 

During a fight in the street Ismail was stabbed in the chest with a knife. When the police arrived a number of people pointed out Hassan (aged 23) as the man who had done the stabbing. PC Faisal approached Hassan and said to him, “Are you responsible for this?” Hassan replied “Yes. But it was self-defence.” He was then arrested and cautioned by PC Faisal and taken to the police station.

At the police station Hassan said he did not require a solicitor for the interview but asked that his father be informed of the fact that he was in custody at the police station. After the interview he found out that this was not done.

During the interview Hassan, who had not been in a police station before, repeatedly denied having anything to do with the stabbing. At no point was his comment before arrest put to him. Throughout the interview the officer shouted at Hassan and told him repeatedly that he wasn’t going anywhere until he started telling the truth. Eventually Hassan admitted to the stabbing and said that he had put the knife down a drain in the street. As a result, the knife was recovered from the drain. There were no fingerprints or forensic evidence to link the knife to Hassan or the stabbing.

[A]          Consider the admissibility of Hassan’s remark in the street. (35%)

 

[B]          Consider the admissibility of the confession in police station. (50%)

 

[C]          Consider the admissibility of the finding of the knife. (15%)

 

3.            Question

 

Whilst visiting a supermarket Serena started talking to the security guard, Stanley. They got on well, and she agreed to go to a bar with him after work. When they left the bar, Serena went back to Stanley’s flat. She claims she was only being friendly. They started kissing whilst in Stanley’s flat but she then says that, when she refused to have sexual intercourse with Stanley, he raped her. Stanley denies rape. He says she was enthusiastic throughout and that during intercourse she started humming an Ed Sheeran song.

Stanley’s solicitors have tracked down an ex-boyfriend of Serena who says that whenever they used to have intercourse, she would hum Ed Sheeran songs.

There is CCTV footage showing that before she entered the supermarket Serena was flirting with two men outside and that she gave one of them her number.

[A]          Consider whether the defence will be able to rely upon the evidence of Serena’s ex-boyfriend (60%)

 

[B]          Consider whether the defence will be able to rely upon the evidence of Serena’s behaviour outside the supermarket (40%)

 

4.            Question

 

Chris and Faizal (both aged 18) were in block C of the East stand of the Canford Road football stadium when a fight broke out amongst a large number of supporters. Chris was assaulted by a man he recognised as Paul Turner, who Chris had last seen when they were at school together, 3 years previously.  Faizal did not know Chris’s attacker but believed he would recognise him again. In his description of the attacker to the police, Faizal stated that the man appeared to have a tattoo on his neck. Chris did not notice a tattoo. When the police arrived, the troublemakers had gone.

Paul, who does have a tattoo on his neck, was later arrested at his home on the basis of the information provided by Chris. In interview he admitted being in block C of the East stand when the fight broke out. But he denied having anything to do with the fight and said that he could not remember Chris from school. The police held a video identification procedure with Faizal, but did not do so with Chris. Faizal identified Paul, saying, “It’s number three – the one with the tattoo on his neck.”

[A]          Consider whether the police have breached any of the provisions of Code D (70%)

 

[B]          Consider whether the judge in Paul’s trial should exclude any of the identification evidence (30%)

 

5.            Question

 

Tom and Dylan are being tried by a jury for an offence of theft. They both work for a building firm that was undertaking some work at the house of Mrs McGowan. It is alleged that they went into her bedroom and stole £5000 in cash from her wardrobe.

Both deny the offence, and each blames the other for committing the theft. They will both give evidence to that effect.

Tom has one conviction in 2013 for an offence of driving without insurance, for which he was fined £100. Otherwise, he has never been in trouble with the police. He wishes to tell the jury about his conviction and to call a witness as to his good character.

Dylan has a conviction in 2020 for threatening behaviour at a football match, for which he was conditionally discharged. He also has a conviction in 2021 for shoplifting for which he was fined £150.

[A]          How is the court likely to deal with Tom’s character? (25%)

 

[B]          Will either the prosecution or Tom be able to adduce evidence of Dylan’s previous convictions? (75%)

 

 

 

6.            Question

 

In July Terry was approached by police in a shopping mall as he was distributing leaflets produced by a new extreme right-wing political party called the Anglo-Saxon League. Members of the public had complained that the leaflets contained some highly offensive racist language. Terry was charged with an offence under section 19(1) (b) of the Public Order Act 1986, which carries a maximum sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment. The relevant parts of the section read as follows:

S19(1) (b) POA 1986

“A person who…distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if….having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.”

S19(2) POA 1986

“It is a defence for an accused….to prove that he was not aware of the content of the material and did not suspect, and had no reason to suspect, that it was threatening, abusive or insulting.”

Terry claims that he cannot read and that he was unaware of the precise content of the leaflet. He will be pleading not guilty.

 

[A]          Consider the burden and standard of proof in relation to the facts in issue.  (20%)

 

[B]          Consider whether the defence in s.19(2) is compatible with Art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (80%)

 

 

END OF QUESTION PAPER