SQE1 Criminal Practice

Criminal Law and Practice · Powers of arrest

PC Dunn sees Mehmet leave a supermarket with an unpaid bottle of wine worth £40. She has reasonable grounds to suspect him of theft. Mehmet gives his full name, shows a driving licence confirming his home address, and is calm and cooperative. PC Dunn arrests him because she is annoyed by his attitude. She has no other reason for arrest. Which statement best describes the arrest?

1. It is lawful, because reasonable suspicion of an offence is enough to justify an arrest.
2. It is lawful, because theft is an indictable offence and arrest is always permitted.
3. It is lawful, because PC Dunn is entitled to take into account his attitude.
4. It is unlawful, because reasonable suspicion is not enough without a necessity reason listed in section 24(5).
5. It is unlawful, because a constable may arrest only with a warrant for an offence of this value.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: D. Under s 24 of PACE 1984 a constable may arrest without a warrant anyone she reasonably suspects of committing an offence, but only if she has reasonable grounds to believe arrest is necessary for one of the reasons in s 24(5). These include ascertaining the person's name or address, preventing injury or damage, protecting a vulnerable person, allowing a prompt and effective investigation, and preventing disappearance. Mehmet's identity is established and none of the reasons applies, so the arrest is unlawful. Suspicion alone, however strong, does not satisfy the necessity limb.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 24

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Police station advice

Kelly is arrested for common assault and taken to the police station. She asks the custody officer for a solicitor. The officer says the interview will start now and she can speak to a solicitor afterwards, because it is only a minor offence. Kelly's own solicitor, Mr Ahmed, arrives and asks to see her. Which statement best describes Kelly's right to legal advice?

1. She may consult a solicitor privately at any time, and the interview must not start until she has had the chance to do so, subject to narrow exceptions.
2. She may delay seeing a solicitor only if the custody officer agrees that the offence is minor.
3. She may see a solicitor only after the interview, because common assault is a summary offence.
4. She may consult a solicitor only if her case has been referred to the Crown Prosecution Service.
5. She may consult a solicitor only after the first review of detention by an inspector.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. Section 58 of PACE 1984 entitles a person held at a police station to consult a solicitor privately at any time, if she asks. Police may delay access only in limited cases. Delay is possible only for an indictable offence, must be authorised by a superintendent or above, and must be based on reasonable grounds such as risk of interference with evidence or witnesses. Common assault is a summary offence and nobody has authorised any delay. Under Code C an interview should not start until she has had the advice she asked for, unless a narrow exception applies.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 58; PACE Code C, para 6.1 and Annex B

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Detention

Tom was arrested at 8.00 am on Monday on suspicion of burglary and arrived at the police station at 8.30 am. He has not been charged. It is now 6.00 am on Tuesday and the officers say they need more time to examine CCTV and forensic material. The inspector who conducted reviews is not senior enough to authorise more time. Who can authorise Tom's continued detention without charge beyond 24 hours?

1. The custody officer, if the CCTV evidence is likely to be important.
2. The reviewing inspector, once, for a further 12 hours.
3. A police sergeant, if the offence is indictable.
4. A magistrates' court, which must make an order before 24 hours expire.
5. A superintendent or above, for up to 36 hours in total, if conditions in section 42 are met.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: E. Under s 41 of PACE 1984 a person may normally be held for 24 hours from the relevant time, which here is his arrival at the station at 8.30 am. For an indictable offence such as burglary, s 42 allows an officer of at least superintendent rank to authorise detention up to 36 hours in total if satisfied that it is necessary to secure or preserve evidence or obtain it by questioning, and that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously. Beyond 36 hours, only a magistrates' warrant of further detention (ss 43 and 44) can extend detention, up to 96 hours in total. The custody officer and inspector have no such power.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, ss 41 and 42; Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, ss 43 and 44

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Interview and professional conduct

You are the duty solicitor advising Bilal, who is suspected of arson. In your private consultation he tells you he set the fire. He then says that in the interview he will tell the police he was at his sister's house all evening, and he asks you to sit in silently. What advice is consistent with the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors?

1. Advise him that the account is a matter for him, and stay silent in the interview.
2. Advise him to answer questions truthfully or to say nothing, and tell him you cannot take part in giving a false account to the police.
3. Advise him to give the sister's address and then ask the officers to disclose their evidence.
4. Tell the police privately that his account will be false so they are not misled.
5. Advise him to give the false account but to withhold the sister's name.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. Paragraph 1.4 of the Code prohibits you from misleading or attempting to mislead others, including through acts or omissions or by being complicit in a client's acts. Your duty of confidentiality in para 6.3 stops you telling the police what Bilal told you. You may advise him of his options: to answer truthfully, make no comment, or provide a prepared statement. His right to silence is protected. But you cannot assist in advancing an account you know to be false. If he insists, you should consider whether you can continue to act. Sitting silently while he lies makes you complicit.

SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, para 1.4; SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, para 6.3; SRA Principles 2019, Principles 4 and 5

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Adverse inferences

Sana is interviewed about a robbery. The officers tell her only that she is suspected of robbery on Friday at a petrol station. Her solicitor advises her to make no comment because disclosure is thin. She follows that advice. At trial she gives an alibi that she was at work, which she did not mention in interview. The prosecution asks the judge for a direction under section 34 of the CJPOA 1994. Which statement best describes the position?

1. No inference may be drawn, because Sana acted on her solicitor's advice.
2. An inference must be drawn, because she failed to mention the alibi.
3. The jury may draw an inference only if they conclude she could reasonably have been expected to mention the alibi when questioned.
4. An inference may be drawn only if the solicitor gives evidence of the advice.
5. An inference may be drawn only if the alibi is proved to be false.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. Section 34 of the CJPOA 1994 allows the court or jury to draw such inferences as appear proper where a defendant relies at trial on a fact she failed to mention when questioned, and which in the circumstances she could reasonably have been expected to mention. Legal advice to remain silent is a relevant circumstance, particularly where disclosure was inadequate, but it is not an automatic bar (R v Condron). The jury asks whether the silence was reasonable and whether she genuinely relied on the advice. Inference is permissive, never mandatory.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s 34; R v Condron [1997] 1 WLR 827

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Identification

A witness, Mrs Obi, saw a man snatch a handbag from a woman at a bus stop. She says she would recognise him again. Police later arrest Dev, who says the witness has the wrong man. He disputes that he was there. Mrs Obi has not yet been shown any images of Dev. Which procedure under PACE Code D should police ordinarily follow to test her identification?

1. A video identification procedure, unless it is not practicable or another procedure is more suitable.
2. An informal showing of Dev's photograph to Mrs Obi at the police station.
3. A confrontation between Mrs Obi and Dev in the custody suite.
4. No procedure, because identification is a matter for the court only.
5. A group identification at a public place, which police may choose without regard to the circumstances.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. Where a witness says she could identify a suspect and the suspect disputes it, Code D requires an identification procedure. The first option is a video identification procedure, unless it is not practicable or another procedure, such as a group identification or identity parade, is more suitable. Confrontation is a last resort, and showing a single photograph invites a mistaken identification and could lead to exclusion of the evidence. The suspect should be told his rights, and his solicitor can attend and raise concerns about the images chosen.

PACE Code D, section 3 and Annex A; Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 78

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Professional conduct in criminal practice

You represent Lee, who is charged with assault and says he was at a friend's flat when it happened. His friend, Karl, is unemployed and willing to give evidence for him but is worried about losing a day's casual pay. Lee tells you he will pay Karl £300 if Karl gives the alibi evidence, and asks you to hand over the cash at court and to tell Karl what the prosecution case is so that he can 'get his story right'. What should you do under the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors?

1. Pass on the cash, but not tell Karl the prosecution case.
2. Refuse to be involved, explain that you cannot offer benefits dependent on the evidence or help shape it, and advise Lee accordingly.
3. Pass on the cash because it only compensates for lost earnings, and tell Karl the case so he can prepare.
4. Tell Karl the prosecution case but refuse to handle the money.
5. Stop acting at once and explain to the court that Lee tried to pay a witness.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. Paragraph 2.2 of the Code prohibits seeking to influence the substance of evidence, including persuading witnesses to change their evidence. Paragraph 2.3 prohibits providing or offering any benefit to witnesses dependent on the nature of their evidence or the outcome of the case. A payment of £300 conditional on Karl giving alibi evidence is such a benefit, and briefing him on the prosecution case so that he can 'get his story right' risks shaping his evidence. You should refuse, explain why to Lee, and advise on proper steps, such as taking Karl's account independently. You must not reveal Lee's request to the court, because para 6.3 protects his confidential information.

SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, para 2.2; SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, para 2.3; SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, para 6.3

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Opposing and granting bail

Leon is charged with burglary, an imprisonable offence, and appears at the magistrates' court. The prosecution opposes bail, pointing out that he failed to surrender to bail two years ago in an unrelated case. Leon has a settled address and a job. Which statement best describes the approach the court must take under the Bail Act 1976?

1. The court must remand him in custody, because he has a previous failure to surrender.
2. The court must grant bail unless it is satisfied there are substantial grounds for believing that an exception applies, such as failure to surrender.
3. The court must refuse bail because burglary is a serious offence.
4. The court may refuse bail if it considers that the prosecution might have a strong case.
5. The court must grant bail because the offence is not murder or rape.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. Section 4 of the Bail Act 1976 gives a general right to bail. For an imprisonable offence, Schedule 1, Part I, para 2 permits the court to refuse bail only if it is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if released, the defendant would fail to surrender, commit an offence on bail, or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice. A previous failure to surrender is relevant to the risk but does not compel refusal. The court weighs the factors in para 9, including his ties, record and the strength of evidence, so the other options are wrong.

Bail Act 1976, s 4; Bail Act 1976, Sch 1, Part I, paras 2 and 9

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Bail conditions

Ahmed is charged with affray and the magistrates are minded to grant bail, but the prosecution is worried that he may contact the two prosecution witnesses, who live on his street. The magistrates consider imposing a residence condition and a condition not to contact the witnesses. Which statement best describes when conditions may be attached to bail?

1. Only if the defendant agrees to each condition.
2. Only if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for more than five years.
3. Only if a surety has been found, because conditions cannot be set otherwise.
4. Only if they appear necessary for a purpose in section 3(6), such as securing surrender, preventing offending or preventing interference with witnesses.
5. Whenever the court considers the conditions would be sensible and fair to the witnesses.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: D. Under s 3(6) of the Bail Act 1976 a court granting bail may impose conditions only if it appears necessary to secure that the defendant surrenders, does not commit an offence while on bail, does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct justice, or makes himself available for the preparation of reports. A condition not to contact the two witnesses fits the interference ground. Residence at a stated address fits the surrender ground. Consent is not needed and a surety is only one possible condition. Mere sensibleness or fairness to witnesses is not enough.

Bail Act 1976, s 3(6)

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Failure to surrender to bail

Chloe was granted bail by the magistrates' court on condition that she attend her trial on 10 March. On 10 March she did not attend and the court issued a warrant. She says she was in hospital after an accident, and she has the hospital letter, but she did not tell the court. She was arrested a week later. Which statement best describes her position under the Bail Act 1976?

1. She commits an offence under s 6 unless she proves she had reasonable cause for not surrendering.
2. She commits no offence because bail is not a criminal obligation.
3. She commits the offence only if the prosecution proves she intended to avoid trial.
4. She commits the offence in any event, because reasonable cause is not a defence.
5. She commits the offence only if she was served with the warrant before the hearing.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. Under s 6(1) of the Bail Act 1976 it is an offence for a person released on bail to fail without reasonable cause to surrender to custody. Under s 6(3) the burden is on the defendant to prove reasonable cause. Hospital admission may well be reasonable cause, and she has documents. Even where there is reasonable cause, s 6(2) makes it an offence not to surrender as soon as reasonably practicable afterwards, so the delay also needs explaining. The offence does not require proof of intention to avoid trial, and the warrant is irrelevant to whether the offence was committed.

Bail Act 1976, s 6

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Bail after remand in custody

Ian is charged with robbery. The magistrates' court heard a full bail application and remanded him in custody for 28 days, saying he posed a risk of interfering with witnesses. His solicitor believes the decision is wrong, because Ian has a stable address and the witness evidence is weak. Ian has not been convicted. What is the most suitable course?

1. Appeal to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division.
2. Apply to the High Court by way of case stated.
3. Apply to the Crown Court for bail under section 81 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
4. Wait until trial, because bail decisions cannot be challenged.
5. Apply to the same magistrates to reconsider on the same arguments at every hearing.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. A defendant remanded in custody by the magistrates' court, who has not been convicted, can apply to the Crown Court for bail under s 81 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The Crown Court considers bail afresh. The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction over pre-trial bail refusals, and case stated is for points of law about a magistrates' decision, not for bail. Under Sch 1, Part IIA he may make one further full application to the magistrates, but after that the court need not hear arguments it has already heard. A Crown Court application is the most suitable route.

Senior Courts Act 1981, s 81; Bail Act 1976, Sch 1, Part IIA

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · First hearing and allocation

Dami, aged 25, is charged with robbery, which is triable only on indictment. At his first appearance at the magistrates' court his solicitor asks whether Dami will be asked to enter a plea and whether the magistrates will decide where the trial takes place. Which statement best describes what will happen?

1. Dami will enter a plea and the magistrates will try him if he pleads guilty.
2. The magistrates will hold an allocation hearing and may keep the case if their sentencing powers are enough.
3. The magistrates will send the case to the Crown Court under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and no plea is taken.
4. Dami will be asked to elect between magistrates' court and Crown Court trial.
5. The case will be transferred to the Crown Court only if the prosecution applies for transfer.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. Robbery is an indictable only offence. Under s 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 the magistrates' court sends an adult charged with an indictable only offence to the Crown Court without taking a plea and without allocation. The magistrates deal with bail and legal aid at that hearing. Related either way and summary offences may also be sent. Plea before venue and allocation apply only to either way offences. The first Crown Court hearing is the plea and trial preparation hearing.

Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s 51

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Case management and disclosure

Hana is charged with fraud and the case has been sent to the Crown Court. The prosecution served its initial disclosure under section 3 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 on 1 March. Hana's solicitor asks when the defence statement must be served and whether it is compulsory. Which statement best describes the position?

1. It is optional, and may be served at any time before the trial starts.
2. It is compulsory and due within 14 days of the plea and trial preparation hearing.
3. It is compulsory and due within 28 days of the prosecution's initial disclosure, so by 29 March.
4. It is optional, and the court may not draw any inference if it is not served.
5. It is compulsory only if the prosecution makes a specific request.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. Under s 5 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 a defence statement is compulsory in the Crown Court. Under the Defence Disclosure Time Limits Regulations 2011 it must be served within 28 days of the prosecution complying, or purporting to comply, with its initial duty of disclosure under s 3. Here that is 29 March. In the magistrates' court a defence statement is voluntary under s 6. Under s 11 the court or jury may draw an adverse inference if the defendant fails to serve a defence statement or serves a deficient one.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, ss 5 and 11; Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Defence Disclosure Time Limits) Regulations 2011

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Hearsay: dead witness

Emma gave the police a signed witness statement describing how Stefan struck her with a bottle. Stefan is charged with wounding with intent. Emma died of an unrelated illness before the trial. The prosecution wants to read her statement to the jury. Stefan's solicitor objects that the evidence is hearsay and Emma cannot be cross-examined. Which statement best describes the position?

1. The statement is admissible under section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 because the maker is dead, though the court may still exclude it in the interests of fairness.
2. The statement is inadmissible because a defendant is entitled to cross-examine every witness against him.
3. The statement is admissible only if Stefan agrees that it may be read.
4. The statement is admissible only if the court gives leave under section 114(1)(d) in the interests of justice.
5. The statement is admissible as part of the res gestae because it was made close to the incident.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. Hearsay is a statement made out of court and relied on for the truth of its contents. It is inadmissible unless a gateway in s 114 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies. Section 116(2)(a) allows a statement to be admitted where the maker is dead, provided the maker would have been a competent witness and the statement is of a matter she had personal knowledge of. The court retains power to exclude under s 78 of PACE or s 126 of the 2003 Act, and the jury can be directed on the lack of cross-examination. Leave or agreement is not needed under s 116.

Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss 114 and 116; Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 126; Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 78

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Hearsay: business documents

Dan is charged with fraud. The prosecution wants to produce a printout of account transactions from Mercia Bank. The printout was generated from a database, using information entered by branch staff who recorded customers' deposits when they happened. The prosecution does not intend to call any of the branch staff. The defence objects that the printout is hearsay. Which statement best describes the position?

1. It is inadmissible unless a bank officer attends court to give evidence of every entry.
2. It may be admitted as a business document under section 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, because it was created in the course of a business from information supplied by people with personal knowledge.
3. It is inadmissible unless Dan agrees that it may be admitted.
4. It may be admitted only if the court is satisfied that a branch employee cannot be found.
5. It is admissible without conditions because documents produced by computers are never hearsay.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. Section 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 makes a statement in a document admissible as evidence of its contents if the document was created or received by a person in the course of a trade, business or profession, and the person who supplied the information had, or may reasonably be supposed to have had, personal knowledge of the matters. Each intermediary must also have received the information in the course of a business. The branch staff recorded deposits as they happened, so the conditions are met. The court has the safeguards of ss 78 and 126 if the document is unreliable.

Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 117

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Bad character

Wesley is charged with burglary of a house at night. The prosecution says he has two previous convictions, three and five years ago, for burglary of houses at night using the same method of entry. Wesley says he was elsewhere and denies the allegation. The prosecution makes an application to adduce the convictions. Which statement best describes the position under the Criminal Justice Act 2003?

1. They are inadmissible because previous convictions are never relevant to guilt.
2. They are automatically admissible because they are for the same type of offence.
3. They are admissible only if Wesley chooses to give evidence.
4. They are admissible only if Wesley first attacks the character of a prosecution witness.
5. They may be admitted under section 101(1)(d) as evidence of propensity, but on a defence application the court must exclude them if admission would be unfair.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: E. Evidence of a defendant's bad character is admissible only through a gateway in s 101(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Gateway (d) allows evidence relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution. Under s 103 this includes whether he has a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged, which may be shown by convictions for offences of the same description or category. Admission is not automatic. Under s 101(3) the court must not admit it if it would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it ought not to be admitted. Under s 103(3), propensity evidence can also be excluded if it would be unjust.

Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss 101(1)(d), 101(3) and 103

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Good character

Priya, aged 35, has no previous convictions or cautions. She is charged with theft from her employer and denies the offence. She gives evidence in her own defence and in her police interview she gave her account. Her counsel asks the judge to give a good character direction in the summing up. Which statement best describes the direction the judge should give?

1. No direction is needed, because good character is not relevant to guilt.
2. Both limbs: that her good character is relevant to her credibility and makes it less likely that she committed the offence.
3. Only that her good character makes it less likely that she committed the offence.
4. Only that her good character bears on whether she is telling the truth.
5. A direction can be given only if she calls character witnesses.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. Under R v Vye [1993] 1 WLR 471, a defendant of good character who has testified or made pre-trial statements is entitled to a good character direction with two limbs. The first limb says her good character is relevant to her credibility, so that she is more worthy of belief. The second limb says it is relevant to propensity, so that she is less likely to have committed the offence. If the defendant neither testifies nor makes statements, only the propensity limb is given. Priya did both, so she is entitled to both limbs. Character witnesses are not required.

R v Vye [1993] 1 WLR 471; R v Aziz [1996] AC 41

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Confessions

Lucas, aged 19, is interviewed about a car theft. Before the interview, the officer says, 'If you tell me it was you, I'll make sure you get bail and go home tonight.' Lucas, who has been in custody for 20 hours, then confesses. He now says the confession was false. The defence applies to exclude it. Which statement best describes the legal test?

1. The court can exclude the confession only if it is untrue.
2. The confession is admissible because Lucas was cautioned and did not ask for a solicitor.
3. Lucas must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the confession was unreliable.
4. The court must exclude it unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt it was not obtained in consequence of something said or done likely to make a confession unreliable.
5. The confession can be excluded only under the court's general discretion in section 78.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: D. Under s 76(2)(b) of PACE 1984, if it is represented that a confession was obtained in consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made, the court must not allow it unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was not so obtained. The test looks at the effect of what was said, not whether the confession is true. An inducement such as promising bail is a classic example. The burden is on the prosecution, and s 76 is mandatory, unlike the discretion in s 78.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 76(2)(b)

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Trial procedure

Kwame is on trial before a jury at the Crown Court for robbery. At the close of the prosecution case, his barrister submits there is no case to answer. The only evidence against him is a witness whose account is vague and contradicts the CCTV footage, and a second witness who identifies him but whose reliability is disputed. Which statement best describes the test the judge applies?

1. The judge must stop the case whenever he thinks the defendant is probably innocent.
2. The judge must always leave the case to the jury because guilt is for them.
3. The judge should stop the case if there is no evidence on an essential element, or the evidence is so tenuous that a properly directed jury could not convict; otherwise it goes to the jury.
4. The judge may stop the case only if the defence calls evidence to contradict the witnesses.
5. The judge must stop the case if there is any inconsistency between prosecution witnesses.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. The test comes from R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039. If there is no evidence that the defendant committed the crime, the judge stops the case. If the evidence is of a tenuous character, because of inherent weakness, vagueness or inconsistency with other evidence, and a properly directed jury could not safely convict, the judge stops it. Where the strength of the prosecution evidence depends on the reliability of a witness and other matters within the jury's province, and the evidence taken at its highest could convict, the case goes to the jury. The judge does not decide the defendant is probably innocent.

R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039

Report a problem with this question

Criminal Law and Practice · Witnesses and special measures

Zoe, aged 14, is the main prosecution witness in a trial for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. She is nervous about seeing the defendant in court. The prosecution asks whether she can receive help when giving evidence. Which statement best describes the position under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999?

1. She is eligible for special measures because she is under 18, and the court is likely to direct measures such as video-recorded evidence and a live link.
2. She is not eligible, because special measures are for victims of sexual offences only.
3. She is eligible only if a psychiatrist reports that she has a mental disorder.
4. She is eligible only if the defendant agrees to the measures.
5. She must give evidence in open court, though the judge may remove his wig.

Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. Under s 16(1)(a) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 a witness is eligible for special measures if under 18 at the time of the hearing. Available measures include screens (s 23), live link (s 24), evidence in private (s 25), removal of wigs and gowns (s 26), video-recorded evidence in chief (s 27) and video-recorded cross-examination (s 28). For child witnesses, s 21 sets a primary rule favouring video-recorded evidence in chief and live link, unless the court decides this would not improve the quality of the evidence. Eligibility does not depend on the type of offence, a mental disorder or the defendant's agreement.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, ss 16, 21 and 23 to 28

Report a problem with this question