LANCASTER UNIVERSITY
2012 EXAMINATIONS
PART II (Second year and Final year), DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF LAW
LAW 249 Law of Evidence (2 hours 10 minutes)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT
The first ten minutes of the examination are for reading the examination
paper. Candidates may only write notes on the examination paper, not
in the answer booklets, during this period.
Candidates must attempt THREE questions.
All questions carry equal weight.
PLEASE WRITE YOUR ANSWER TO EACH QUESTION IN A SEPARATE
ANSWER BOOK.
Candidates may bring into the examination an unannotated copy of one
of the following:
Blackstone’s Statutes on Evidence
Butterworth’s Student Statutes: Evidence
Routledge, Student Statutes Evidence;
Sweet & Maxwell's Evidence Statutes
or a copy of any part of any statute contained in one of the
above statute books.
1. Stephanie has been informed she may well be prosecuted for having
contravened the (fictitious) Trafficking and Sale of Exotic Creatures Act. The
Act makes it a criminal offence to traffic, import or offer for sale a variety of
non-indigenous living entities. The legislation also provides that any person
charged with breaching the Act will not commit an offence where s/he has a
valid permit. The prosecution’s case is that Stephanie was found trading in
anaconda snakes, turtles, lizards and other non-European reptilia, each
specified in the Act as prohibited unless authorised by valid permits.
Stephanie claims she was issued with valid permits, that she unable to locate
the permits and that rather than anyone requiring her, a busy and hard-
working business woman, to establish she holds valid permits, the
presumption of innocence calls for the prosecution to establish she does not.
Discuss.
2. Keith, Jonathan, Ralph and Larry were arrested on suspicion of involvement
in the illegal importation of controlled substances.
Keith, who has learning difficulties, was interviewed at the police station with
no one present, apart from two interviewing officers. According to the police,
at the close of the interview Keith signed a written statement in which he
implicated himself, Jonathan, Ralph and Larry in the crime. Keith claims he
had no idea he had signed a statement and that the police led him to believe
his signature was needed before he could have his possessions returned.
During his interview at the police station, Jonathan refused to answer police
questions. When asked by the interviewing officers why he would not assist
the police, the interviewing officers say that Jonathan replied: “I would never
assist the police and I’m no informer. If you’ve got a case against me, you
better go ahead and charge me. I’d rather explain myself in court than to you.
I’ve already said I had nothing to do with the robbery. Am I not innocent until
proved guilty in a court of law?”.
Ralph, who initially denied involvement in the robbery, is alleged to have
made damaging admissions to the police. Ralph claims he made remarks only
after one of the interviewing officers warned him that members of his family
would suffer if he failed to co-operate and another officer said that he would
not be released from the police station until the whole matter had been
cleared up.
According to the police, Larry made a full confession after the likely sentence
he could expect to receive from the court was pointed out to him.
2 Please turn over
At trial, Keith and Ralph seek to have their respective statements excluded.
Jonathan argues that his refusal to answer police questions should not be
held against him. Larry argues that whatever he said to the police should not
be viewed as amounting to a confession and that he said what he believed
the police wanted to hear in order to get out of the police station. Larry also
argues that the interviewing officers threatened to use violence against him
and told him that Keith had named him (Larry) as one of the perpetrators so
as to obtain a confession from him (Larry).
Discuss.
3. ‘Whenever a prosecution witness has testimony capable of challenging the
defendant’s account of events, that testimony – be it from a child, the
defendant’s spouse or a person connected remotely to the defendant – should
be received in evidence.’
Discuss.
4. Donald is charged with a sexual assault on Patricia, whilst both were
attending a wedding reception in a hotel. The prosecution allege that the
offence took place in a private room in the hotel. Donald denies the offence
saying he did not sexually assault Patricia but that he was aware that she had
consumed a large quantity of alcohol before the alleged incident.
Patricia has admitted to the prosecution that she did drink a large quantity of
alcohol prior to the incident and that she did not know Donald beforehand but
had met him sometime during the course of the wedding reception.
The prosecution call William, a ten year old boy who also attended the
wedding reception and who had gone into the private room by mistake.
William said that, although he did not know Donald, he saw a man aged
between 20 and 30 years of age (Donald is 25 years old) who was ‘very tall’
doing what would constitute a sexual assault on Patricia. Donald is five feet
six inches in height.
Discuss whether the trial judge should warn the jury when they come to
consider the evidence given for the prosecution by both Patricia and William.
3 Please turn over
5. ‘The right of an accused to cross-examine a prosecution witness is such a
fundamental part of a criminal trial that hearsay evidence should never be
admissible for the prosecution.’
Discuss.
6. Duncan is charged with the murder of his wife, Victoria, who died from
ingesting a poisonous substance taken regularly with a hot drink over a period
of about a month. Duncan denies having committed the offence.
The prosecution case is that Duncan had insured Victoria’s life and that on
her death he would receive a large amount of money. The prosecution also
has evidence to show that Duncan had recently been refused a loan from his
bank of a significant amount of money to support his business. Duncan does
not challenge the items of prosecution evidence referred to above.
The essence of Duncan’s case is that Victoria must have been poisoned by
Frank, her assistant at work, who always made Victoria’s coffee. Duncan
claims that when he and Victoria went to any social occasions related to her
work it became clear to Duncan that Frank blamed Victoria for not supporting
his (Frank’s) promotion.
The prosecution seeks permission from the trial judge to inform the jury of the
following:
(a) Duncan’s acquittal of the crime of murder when his previous wife,
Christen, had died from falling down the stairs in their home. The
background circumstances show that Duncan had previously
insured the life of Christen for a significant amount of money.
(b) One conviction recorded against Duncan in 2009 in relation to the
theft of a DVD from a shop.
(c) The fact that in 2008 Duncan had been dismissed by his then
employer for downloading adult pornography on his computer while
at work.
Advise the trial judge as to whether the prosecution should be permitted to
inform the jury of any or all of the items listed in (a) to (c) above.
7. ‘The law of evidence applying in criminal cases in England and Wales is
currently balanced too much in favour of the prosecution and against the
defence.’
Discuss.
End of paper
