MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
ANSWERS Bar Professional
Question 1
Ronnie Biggs is on trial for robbing a mail train and murdering the security
guard, Jess. 10 months after the offence, coverage of the robbery on the
television programme “Crime Watch” prompted a phone call from a viewer to
the information hot-line. The caller told the operator that they knew the robber
was Biggs and where the police were likely to find him. Acting on this
information, the police arrested Biggs.
The caller gave the operator their name and address, but when the police called
at the address a week later to take a statement, the landlord of the premises said
that the tenant in question had disappeared overnight taking all their
possessions with them. The witness cannot be found. The Prosecution wish to
adduce the tape recording of the telephone call.
Which of the following is CORRECT?
[A] The tape of the telephone call is admissible hearsay evidence by virtue of
section 116 CJA 2003.
[B] The tape of the telephone call is admissible by virtue of section 114(1)(d) CJA
2003, but only if one of the conditions in section 116(2) is satisfied.
[C] The tape of the telephone call is admissible as it forms part of the res gestae.
[D] The tape of the telephone call is admissible original evidence.
[A] is CORRECT – the evidence is relevant and would be admissible if given
orally; the identity of the witness is established; and one of the statutory
reasons for not calling the maker of the statement is present – the witness
cannot be found (s.116(2)(d) CJA 2003).
P a g e 1 | 35
,Question 2
Forensic expert analysis of the bullet that killed Jess shows it to have unusual
markings, and police investigations have traced the bullet to a shop called
Uniqueshot Ltd. A printout of the shop’s record of sales shows a sale of the type
of bullet that killed Jess to a Mr. R. Briggs who paid by credit card three months
prior to the robbery. The sale was written down in a ledger by the sales assistant
and then recorded from the ledger onto the shop’s database by the shop
manager.
Which of the following is CORRECT?
[A] The shop records are admissible documentary hearsay under section 117 CJA
2003, but one of the conditions in section 116(2) must be satisfied
[B] The printout is inadmissible unless the manager of the shop is called to give
evidence of the compilation and custody of the shop’s database.
[C] The shop records are admissible documentary hearsay under section 116 CJA
2003.
[D] The shop records are admissible documentary hearsay under section 117 CJA
2003. It will not be necessary to satisfy one of the conditions in section 116(2).
[D] is CORRECT. The document is a business record. The crown will want to
adduce evidence of the statement contained in it to prove that what was said
was true. It is therefore hearsay. The document contains multiple hearsay. The
document was not created in contemplation of criminal proceedings. For these
reasons, the first limb of s.117 applies.
P a g e 2 | 35
,Question 3
Bill and Ben are accused of robbery outside BPP’s Law School in Holborn. No
forensic evidence linking either man with the scene was obtained, but the
incident was witnessed by a number of people who claim they saw the robbers
escape on a motorbike.
One witness, George, made a note of the registration number of the motorbike,
as GR13 4TT. He gave this note to PC Pandy at the scene. Another witness,
Zippy, told PC Pandy that he had seen the registration number GR13 4TT on the
motorbike; the officer made a note of this information.
DVLA records show that the motorbike was registered to Bill. George has since
been the victim of a road traffic accident and is in a coma from which his doctors
think it is unlikely he will ever recover. Zippy is in Paraguay on a field trip for his
University degree course.
Examine the following options:
i) George’s note is admissible hearsay under section 116 CJA 2003.
ii) What Zippy told PC Pandy is admissible hearsay under section 117 CJA 2003.
iii) The DVLA records are admissible hearsay under section 117 CJA 2003.
iv) What Zippy told PC Pandy cannot be given in evidence unless PC Pandy got
Zippy to verify his note of the conversation.
Which of the above options are CORRECT?
[A] i), ii) and iii)
[B] i) and iii)
[C] i), iii) and iv)
[D] ii) and iii
[A] is correct (i) CORRECT. see S.116(2)(b) CJA 2003 – this is because
George is unfit to give evidence because of his bodily or mental condition.
(ii) CORRECT – see S.117((5) and s.116(2)(c) and cases such as Kelsey
(1982) 74 Cr.App.R.213 and MCLEAN (1967) 52 Cr.App.R.80 – The
information was received by a police officer in the course of his duties as
the holder of a paid office. The communication was made in
contemplation of criminal proceedings so there has to be a s.116(2)
reason why Zippy does not give evidence. He is outside the UK and it is
not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance.
(iii) CORRECT. see first limb of s.117 CJA 2003. N.B. the records are not
prepared for the purposes of criminal proceedings, so there is no need
for a s.116 reason.
P a g e 3 | 35
, Question 4
Nina witnessed a murder allegedly carried out by Malcolm. She gave a statement
to the police but has subsequently told the officer in charge of the case that she
does not wish to give evidence at Malcolm’s trial because she fears reprisals
from his associates.
Which of the following is CORRECT?
[A] Nina’s evidence can only be received at trial if she turns up to give evidence in
person.
[B] Nina’s statement can be read out at Malcolm’s trial as of right, as she is in fear.
[C] Nina’s statement may be read out at Malcolm’s trial if the Court gives leave for
this to happen.
[D] Nina’s statement can only be read out in her absence if she is dead.
[C] is CORRECT, see s.116(2)(e) CJA 2003.
P a g e 4 | 35
ANSWERS Bar Professional
Question 1
Ronnie Biggs is on trial for robbing a mail train and murdering the security
guard, Jess. 10 months after the offence, coverage of the robbery on the
television programme “Crime Watch” prompted a phone call from a viewer to
the information hot-line. The caller told the operator that they knew the robber
was Biggs and where the police were likely to find him. Acting on this
information, the police arrested Biggs.
The caller gave the operator their name and address, but when the police called
at the address a week later to take a statement, the landlord of the premises said
that the tenant in question had disappeared overnight taking all their
possessions with them. The witness cannot be found. The Prosecution wish to
adduce the tape recording of the telephone call.
Which of the following is CORRECT?
[A] The tape of the telephone call is admissible hearsay evidence by virtue of
section 116 CJA 2003.
[B] The tape of the telephone call is admissible by virtue of section 114(1)(d) CJA
2003, but only if one of the conditions in section 116(2) is satisfied.
[C] The tape of the telephone call is admissible as it forms part of the res gestae.
[D] The tape of the telephone call is admissible original evidence.
[A] is CORRECT – the evidence is relevant and would be admissible if given
orally; the identity of the witness is established; and one of the statutory
reasons for not calling the maker of the statement is present – the witness
cannot be found (s.116(2)(d) CJA 2003).
P a g e 1 | 35
,Question 2
Forensic expert analysis of the bullet that killed Jess shows it to have unusual
markings, and police investigations have traced the bullet to a shop called
Uniqueshot Ltd. A printout of the shop’s record of sales shows a sale of the type
of bullet that killed Jess to a Mr. R. Briggs who paid by credit card three months
prior to the robbery. The sale was written down in a ledger by the sales assistant
and then recorded from the ledger onto the shop’s database by the shop
manager.
Which of the following is CORRECT?
[A] The shop records are admissible documentary hearsay under section 117 CJA
2003, but one of the conditions in section 116(2) must be satisfied
[B] The printout is inadmissible unless the manager of the shop is called to give
evidence of the compilation and custody of the shop’s database.
[C] The shop records are admissible documentary hearsay under section 116 CJA
2003.
[D] The shop records are admissible documentary hearsay under section 117 CJA
2003. It will not be necessary to satisfy one of the conditions in section 116(2).
[D] is CORRECT. The document is a business record. The crown will want to
adduce evidence of the statement contained in it to prove that what was said
was true. It is therefore hearsay. The document contains multiple hearsay. The
document was not created in contemplation of criminal proceedings. For these
reasons, the first limb of s.117 applies.
P a g e 2 | 35
,Question 3
Bill and Ben are accused of robbery outside BPP’s Law School in Holborn. No
forensic evidence linking either man with the scene was obtained, but the
incident was witnessed by a number of people who claim they saw the robbers
escape on a motorbike.
One witness, George, made a note of the registration number of the motorbike,
as GR13 4TT. He gave this note to PC Pandy at the scene. Another witness,
Zippy, told PC Pandy that he had seen the registration number GR13 4TT on the
motorbike; the officer made a note of this information.
DVLA records show that the motorbike was registered to Bill. George has since
been the victim of a road traffic accident and is in a coma from which his doctors
think it is unlikely he will ever recover. Zippy is in Paraguay on a field trip for his
University degree course.
Examine the following options:
i) George’s note is admissible hearsay under section 116 CJA 2003.
ii) What Zippy told PC Pandy is admissible hearsay under section 117 CJA 2003.
iii) The DVLA records are admissible hearsay under section 117 CJA 2003.
iv) What Zippy told PC Pandy cannot be given in evidence unless PC Pandy got
Zippy to verify his note of the conversation.
Which of the above options are CORRECT?
[A] i), ii) and iii)
[B] i) and iii)
[C] i), iii) and iv)
[D] ii) and iii
[A] is correct (i) CORRECT. see S.116(2)(b) CJA 2003 – this is because
George is unfit to give evidence because of his bodily or mental condition.
(ii) CORRECT – see S.117((5) and s.116(2)(c) and cases such as Kelsey
(1982) 74 Cr.App.R.213 and MCLEAN (1967) 52 Cr.App.R.80 – The
information was received by a police officer in the course of his duties as
the holder of a paid office. The communication was made in
contemplation of criminal proceedings so there has to be a s.116(2)
reason why Zippy does not give evidence. He is outside the UK and it is
not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance.
(iii) CORRECT. see first limb of s.117 CJA 2003. N.B. the records are not
prepared for the purposes of criminal proceedings, so there is no need
for a s.116 reason.
P a g e 3 | 35
, Question 4
Nina witnessed a murder allegedly carried out by Malcolm. She gave a statement
to the police but has subsequently told the officer in charge of the case that she
does not wish to give evidence at Malcolm’s trial because she fears reprisals
from his associates.
Which of the following is CORRECT?
[A] Nina’s evidence can only be received at trial if she turns up to give evidence in
person.
[B] Nina’s statement can be read out at Malcolm’s trial as of right, as she is in fear.
[C] Nina’s statement may be read out at Malcolm’s trial if the Court gives leave for
this to happen.
[D] Nina’s statement can only be read out in her absence if she is dead.
[C] is CORRECT, see s.116(2)(e) CJA 2003.
P a g e 4 | 35
