MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
ANSWERS
Bar Professional
Question 1
Lizzy and three other defendants are jointly charged with violent disorder arising out of an incident at a
hen night. They are facing trial in the Crown Court. Lizzy is required to serve a defence statement under
section 5 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
Which one of the following statements is correct?
[A] If no defence statement is served the jury will be directed to draw an adverse inference against Lizzy.
[B] If no defence statement is served the prosecution can make an appropriate comment on such failure, but
only with the leave of the Judge.
[C] If no defence statement is served counsel for any co-defendant can make an appropriate comment on
such failure, but only with the leave of the Judge.
[D] If a defence statement is served which fails to identify a point of law relied on by Lizzy, the prosecution
can make appropriate comment on such failure, but only with the leave of the Judge.
ANSWER: D
Failure to comply with the requirement to serve a defence statement means the Defendant is at risk of an adverse
inference being drawn (see Section 11(2) (a) (i) and Section 11(5) (a) and (b) of the CPIA 1996). If the judge
directs the jury as to the effect of the section he certainly would not direct them to draw an adverse inference.
He would direct them that they may do depending on their view of all of the circumstances. Therefore [A] is
wrong.
[B] and [C] are wrong because leave is not required in these circumstances. [D] is correct because in this
circumstance leave is required The circumstances where leave is required are set out in s.11(6)
BS 2017 D9.43
P a g e 1 | 112
,Question 2
Which one of the following statements concerning the admissibility, weight and relevance of evidence
is correct?
[A] Evidence must be relevant to be admissible.
[B] At no stage in a Crown Court trial will the Judge have to consider what weight to give to a piece of
evidence.
[C] The Judge has a discretion to admit inadmissible defence evidence.
[D] The Judge cannot exclude relevant prosecution evidence.
ANSWER: A
[A] correctly states the first rule of admissibility. BS 2017 F1.11
[B] is wrong, as a Judge in the Crown Court sometimes has to sit as the judge of fact as well as law – e.g. in a
Voir Dire. BS F1.32.
[C] is wrong – if evidence is inadmissible a judge cannot admit it.
[D] is wrong– e.g. a judge can exclude relevant prosecution evidence under s.78.
P a g e 2 | 112
,Question 3
Cathy (aged 18) was robbed in the street of five £20 notes by a young man wielding a pearl-handled knife.
Roland (also aged 18) was arrested minutes later near the scene on the basis of descriptions of the
robber given by Cathy and by another witness. Roland had seven £20 notes and three £10 notes on him
but no knife. Cathy attended a video ID procedure but did not pick out Roland. He was, however, picked
out by the other witness. Roland denies being the robber and is on trial at the Crown Court.
Which of the following pieces of evidence is the judge most likely to exclude on the basis of lack of
relevance?
[A] Evidence from the arresting officer as to the cash which Roland had on him when arrested.
[B] Evidence that Roland has two previous convictions for offences in which he used a pearl-handled knife.
[C] Evidence that, when Roland’s flat was searched following his arrest, police found £400 in cash in a
kitchen drawer.
[D] Evidence from Roland that, until last year, he was at school with Cathy.
ANSWER: C
[A] is relevant as Roland (aged only 18) has a lot of cash on him, including five notes of the same denominations
as those stolen from Cathy. It would be the prosecution’s case that any cash over the sum of £100 was in his
possession before he robbed her.
[B] is arguably strongly relevant as it tends to establish identity – the pearl handled knife is Roland’s hallmark. It
is “relevant to an important matter in issue” (i.e. identification) per gateway (g) (d) of s.101(1) CJA 2003. BS
F13.15 and 13.49.
[C] is likely to be excluded as irrelevant. It did not come from the robbery and is unconnected to it. There is no
evidence as to its provenance. Roland could have come by it legitimately in any number of ways. He could also
have come by it in any number of illegal ways which have no relevance to this charge – e.g. via drug dealing.
[D] This is relevant to the issue of ID. If they were at school together only a year ago it is highly likely that Cathy
would have recognised him. This is significant evidence for the defence.
P a g e 3 | 112
, Question 4
Gary is charged with robbery. It is alleged that he robbed the Halifax Building Society on 9 January 2017,
making off with £5,000. His defence is duress. At trial Gary testifies that on the morning of the robbery
Eric had come around to his flat, produced a gun and ordered him to carry out the robbery, threatening
to kill him if he failed to do so. Eric has since died.
Which ONE of the following statements about Gary’s testimony is CORRECT?
[A] Gary’s testimony of what Eric said to him is admissible as original evidence.
[B] Gary’s testimony of what Eric said to him is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
[C] Gary’s testimony of what Eric said to him is admissible as Eric has died.
[D] Gary’s testimony of what Eric said to him is admissible as ‘important explanatory evidence’.
ANSWER: A
A statement is not hearsay, but original evidence, if it adduced for the effect it had on the mind of the hearer,
rather than for its truth. BS F16.23. That is the purpose of adducing this evidence and therefore it is not hearsay.
[B] is wrong as, for the reasons just given, the evidence is not hearsay: it therefore cannot be an “exception” to
the hearsay rule.
[C] is wrong. The fact that he had died is irrelevant.
[D] is wrong. The phrase “important explanatory evidence” comes from the “character” gateways, which are not
relevant here. This evidence may well be explanatory, but it can only be adduced if it is admissible.
P a g e 4 | 112
ANSWERS
Bar Professional
Question 1
Lizzy and three other defendants are jointly charged with violent disorder arising out of an incident at a
hen night. They are facing trial in the Crown Court. Lizzy is required to serve a defence statement under
section 5 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
Which one of the following statements is correct?
[A] If no defence statement is served the jury will be directed to draw an adverse inference against Lizzy.
[B] If no defence statement is served the prosecution can make an appropriate comment on such failure, but
only with the leave of the Judge.
[C] If no defence statement is served counsel for any co-defendant can make an appropriate comment on
such failure, but only with the leave of the Judge.
[D] If a defence statement is served which fails to identify a point of law relied on by Lizzy, the prosecution
can make appropriate comment on such failure, but only with the leave of the Judge.
ANSWER: D
Failure to comply with the requirement to serve a defence statement means the Defendant is at risk of an adverse
inference being drawn (see Section 11(2) (a) (i) and Section 11(5) (a) and (b) of the CPIA 1996). If the judge
directs the jury as to the effect of the section he certainly would not direct them to draw an adverse inference.
He would direct them that they may do depending on their view of all of the circumstances. Therefore [A] is
wrong.
[B] and [C] are wrong because leave is not required in these circumstances. [D] is correct because in this
circumstance leave is required The circumstances where leave is required are set out in s.11(6)
BS 2017 D9.43
P a g e 1 | 112
,Question 2
Which one of the following statements concerning the admissibility, weight and relevance of evidence
is correct?
[A] Evidence must be relevant to be admissible.
[B] At no stage in a Crown Court trial will the Judge have to consider what weight to give to a piece of
evidence.
[C] The Judge has a discretion to admit inadmissible defence evidence.
[D] The Judge cannot exclude relevant prosecution evidence.
ANSWER: A
[A] correctly states the first rule of admissibility. BS 2017 F1.11
[B] is wrong, as a Judge in the Crown Court sometimes has to sit as the judge of fact as well as law – e.g. in a
Voir Dire. BS F1.32.
[C] is wrong – if evidence is inadmissible a judge cannot admit it.
[D] is wrong– e.g. a judge can exclude relevant prosecution evidence under s.78.
P a g e 2 | 112
,Question 3
Cathy (aged 18) was robbed in the street of five £20 notes by a young man wielding a pearl-handled knife.
Roland (also aged 18) was arrested minutes later near the scene on the basis of descriptions of the
robber given by Cathy and by another witness. Roland had seven £20 notes and three £10 notes on him
but no knife. Cathy attended a video ID procedure but did not pick out Roland. He was, however, picked
out by the other witness. Roland denies being the robber and is on trial at the Crown Court.
Which of the following pieces of evidence is the judge most likely to exclude on the basis of lack of
relevance?
[A] Evidence from the arresting officer as to the cash which Roland had on him when arrested.
[B] Evidence that Roland has two previous convictions for offences in which he used a pearl-handled knife.
[C] Evidence that, when Roland’s flat was searched following his arrest, police found £400 in cash in a
kitchen drawer.
[D] Evidence from Roland that, until last year, he was at school with Cathy.
ANSWER: C
[A] is relevant as Roland (aged only 18) has a lot of cash on him, including five notes of the same denominations
as those stolen from Cathy. It would be the prosecution’s case that any cash over the sum of £100 was in his
possession before he robbed her.
[B] is arguably strongly relevant as it tends to establish identity – the pearl handled knife is Roland’s hallmark. It
is “relevant to an important matter in issue” (i.e. identification) per gateway (g) (d) of s.101(1) CJA 2003. BS
F13.15 and 13.49.
[C] is likely to be excluded as irrelevant. It did not come from the robbery and is unconnected to it. There is no
evidence as to its provenance. Roland could have come by it legitimately in any number of ways. He could also
have come by it in any number of illegal ways which have no relevance to this charge – e.g. via drug dealing.
[D] This is relevant to the issue of ID. If they were at school together only a year ago it is highly likely that Cathy
would have recognised him. This is significant evidence for the defence.
P a g e 3 | 112
, Question 4
Gary is charged with robbery. It is alleged that he robbed the Halifax Building Society on 9 January 2017,
making off with £5,000. His defence is duress. At trial Gary testifies that on the morning of the robbery
Eric had come around to his flat, produced a gun and ordered him to carry out the robbery, threatening
to kill him if he failed to do so. Eric has since died.
Which ONE of the following statements about Gary’s testimony is CORRECT?
[A] Gary’s testimony of what Eric said to him is admissible as original evidence.
[B] Gary’s testimony of what Eric said to him is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
[C] Gary’s testimony of what Eric said to him is admissible as Eric has died.
[D] Gary’s testimony of what Eric said to him is admissible as ‘important explanatory evidence’.
ANSWER: A
A statement is not hearsay, but original evidence, if it adduced for the effect it had on the mind of the hearer,
rather than for its truth. BS F16.23. That is the purpose of adducing this evidence and therefore it is not hearsay.
[B] is wrong as, for the reasons just given, the evidence is not hearsay: it therefore cannot be an “exception” to
the hearsay rule.
[C] is wrong. The fact that he had died is irrelevant.
[D] is wrong. The phrase “important explanatory evidence” comes from the “character” gateways, which are not
relevant here. This evidence may well be explanatory, but it can only be adduced if it is admissible.
P a g e 4 | 112
