LA3007 May B1

LLB

Evidence

Friday 12 May 2023

You have FOUR HOURS AND 15 MINUTES in which to write your answers.

You must answer FOUR of the following EIGHT questions.

You must answer all parts of a question unless otherwise stated.

© University of London 2023

Page 1 of 6
1. ‘The rules of evidence “should facilitate rather than obstruct the search for truth,
and should simplify rather than complicate the trial process”.’ (The Auld Report
(2001), p 559).

To what extent do the current rules of evidence live up to these two ideals?

Discuss in relation to EITHER (a) OR (b):

(a) evidence of bad character;

(b) hearsay evidence.

2. ‘If the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, then the judge
would always correctly accept a defence submission of no case to answer.’

Discuss, adding critical comment where you think the law is unsatisfactory.

3. ‘The law on sexual history evidence is slowly evolving into a satisfactory body
of law. Given it is headed in the right direction it would be better not to “rock the
boat” now with further legislative reform.’

Discuss.

4. ‘All evidence is potentially unreliable; the problem with expert opinion (and
scientific evidence in particular) is that the law has failed to come up with the
means of effectively revealing or communicating its weaknesses to a jury.’

Discuss.

Page 2 of 6
5. Alerted by the alarm bell at Haldane Jewellers, police quickly arrive at
the shop, where the manager tells them that, 10 minutes earlier, a young
woman entered, threatened the staff, and made off with some gold
necklaces. He gives the police a description and says that she ran off in
the direction of Tufton Street. The police rush to Tufton Street and find a
young woman called Marie matching the description and wearing a gold
necklace. When the police ask her where she got the necklace, she tells
them it was a birthday present. They arrest her anyway but, on being
cautioned, and with her lawyer present, she repeats the same account
and denies any knowledge of the robbery. Her lawyer emphasizes to the
police that she has no previous convictions. She is charged with robbery
and released on bail.

A few days later, the police receive information that two friends of Marie,
Natalie and Olivia, have the rest of the jewellery and are looking to sell
it. Natalie and Olivia are known to the police as they have past
convictions, Natalie for petty theft and Olivia for fraudulent tax returns.
The police set up a fake pawn shop (a shop where people may
temporarily exchange goods for money or sell items outright) in a part of
town Natalie and Olivia are known to visit. A few days later, Natalie
comes in with a gold necklace, which she says was left to her in her
grandmother’s will. The undercover police officer in the shop says they
would be very interested in buying it, as well as any other jewellery she
might have, adding that the shop has an “ask no questions” policy on
where such goods might come from. Natalie then offers to bring in “a few
items from the Haldane’s job” (her own words). She is immediately
arrested on suspicion of handling stolen goods and cautioned.

While waiting for her solicitor to arrive, the police place Natalie in a cell
with Patricia, a police informant; the cell has covert recording equipment.
Patricia engages Natalie in conversation. When Natalie tells her what
she is charged with, Patricia asks her if she is worried the police will find
the rest of the jewellery. Natalie replies, “No chance. The necklaces are
all hidden at Olivia’s house.”

On listening to the recording, the police go to Olivia’s house with a

search warrant and find gold necklaces in her kitchen cupboard (later
confirmed to be from the robbery). Asked how they got there, Olivia says
nothing. She is arrested and cautioned but remains silent throughout her
interview on the advice of her solicitor.

At trial Marie is charged with robbery and Natalie and Olivia with handling
stolen goods. All three plead not guilty. Neither Marie nor Natalie testifies
at trial or call any witnesses. Natalie challenges the admissibility of the
statements she made in the pawn shop to the undercover police officer
and to her cellmate Patricia. Olivia does testify, saying Natalie asked her
to keep the necklaces at her house but did not tell her they were stolen.
She says she remained silent earlier because of her solicitor’s advice.

Discuss, adding critical comment where you think the law unsatisfactory.
6. Adam is due to stand trial for raping Beatrice in the car park of the
Caravan club on 10 May 2023. According to Beatrice, Adam accosted
her on her way through the club’s car park to the bus stop where she
was planning to get the night bus home. Adam will claim that Edward,
the bartender, told Adam that he had seen Beatrice looking at Adam in
a way that suggested she was interested in having a sexual encounter
with him. Adam agrees that he followed her out of the club but claims
that this was because she had beckoned him with a look back at him as
she left. He also says that when he stopped her in the car park, they
were standing right next to his sports car, which he pointed to, and then
Beatrice sat on the bonnet of his car where she willingly accepted his
sexual advances.

Adam will seek to call the following evidence in his defence:

(a) a statement from Craig, who will be away on a business trip at the
time of the trial, that he often went to the club and had seen Beatrice
get into the car of a different man at the end of each one of the seven
nights he had seen her there over the summer of 2022 and that they
had always been sports cars;

(b) oral evidence from David who claims he had consensual sexual
intercourse with Beatrice on the bonnet of his sports car in the club’s
car park the night before the alleged rape; and

(c) oral evidence from Edward, the bartender, who will give evidence
that he did tell Adam that Beatrice was interested in him and that his
reason for thinking this was that Beatrice was a regular at the club
and he had seen how she looked at men before “choosing her victim.
The woman is a sex hound. She has no moral principles and only
ever has one thing on her mind”.

Adam has two previous convictions for sexual assaults committed five
and eight years ago. He pleaded not guilty on both occasions.

Discuss, adding critical comment where you think the law unsatisfactory.
7. An anonymous caller phones the police at 10pm on the evening of 23
February, and shouts in an agitated tone, “A man is attacking a woman
right now at 45 Compston Avenue. I just saw it through the front window
of the house as I was driving past.” The police rush to the address, where
Alex answers the door and says that he has been home alone all evening
as his wife, Beatrice has gone away to the Swansea writers’ retreat and
cannot be contacted. He says he is a businessman and knows his rights
but allows the police to conduct a quick search of the house where they
find no one there and nothing incriminating. However, three days later a
dog walker finds Beatrice’s dead body, concealed under some branches,
in a stream that runs past the back of Alex’s house. The body has many
injuries and is covered in blood.

Alex is arrested and PC Cartwright cautions him. The duty solicitor

requested by Alex is taking a long time to arrive and PC Cartwright says
the interview will proceed immediately. The interview begins with Alex
protesting but PC Cartwright says that Alex, as a businessman,
obviously knows his rights so there is no problem. PC Cartwright adds,
“You will also know that everything will go easier for you if you just
confess now. We can easily get this scaled down to manslaughter if you
give us some suitable story. Maybe she was driving you crazy with her
constant nagging.” Alex at first denies everything, just saying that he
spent the whole evening quietly working in his study at the back of the
house. After five hours of repetitive questioning, PC Cartwright loses his
temper and starts shouting and swearing at Alex and says, “We know
for an absolute fact that Beatrice was never even at that Swansea
retreat.” (This is a lie as they have not been able to contact the retreat).
Alex then confesses to killing Beatrice.

Meanwhile, the police have found Alex’s mobile phone records, including
a message sent at 8am on 24 February to Deirdre, Alex’s neighbour:

‘Do you know how to get bloodstains off leather gloves?’

At trial, Alex pleads not guilty and challenges the admissibility of his
confession. He claims he has no idea how Beatrice’s body ended up in
the stream.

Discuss, adding critical comment where you think the law unsatisfactory.
8. Consider the following extract from directions to the jury in this fictitious
summing up. On the basis that a conviction resulted, advise whether
there are grounds for appeal, adding critical comment where you think
the law is unsatisfactory.

You have heard all the evidence identifying the defendant, Ms Allan, as
the driver of the car that hit Mr Bell and who then abandoned him to die
of his injuries. The key eyewitness, Mrs Curt, has told you that she ran
out of her house when she heard a loud bang and saw a man lying in
the road and a blonde woman in a dark coloured car driving away. Ms
Allan is blonde and has admitted that she owns a black car but
unfortunately Mrs Curt was unable to identify Ms Allan in an identification
procedure. You have also heard the very clear and, if I may say, very
convincing, testimony of Doctor Delany, who told how, while driving
home on the night in question, she was shocked and distressed to see
a man lying in the road and then looked up to see a woman sitting in a
dark coloured car nearby, whom she recognised as Ms Allan, a work
colleague from 15 years ago, at the same medical practice. It is
unfortunate that the police thought it would serve no useful purpose to
take Doctor Delany through a formal identification procedure but that is
a matter of discretion for the police. You the jury have viewed for
yourselves CCTV footage of a nearby road junction that, although rather
blurry, certainly seems to show a woman in a dark coloured car at the
relevant time. Professor Esau, an expert in facial mapping, has testified
that the facial proportions and features from the CCTV closely match
those of Ms Allan. Any of you among the jurors with better understanding
of these matters than myself might note the technicalities raised by the
defence cross examination of Professor Esau about his methodology.

Against all this powerful evidence, you must consider the alibi offered
very late in the day by Ms Allan, who says that she was in a hotel with
her lover, Mr Ferra, that evening. She admits that the story she initially
gave the police was untrue but says she was trying to protect Mr Ferra
as he is a married man. At trial Mr Ferra did testify in support of her
account but, if they were indeed lovers, would he not be prepared to say
anything in aid of her defence? Overall, you must assess this alibi story
bearing in mind that the burden of proof rests on the defendant so you
must be convinced on the balance of probabilities.

We must not forget the evidence given by Ms Gregor who briefly shared
a cell with Ms Allan and has told the court that Ms Allan was very upset
and admitted she had run over poor Mr Bell. In assessing Ms Gregor’s
evidence, it is perhaps relevant that, although being held on remand for
murder, she was given bail shortly after she supplied this evidence to
the authorities. You have the option of taking this into account.

Finally, there is Ms Allan’s character. She has been a nurse for many
years with an unblemished record. However, much as I would like to, I
am legally prohibited from telling you that she is of good character
because, in her youth she and some other young people stole a car and
drove it recklessly through the streets, for which she received a caution.

END OF PAPER