Intro/Categories of offences/Bail/Hearsay/BC Flashcards
(24 cards)
Murder – manslaughter due to diminished responsibility – battered wife syndrome – will court bail you?
Yes, court will bail you in these circumstances
Why would you be bailed for a rape charge?
Underage sex e.g. 15 and 16.
Around the issue of consent eg intoxication – between partners, they’ve broken up and one of them has made the allegation of rape, there’s sufficiency to charge and prosecute but there’s a good chance he genuinely believed there was consent.
Sex games.
Bail for Indictable or either way offence which carries custodial sentence?
D need not be granted bail if there’s substantial grounds for believing he would fail to surrender, commit further offences, interfere with witnesses, committed the offence whilst on bail, already serving a custodial sentence for another offence.
Strangulation – either way offence - bail?
It’s punishable with imprisonment, man strangles wife, if he’s bailed, he’ll go back to the house and beg her to drop the charges, this fits in with interferences with witnesses.
Summary only offence but imprisonable - which offence is it?
common assault – so the test is more lenient
Bail for indictable/either way offence?
No bail if court believe there’s a chance you’ll fail to surrender
Bail for summary offence?
If you’ve previously failed and if court believe you’ll fail to surrender again
Difference between the test for summary and indictable offence when it comes to bail?
Indictable - Commit further offences and substantial grounds for believing they’ll do it again
Summary – Commit further offences but in addition that these offences will cause physical or mental injury.
Indictable – committed on bail
Summary – committed on bail and believing they’ll commit offence again
Killing someone in self defence (self defence is a full defence) but it will be charged as murder, you only raise self defence at trial.
True or false?
True
Convicted offender – keep him in custody.
True or false?
True
If you are 18+, been charged with an imprisonable offence, there’s class A drugs in your system or you’ve refused to be assessed, will you be granted bail?
No
2 bail applications in the mags, if they’ve refused both, you can go to the crown court.
Remanding in custody – concern about habeas corpus – if they’ve been remanded without charge or trial, its impeding on their human rights, usually you get 1 week remand in custody and then its done 28 days at a time, then on the 4th lot of 28 days, you have to appear in court. 3x 28 days + 7 days = 90 days
Burden of proof is on P but burden can be on D if they’re raising a defence like self-defence or diminished responsibility.
True or false?
True
Ignore witness summons – you’re in contempt of court and can be imprisoned.
True or false?
True
Exceptions for compellability?
young persons, vulnerable, doesn’t understand the nature of an oath.
Spouses cannot be compelled to give evidence against their spouse, unless…?
it’s to do with child sex offences as partner is either complicit or negligent and has to give evidence against their spouse.
Hearsay – gateways:
- Unavailable Witness (s.116)
The person can’t come to court (e.g. dead, too ill, can’t be found).
Their earlier statement can be used if they can’t testify for a good reason. - Business Documents (s.117)
Records or statements made during normal business or professional activity.
Must have been made by someone with personal knowledge or based on reliable info. - Previous Statements (s.120)
A witness gives evidence in court, and their earlier statement is consistent with it.
Used to support or clarify their in-court testimony. - Agreed Evidence (s.114(1)(a))
Both the prosecution and defence agree to allow the hearsay in. - Already Admissible by Law (s.114(1)(b))
There are other laws or rules (common law or statute) that allow it. - Interests of Justice (s.114(1)(d))
The judge decides it’s fair and necessary to admit the hearsay.
Used when none of the other gateways apply but the evidence is important. - Confessions (common law)
A confession by the defendant can be used even if it’s hearsay.
Includes things said out of court that go against the person’s interest. - Expert Evidence
Experts can refer to hearsay if it’s commonly relied upon by other experts in the field.
Vye direction?
A Vye direction comes from the case R v Vye (1993). It’s used to help the jury understand how to treat the defendant’s previous good character (if they have one).
🔹 It covers two key points:
Credibility –
If the defendant has no past convictions, the jury may take that as a reason to think they are more likely to be telling the truth.
Propensity –
A good character can also mean the defendant is less likely to have committed the offence, especially if it involves dishonest or violent behaviour.
🔹 When is it used?
Only if the defendant has no (or limited) criminal record, and their good character is raised at trial.
🔹 In short:
“Because this person has no criminal record, you (the jury) may think they’re more likely to be telling the truth, and less likely to have committed the crime — but you don’t have to. It’s your decision.”
Lucas direction?
A Lucas direction is another special instruction a judge gives to the jury—but this one is about lies told by the defendant (or a witness).
🔹 What is a Lucas Direction?
It comes from the case R v Lucas (1981), and it’s used when the prosecution says the defendant is lying, and that this proves they’re guilty.
🔹 Why is it important?
People lie for many reasons—not just because they’re guilty. The Lucas direction reminds the jury of this so they don’t automatically assume guilt just because someone lied.
🔹 The judge tells the jury:
Just because the defendant lied, it doesn’t mean they’re guilty.
A lie is only evidence of guilt if:
It was deliberate,
It relates to a serious issue,
The lie was told after the crime (not during it),
And there’s no innocent reason for the lie (like shame, panic, or protecting someone else).
🔹 In simple terms:
“You shouldn’t assume the defendant is guilty just because they told a lie. People lie for many reasons. Only count it against them if you’re sure the lie was deliberate and can’t be explained in another way.”
When can you raise previous convictions of the Defendant?
Previous convictions – can only raise them in trial if they are of the same fact or offence, if the context is the same. E.g. committing the crime at night in a certain outfit, not the same offence but the same facts/circumstances.
Bad character definition?
Under Section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, bad character is defined as:
“Evidence of, or a disposition towards, misconduct on the part of the defendant, other than evidence which has to do with the alleged facts of the offence or is relevant to the investigation or prosecution of that offence.”
In simple terms:
Bad character means showing that a person has a history of behaving badly, like committing crimes, being dishonest, or acting aggressively, not directly related to the current offence they are on trial for.
Key points:
* Misconduct includes:
o Previous convictions
o Cautions
o Other bad behaviour, even if not criminal (e.g. violence, dishonesty)
* Not bad character if:
o It relates directly to the current offence
o It’s about how the police investigated the case
Example:
* If someone is on trial for theft, and they have a past conviction for burglary, that could be introduced as bad character evidence to show a pattern of dishonesty.
Jury MUST (not may) be directed that an adverse inference alone cannot prove guilt.
True or false?
True
Solicitor advises you to stay silent in interview – no prima facie case – in court they’ve said your silent cus your guilty, you can say that your silent based on advice of sol, if you did, you’d have to waive sol and client privilege, in which this would be sufficient reasoning for your silence, as you acted on sol advice.
Turnball direction?
A Turnbull direction is a special instruction a judge gives to the jury when the case depends heavily on identification evidence — that is, when a witness claims to have seen and recognised the defendant.
Where does it come from?
It comes from the case R v Turnbull (1977).
Why is it important?
Because mistaken identity is a common cause of wrongful convictions, especially when the witness is honest but mistaken.
When is it used?
*When the prosecution’s case depends on someone saying “I saw the defendant do it.”
*Especially where there’s no other strong evidence.
What the judge tells the jury (in simple terms):
“Be very careful before convicting based only on identification. Even honest witnesses can be mistaken. Think about the circumstances: how well did the witness see the person? For how long? In what light? From what distance?”
The jury must consider:
*How clearly the witness saw the person
*How long they had to observe them
*Lighting, distance, and obstacles
*Whether the witness had seen the person before
*Any discrepancies between the witness’s description and the defendant
In short:
A Turnbull direction warns the jury to be cautious when a case relies heavily on a witness saying, “That’s the person I saw,” especially when that’s the main or only evidence.
