MCQs Flashcards
Consider the reduction in length of a custodial sentence to reflect the entry of a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity.
Which one of the following statements is the most accurate?
[A] One-third is the greatest reduction available.
[B] One-sixth is the greatest reduction available.
[C] One-half is the greatest reduction available.
[D] One-eighth is the greatest reduction available.
[A] One-third is the greatest reduction available.
His Honour Judge Hungerford sitting at Snaresbrook Crown Court is dealing with the sentencing hearing of Thomas Gould. Thomas pleaded guilty to an offence of grievous bodily harm contrary to S.18 OAPA 1861, which is a specified offence for the purposes of the Sentencing Code.
He wishes to make an assessment of dangerousness. Consequently he has regard to s.308 Sentencing Code which deals with the evidential base for assessing this issue.
In particular, His Honour is rightly concerned with the question of whether the offender poses a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by him of further specified offences.
There are issues with regard to the accuracy of the record of previous convictions that has been made available for Gould. Whilst enquiries are being made with regard to clarifying that, His Honour invites the assistance of counsel in the case on the question of the relevance of previous convictions in making his assessment of dangerousness.
It is the collective view of both counsel that:
1) previous convictions may be relevant to His Honour’s assessment, whether those previous themselves fall into a specified category or whether they do not, and;
2) it is essential to a finding of dangerousness that the offender must first have some previous convictions (prior to the current matter before the Court).
Which of the following is the most accurate description of the views expressed by counsel:
[A] They are entirely correct in making the points set out under 1), but wrong in making the point set out under 2).
[B] They are entirely wrong in making the points set out under 1), but correct in making the point set out under 2).
[C] They are entirely correct in all the points they make.
[D] They are entirely wrong in all the points they make.
[A] They are entirely correct in making the points set out under 1), but wrong in making the point set out under 2).
Ruth Mould is a pupil to counsel instructed in the defence of a businessman charged with a fraud. That fraud, in specific terms, was alleged to have involved dishonest accounting and financial mismanagement amounting to the misappropriation of several million pounds. Mould’s supervisor is himself being led by a silk.
Whilst the defendant’s account of matters did provide him with the defence, nonetheless the somewhat implausible specifics of his stance made acquittal most unlikely. In summary, his account was that, although he was in overall managerial control of his company and did not deny that the sums involved had indeed been transferred from his client/customer accounts to a personal account of his, he himself had had no knowledge of that at any time. His stance was always that someone else must have made those transfers, somehow without his knowledge, although he could not suggest anyone who would have had that level of access to his affairs or the motive for acting in that way.
The trial has ended after several weeks and the defendant has been found guilty. The case has been adjourned for sentence. There has already been some preliminary discussion on the question of costs and fines.
Ruth was asked to do some research into the powers of the Crown Court when it comes those areas of costs and fines. This is particularly significant in this case given the potential for large sums of money to be involved in the court’s quantification of these matters.
The research she carries out leads her to make the following points to her supervisor:
1) An order for costs can properly have a punitive element, quite apart from a compensatory purpose;
2) In the event that the Court’s assessment of the level of a fine and its assessment of a figure for appropriate costs, when taken together, exceeded the sum which the defendant could reasonably be ordered to pay, the costs should be reduced rather than the fine;
3) the fact that a fine might be imposed does not of itself rule out the possibility of a custodial sentence also being properly imposed.
Which of the following is the most accurate description of the points made by Ruth:
[A] She is correct on points 1) and 3), but wrong on 2).
[B] She is wrong on points 1) and 3), but correct on point 2).
[C] She is correct on points 2) and 3), but wrong on point 1).
[D] She is correct on all three points.
[C] She is correct on points 2) and 3), but wrong on point 1).
Various judges sitting in the different courtrooms at Wood Green Crown Court one busy Friday morning were required to deal with several sentencing hearings. All the defendants concerned were over eighteen when convicted.
On the particular facts of the cases they were dealing with, the judges felt it relevant to have regard to the five sentencing purposes set out below in reaching their decisions. In some of the sentencing hearings that morning, the judges felt they could properly identify the application of no more than one of the purposes set out as being relevant to what they were seeking to achieve through the sentence they imposed.
The five identified purposes were:
1) the punishment of offenders.
2) the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence);
3) the reform and rehabilitation of offenders;
4) public protection;
5) the making of reparation by offenders to those affected by their offences;
Which of the following is the most appropriate comment on the purposes relied upon by the judges:
[A] Number 4) cannot be a legitimate purpose on its own; it has to be supported by the presence of one of the other four purposes.
[B] Number 5) is primarily intended to apply to crimes of dishonesty.
[C] It is entirely proper, as a minimum, for only one of the five stated purposes to be capable of being identified as being properly relevant to what a judge is seeking to achieve through the sentence imposed. Potentially the relevant purpose could be any one of the five.
[D] The Court of Appeal has repeatedly made the point that it is preferable for a sentencing judge to identify more than one purpose as being properly relevant to a sentence passed, in that this situation would in principle tend to provide more solid support for the correctness of that sentence.
[C] It is entirely proper, as a minimum, for only one of the five stated purposes to be capable of being identified as being properly relevant to what a judge is seeking to achieve through the sentence imposed. Potentially the relevant purpose could be any one of the five.
District Judge Greystoke sitting at Leicester Magistrates’ Court was minded to impose a two-year conditional discharge on a remorseful 21 year old man of hitherto exemplary good character who had pleaded guilty to one charge of criminal damage. The Defendant, whilst out with male friends, inebriated from drink and acting on a childish impulse, deliberately pushed over and broke a substantial ornamental flower pot in the garden of a pub in the village where he lived.
In imposing the sentence, the Judge made it clear to the Defendant that the primary condition was that he should commit no further offence during the period of the conditional discharge. He also imposed, as part of the order for conditional discharge, a requirement that the defendant should not visit the pub in question for a period of 12 months from the date of sentence being passed.
The Judge in addition imposed a compensation order, given the circumstances of the offence. The value of the damage had been satisfactorily quantified at £70 and the defendant had the means to pay compensation.
The Judge made the observation in sentencing that, although in all the circumstances he felt that the totality of the sentence was appropriate, had the potential existed in law for a conditional discharge of more than two years, then the defendant might have been at risk of such a sentence.
Which of the following is the most accurate comment on the stance taken by the District Judge:
[A] He was right to recognise that the maximum length of conditional discharge available in law would be two years. – wrong, max length is 3 years. E3.3 – Order for conditional discharge.
[B] He was within his powers to impose the restriction with regard to visiting the pub as part of the terms of the conditional discharge order. – wrong as the key part of the order is that the offender commits no offence during the time specified.
[C] On the facts provided, a conditional discharge should not have been considered as a potentially appropriate sentence.
[D] He was within his powers in imposing a compensation order in all the circumstances set out.
[D] He was within his powers in imposing a compensation order in all the circumstances set out.
You are instructed by the CPS to prosecute Thomas in relation to an allegation of malicious wounding contrary to s.20 OAPA 1861. It arises out of an incident at the Nag’s Head pub when he is alleged to have struck Simon with a glass, causing significant facial injuries. In interview, Thomas maintained it was an accident.
At the Plea Before Venue hearing [PBV] Thomas indicated a not guilty plea and was granted bail.
Since the PBV in relation to the wounding, the prosecution has sent you the following:
- two witness statements from members of the public who witnessed the incident. They describe how, after an initial verbal exchange between Thomas and Simon ended, Simon turned to walk away whereupon Thomas picked up a pint glass and struck Simon a heavy blow to his face from behind and said, “stitch that!”.
- a new brief to prosecute Thomas at a forthcoming PTPH in relation to an allegation of possession of cannabis with intent to supply. The police attended Thomas’s home after reports that he was dealing drugs. They discovered a small quantity of cannabis bagged in “dealer bags”, together with a “dealer list” and £790 cash. The officers dealing with the drugs matter are the same two officers dealing with the assault allegation. The Magistrates’ court declined jurisdiction as Thomas already faced Crown Court proceedings.
What advice will you give your reviewing lawyer as to how best to Indict Thomas at the forthcoming PTPH in relation to all matters he now faces?
[A] Draft a single Indictment with Count 1 alleging Wounding with Intent contrary to
s.18 OAPA 1861, Count 2 alleging Malicious wounding contrary to s.20 OAPA in the alternative to Count 1, Count 3 alleging Possession of cannabis with intent to supply and Count 4 alleging possession of cannabis as an alternative to Count 3. You advise this single Indictment on the basis that the same officers are involved in both allegations, and it would be convenient and in the interests of justice for them to give evidence on a single occasion.
[B] Draft a single Indictment with Count 1 alleging Wounding with Intent contrary to
s.18 OAPA 1861 and Count 2 alleging Possession of cannabis with intent to supply. You advise this single Indictment on the basis that the same officers are involved in both allegations, and it would be convenient and in the interests of justice for them to give evidence on a single occasion, and there is no need to indict the s.20 or simple possession as the Jury could convict as alternatives if they were not sure about the intent elements.
[C] Draft two indictments: Indictment 1, with Count 1 alleging Wounding with Intent
contrary to s.18 OAPA 1861 and Count 2 alleging Malicious wounding contrary to s.20 OAPA in the alternative; and Indictment 2 with Count 1 alleging Possession of cannabis with intent to supply and Count 2 alleging possession of cannabis in the alternative. Prosecution to seek a trial in respect of the assault indictment first and decide, following the outcome of the trial in relation to that Indictment, whether it is in the Interest of Justice to seek a trial in relation to the second Indictment.
[D] Draft two indictments: Indictment 1, with a single Count alleging Wounding with
Intent contrary to s.18 OAPA 1861, and Indictment 2 with a single Count alleging Possession of cannabis with intent to supply. There is no need to plead the lesser alternatives. Prosecution to seek a trial in respect of the assault indictment first and decide, following the outcome of the trial in relation to that Indictment, whether it is in the Interest of Justice to seek a trial in relation to the second Indictment.
[C] Draft two indictments: Indictment 1, with Count 1 alleging Wounding with Intent
contrary to s.18 OAPA 1861 and Count 2 alleging Malicious wounding contrary to s.20 OAPA in the alternative; and Indictment 2 with Count 1 alleging Possession of cannabis with intent to supply and Count 2 alleging possession of cannabis in the alternative. Prosecution to seek a trial in respect of the assault indictment first and decide, following the outcome of the trial in relation to that Indictment, whether it is in the Interest of Justice to seek a trial in relation to the second Indictment.
A man is charged with conspiracy to defraud a bank by the unlawful use of cheques. He is also charged with street robbery, allegedly committed three months later. The C.P.S. ask you to consider whether there is a basis for joining these two offences in the same indictment.
Which of the following is the most accurate statement of the correct position?
[A] The two offences form part of a series of offences of the same or similar character due to the common element of dishonesty, and therefore possess a clear basis for joinder in the same indictment.
[B] The two offences have no clear basis for joinder in the same indictment because two offences cannot constitute a “series”.
[C] The two offences have a clear basis for joinder in the same indictment because they are founded on the same factual basis.
[D] The two offences have no clear basis for joinder in the same indictment because the common element of dishonesty is not a sufficient feature of similarity to allow them to be described as a series of offences of the same or similar character.
[D] The two offences have no clear basis for joinder in the same indictment because the common element of dishonesty is not a sufficient feature of similarity to allow them to be described as a series of offences of the same or similar character.
You defend Michael who faces an allegation, contrary to s.21(2) Firearms Act 1968, that he had in his possession a “firearm” within 5 years of release from prison. He was released 2 years ago from his last sentence for robbery.
Michael was recently arrested for burglary and following his arrest his home address was searched by the police. During the search the police discovered an old, rusty sawn-off shotgun in his garden shed. The shotgun was wrapped in a plastic bin liner. Michael’s left palm print was found on that liner. The shotgun was tested for fingerprints, but none were found.
Michael is due to appear at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court tomorrow when it is anticipated that his case will be sent under s.51 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to Nottingham Crown Court for a PTPH to be held there within 28 days.
The prosecution has served a bundle of evidence upon which they intend to rely and, upon reading the papers, you notice that the prosecution has not served any expert evidence to establish that the shotgun is a “firearm” as defined under the Firearms Act 1968. This is an essential element of the charge to be proved by the prosecution if they are to succeed with their case. You explain to Michael that this failure on the part of the prosecution may be fatal to them proving their case.
What advice would you give Michael as to the correct course of action the defence should take?
[A] – to make an application for dismissal of the charge at the PBV hearing at the Magistrates’ Court.
[B] – to make an application for dismissal of the charge to the Crown Court Judge and that this application may be made at any time before the start of the defence case at trial. It would be tactically wise not to make the application until the prosecution close their case, as to make it earlier could give the prosecution an opportunity to obtain evidence to overcome the fatal deficiency in their case.
[C] – to make an application for dismissal to the Crown Court Judge which must be done before he is arraigned at the PTPH.
[D] – it would not be appropriate to make an application to dismiss the case on these facts and that his only option is to make a submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution case.
[C] – to make an application for dismissal to the Crown Court Judge which must be done before he is arraigned at the PTPH.
In an application for dismissal before a Crown Court judge, in circumstances where there are a number of separate allegations against the accused, the judge may:
(i) decide there is a case to answer on the charges set out;
(ii) decide there is a case to answer on some of the charges; - judge can accept or reject some.
(iii) decide there is no case to answer.
Which of the following is the most accurate statement of the correct position?
[A] Only (i) is correct.
[B] Only (i) and (ii) are correct.
[C] all of them are correct.
[D] only (i) and (iii) are correct.
[C] all of them are correct
- The defendant is accused of assault. His defence is self-defence. The day after the alleged incident the complainant told her closest friend that she had been assaulted by the defendant. Is the complaint to the friend potentially admissible evidence in the trial against the defendant?
(i) Yes, if the complaint was made voluntarily and not as a result of a threat or a promise.
(ii) No, because it is a previous consistent statement.
(iii) No, because complaints of this sort are only potentially admissible when dealing with allegations of a sexual nature.
(iv) No, because the complaint was made too long after the alleged incident.
Which of the four options below best represents the current state of the law?
[A] (ii) and (iii) only
[B] (iv) only
[C] (ii) and (iv) only
[D] (i) only
(i) Yes, if the complaint was made voluntarily and not as a result of a threat or a promise.
- Gillian Smith is a prosecution witness in the trial of Bobby Cowell. The allegation is that Cowell stole £300,000 from his employer, the Co-op Bank, over a period of 18 months. The incident occurred 10 years ago, but the alleged thefts have only recently been discovered. At the time, Gillian was the branch manager. The prosecution want her to confirm that she unwittingly authorised various fraudulent transactions carried out by Bobby (there is no allegation of any criminal involvement on Gillian’s part). Gillian has lost all recollection of the specific transactions. She can, however, speak about the process that would have been used. She can also confirm that the signatures on the documents are hers and that her signing the documents meant that she had approved the transactions.
At the trial, Gillian read her statement before going into the witness box. When questioned by prosecuting counsel she is asked about the transactions; she says that she is unable to recall them. Prosecuting counsel is considering an application for Gillian to be permitted to refresh her memory using the various documents which concern the specific transactions.
Which of the following best describes the situation?
(i) Prosecuting Counsel could not rely on s.139 CJA 2003 as this is not a case of ‘present recollection revived’.
(ii) Prosecuting Counsel could rely on S.139 as this provision covers ‘past recollection recorded’.
(iii) Prosecuting Counsel could sensibly consider seeking to rely on s.120 CJA 2003 as a route towards Gillian being allowed to reference the documents.
(iv) The documents could not be relied upon as they would be likely to be viewed as hearsay evidence.
(A) (i) only.
(B) (ii) only
(C) (i) and (iv) only
(D) (i) and (iii) only
(D) (i) and (iii) only
Which court(s) could deal with the offence of possession of an offensive weapon contrary to the Prevention of Crime Act 1953?
Either way offence – Magistrates or crown court.
Magistrates can deal with this matter because the sentence can be between 6-24 months and magistrates can sentence up to 6 months.
It has been suggested to you by a colleague in chambers that flick knives are not offensive per se. What is the position?
Yes, butterfly knives are illegal in the UK.
- What is the maximum sentence for the offence of dangerous driving:
a) If the matter is dealt with in the magistrates’ court?
b) If the matter is dealt with in the crown court?
6 months - mags
2 years - crown
The jury are considering the case of Smith, Brown and Sharpe all charged with violent disorder. They are the only three charged with the offence. Consider the two scenarios:
a) The evidence in the case was that the violence involved only the three individuals named in the indictment. If Brown is acquitted can the jury convict either or both of the other two of violent disorder?
They can convict either one or both of them
b) The evidence in the case was that the violence involved a mob of twenty youths. If Smith is acquitted can the jury convict either or both of the other two of violent disorder?
They can convict either one or both of them
The jury are considering the case of one John Groves who is charged with violent disorder. They find him not guilty of this offence. Is it open to them to return a verdict of guilty to threatening behaviour (s.4 POA 1986)?
Yes.
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.
What is the maximum sentence the Crown Court could impose in respect of a conviction for threatening behaviour (s.4 POA 1986) in the circumstances described in question 6?
6 months according to s4 POA 1986
A student, studying for the bar, is trying to make sense of some of the ways in which evidence could be classified. In particular, he feels it might be helpful to try to identify some rules or principles with regard to distinguishing between direct evidence, circumstantial evidence and the concept of relevance itself. To that end, he devises the four statements set out below.
Which of the four is the most accurate and helpful one for him to be guided by?
A. Circumstantial evidence must be inherently weaker than direct evidence because it does not speak so obviously of the commission of an offence.
B. Eyewitness testimony would be the most reliable form of evidence in the typical criminal case.
C. Relevant evidence should be admissible, whatever the particular degree or level of its relevance.
D. It is dangerous to suppose that, as between direct and circumstantial evidence, one or the other should naturally be assumed to be of more value in a typical criminal case.
D. It is dangerous to suppose that, as between direct and circumstantial evidence, one or the other should naturally be assumed to be of more value in a typical criminal case.
Which of the following statements with regard to formal admissions in the Crown Court is correct?
i) In court, a formal admission may be made orally by counsel or a solicitor.
ii) Formal admissions in written form should usually be put before the jury.
iii) Once made, a formal admission cannot be withdrawn.
iv) Any fact which has been formally admitted ceases to be an issue - it must be taken to have been proved.
Which is correct:
A. All four statements.
B. i), ii) and iv).
C. ii) and iv).
D. i), ii) and iii).
B. i), ii) and iv).
You prosecute a defendant charged with violent disorder. During your cross examination of him you fail to challenge a material aspect of his case that the prosecution maintain is a lie. During your closing speech you intend to invite the jury to conclude that the defendant lied to them about this matter.
Which of the following statements best represents the typical position?
[A] It would be proper to invite the jury to reach this conclusion because your speech is not evidence.
[B] It would not be proper to invite the jury to reach this conclusion because you failed to challenge him on this aspect of the case.
[C] It would be proper to invite the jury to reach this conclusion because you have an evidential basis for believing that the defendant has lied on oath.
[D] It would be proper for you to invite the jury to reach this conclusion because you are not obliged to challenge the defendant on matters in dispute in offences of violence.
[B] It would not be proper to invite the jury to reach this conclusion because you failed to challenge him on this aspect of the case.
- You represent Andrea Sanders at her trial for the offence of S.47 ABH. A prosecution witness (not the complainant) gives evidence and says that she saw Andrea punch and kick the complainant. You are in possession of their witness statement in which she said that she was unable to identify who assaulted the alleged victim.
What would be the best approach for you to adopt when cross-examining this witness?
[A] You would not be permitted to contradict the witness using their previous statement as this is on a matter going to credit and not the issue.
[B] You would not be permitted to contradict the witness using their previous statement as the witness in question is not the complainant and, in the circumstances of a case such as this, it is only the complainant whom you are permitted to contradict using the mechanism of a previous inconsistent statement.
[C] You would be permitted to contradict the witness using a previous statement of theirs as long as the previous statement is a signed witness statement. You would not be permitted to contradict a witness on a statement that is not a signed witness statement.
[D] You would be permitted to contradict the witness using their previous statement as long as the witness confirms that they made the statement and the statement is made available to the judge for inspection if required.
[D] You would be permitted to contradict the witness using their previous statement as long as the witness confirms that they made the statement and the statement is made available to the judge for inspection if required.
Graham has been arrested whilst walking home alone from a rugby match. Specifically,
he was intercepted immediately after leaving a mini-supermarket carrying bags of shopping. The match finished one hour before, and the arresting officer is acting on the basis of recorded closed-circuit television footage of events which took place during the game. The footage gives clear images of Graham behaving in a manner which amounted to involvement in affray. On being challenged by the officer, he was calm and co-operative. He confirmed his identity by means of his driving licence and staff card from his place of work. The officer was satisfied as to his identity, but was however concerned that if he allowed Graham to go on his way the investigation could not be investigated promptly and effectively.
Which one of the following statements is the most accurate description of the legality of the arrest?
[A] The arrest was lawful, based on the concerns that are described.
[B] The arrest was lawful because of the maximum sentence available for affray.
[C] The arrest was lawful because the officer had some basis for fearing that, if allowed to proceed, the defendant might injure someone.
[D] The arrest was unlawful because no power of arrest exists in the circumstances described.
[A] The arrest was lawful, based on the concerns that are described.
