Question 1

An attempt to kill the Queen is subject to mandatory corroboration requirements. S1 Treason Act and and S2 (2)

Accepted Answer

Section 1 of the Treason Act makes an attempt to kill the Queen an act of high treason. Section 2(2) of the Act requires that any conviction for high treason must be based on the testimony of two witnesses. This is known as the rule of mandatory corroboration.

Question 2

Daniel, a witness to a crime, recognises his best friend Sam stealing a car on CCTV images produced by the court. Can the jury rely on this evidence? Using the case of A-G Reference (No 2 of 2002), it was held a jury can rely upon photogrpahic evidence in deciding whether the defendant committed the offence, where a witness knows the defendant sufficiently well to recognise the offender depicted in the photogrpahic image.

Accepted Answer

Yes, the jury can rely on this evidence. In the case of A-G Reference (No 2 of 2002), it was established that photographic evidence can be used by a jury to decide whether a defendant committed an offence, particularly when a witness is familiar enough with the defendant to recognize them in the photographic image. In the scenario provided, Daniel, who is a witness to the crime, recognizes his best friend Sam in the CCTV images presented in court. Since Daniel knows Sam well enough to identify him, his testimony regarding the recognition of Sam in the CCTV footage can be considered reliable evidence. Therefore, the jury can take Daniel's recognition of Sam into account when determining the guilt of the defendant. This precedent supports the admissibility and reliability of photographic identification by a witness who has sufficient familiarity with the person depicted in the images.

Question 3

In the law relating to identification evidence, when will a judge direct an acquital to the jury? A judge must make a serious objective decision whether the identification evidence alone justifies leaving the case to the jury (R v Shervington 2008)

Accepted Answer

According to the law, a judge may direct an acquittal to the jury if there is no other supporting evidence and if the identification evidence is based on a fleeting visit. In these circumstances, the judge may decide that the identification evidence is not strong enough to rely on and therefore direct an acquittal. If the witness saw the suspect for a long period of time or knows the suspect in question, the judge may decide that the identification evidence is stronger and allow the case to go to the jury for them to make their own decision.

Question 4

Which of the following questions must jurors take into account following the Turnbull Guidlines? The Turnbull guidelines were laid down by the Court of Appeal in 1977 to remind the jury of the possible dangers of identification evidence.

Accepted Answer

According to the Turnbull Guidelines, jurors must take into account all of the listed factors when evaluating identification evidence. Therefore, all of the choices are correct.

Question 5

Which significant case led to the creation of the Court of Appeal? The notorious case of Adolf Beckm who had been mistakenly identified by a numbe of victims of theft and fraud, let to the creation of the Court of Appeal in 1907. It took the courts 70 years to lay down guidelines on the possbility of mistaken identity.

Accepted Answer

The creation of the Court of Appeal was due to the case of R v Beck, where Adolf Beck was wrongly identified as a perpetrator of theft and fraud. The case highlighted the need for a higher court to review cases and prevent such miscarriages of justice. The other options (R v Curry, R v Daley, R v Turnbull) are significant cases in their own right, but they did not lead to the creation of the Court of Appeal.

Question 6

Which of the following statements is incorrect? In-court identifications are usally frowned upon, a judge could use their discretion under S78 PACE to have the evidence excluded as it would be unfair.

Accepted Answer

In-court identifications are not commonly made during a trial as they are typically viewed as unreliable due to the potential for the witness to have been influenced prior to the trial.

Question 7

Which country within the United Kingdom does not allow a conviction on the evidence of a single testimony? Under Scottish law, there is a requirement for corroborating evidence, as the possibility of an unjust outcome is reduced if the verdict is based on more than piece of evidence.

Accepted Answer

Scotland is the country within the United Kingdom that does not allow a conviction on the evidence of a single testimony, as there is a requirement for corroborating evidence under Scottish law.

Question 8

In English Law, when is corroboration required by statute? S89 (2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provies that a person may not be convicted of speeding on the basis of the uncorroborated evidence of one witness who has expressed an opinion that the defendant was speeding.

Accepted Answer

Corroboration is required by statute in speeding offences under S89 (2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It is not required in parking offences, theft offences, or offences against a person.

Question 9

What is the translation of the Latin test maxim testis unus testis nullusrelating to corroboration, used in many continental legal systems? The effect means that a conviction should not be secured on the basis of one persons testimony alone. This is not the stance currently taken under English common law.

Accepted Answer

The Latin phrase "test maxim testis unus testis nullus" translates to "one witness is no witness." This phrase is used in many continental legal systems to indicate that a conviction should not be based solely on the testimony of one person. However, this is not the stance taken under English common law.

Question 10

Breaches of Code D will automatically result in the evidence being excluded under S78 PACE. The nature of the breach and the quality of the identification evidence is crucial when the court exercises its discretion under S78. Exclusion is not automatic - (R v Forbes)

Accepted Answer

The statement that breaches of Code D will automatically result in evidence being excluded under S78 PACE is incorrect. The court has discretion under S78, and the decision to exclude evidence depends on the nature of the breach and the quality of the identification evidence, as highlighted in R v Forbes. Exclusion is not automatic.

Question 11

The Turnbull guidelines do not apply in cases where the prosecution seek to rely on voice identification evidence. According to Reid v R (1990), judges are required to given an even more stringent version of the Turnbull warning as it has be shown that experts giving evidence can still make mistakes.

Accepted Answer

The Turnbull guidelines, which are designed to assist with the evaluation of identification evidence, do apply to cases involving voice identification. In Reid v R (1990), it was indeed acknowledged that voice identification can be problematic and that experts can make mistakes, but the principles of caution outlined in Turnbull are still relevant and applicable to voice identification evidence, requiring judges to warn of the need for caution.

Question 12

Identification evidence is always reliable The nature of identification evidence means that it is often unreliable. The Turnbull guidelines provide some assistance in this area of law and although, the evidence can be suspect, it may still be admissible.

Accepted Answer

The statement "Identification evidence is always reliable" is false because identification evidence can be influenced by various factors such as memory distortion, suggestibility, and perception bias. The Turnbull guidelines were developed to help judges evaluate the reliability of identification evidence. Therefore, the admissibility of identification evidence depends on its reliability and credibility, which can be assessed by considering the circumstances in which it was obtained and the quality and accuracy of the identification.

Question 13

The case of R v Makanjuola confirms that a judge cannot give a warning to the jury for the lack of corrobartive evidence. The judge has discretion whether to issue such a warning and the nature of of the warning. A judge is likely to use this warning if the witness is show to have lied in the trial

Accepted Answer

The statement is incorrect. The case of R v Makanjuola actually established that a judge must give a warning to the jury if there is no corroboration for the defendant's confession, and that the judge must make it clear that the warning is mandatory rather than a matter of discretion. The case did not address the issue of a witness lying in the trial.

Question 14

Criminal courts may convict on the uncorroborated terstimony of one witness In English Law, a verdict can be based on evidence of a single witness or a confession. Subject to the few remaining exceptions.

Accepted Answer

According to English law, a verdict can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness or a confession, subject to some exceptions.

Question 15

Which Statute curtailed the need for obligatory warnings in the absence of corroboration of particular witnesses? S32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act removed the need for the judge to warn of the dangers of convicting in the absence of corroboration where the proescution witness was a complainant in a sexual offence or where they were an accomplice

Accepted Answer

The answer of Which Statute curtailed the need for obligatory...

Quiz 9: Suspect Evidence : Corroboration and Identification