The English Laws of Evidence Trivia Quiz

Answer: Yes

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows for the drawing of adverse inferences in many instances from the accused's silence. However, the right does remain and the Judge directs the jury (in jury cases) as to what may be relevant in their deliberations.

Answer: Yes

Hearsay evidence is the same wherever you go in the courts. However, the law does have a very large number of exceptions to it. The Civil Evidence Act, 1995 allows for admission of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings between litigants, but it would not be used with cases where the strict rules of evidence are not enforced (small claims). Also, the 1995 Act does not render admissible evidence which is inadmissible for other reasons other than hearsay.

Answer: Yes

These hearsay statements will be admitted in murder or manslaughter trials as evidence of cause of death if they were made by the victim provided the victim was in settled, hopeless expectation of death (R v Perry - 1909). The victim must have been a competent witness when giving the statement. Eyres C.B. called them "declarations in extremity" and explained that this was why they were allowed to be given in evidence.

However, the judge when summing up to the jury, must direct them to scrutinise the evidence carefully.

Answer: Yes

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 allows for the admissibility of these statements in criminal proceedings. However, the Act allows the court to exclude the evidence if oppression (Section 76(2)a) was used on the maker, or if in consequence of anything said or done the statement is likely to be unreliable (S76(2)b).

The example in this question above was considered to be "oppression" in R v Beales (1991). Section 76(2)b in relation to "unreliability" appears to be a goldmine for prudent lawyers.

Answer: A "trial within the trial" ( but without the jury) to determine the admissibility of evidence

For instance the judge may hold a separate hearing (without the jury)
to decide if "oppression" (see the previous Question 4 above) has been used in obtaining a "confession" statement and thus whether it may be used in evidence before the jury. The judge does not concern himself with the truth of the statement and that will be for the jury to decide if the evidence is admitted to the main hearing. In fact, there was an old practice that emphasized the separate nature of these hearings in that a special oath was used for witnesses and this oath was called the "voir dire".

Answer: Yes

The judge may give permission for a witness to refer to their notes, but the judge will take into account in giving this permission as to how contemporaneous these notes are with the facts being given in evidence. Sometimes a witness may be given permission by the judge to refresh their memory from another person's notes, provided the witness has verified these notes while the events were still fresh in the witness's mind.

Answer: Where a prosecution case rests wholly or substantially on identification evidence

In R v Turnbull (1977) the court of appeal laid down a number of warnings that juries should bear in mind in these cases. This includes the period of observation and the fact that close relatives sometimes mistake one another on occasions. The most convincing people may sometimes be mistaken and place false confidence in their identification abilities. If the identification evidence is so weak and the identification evidence so central to the case, then the judge does clearly have the power to direct the jury to acquit rather than giving them the "guideline" warnings.

Answer: A statement by a witness that the document produced was written by the defendant

A witness may give opinions as evidence of facts which the witness perceives, but may not express opinions on matters where the court rules that expertise in making the opinion is required. A court would normally ask that a handwriting expert gives this evidence (where the facts are disputed). Also, in criminal cases the non-expert witness may not express an opinion on issues which it is for the court to decide.

Answer: yes

An affirmation is allowed. The oath carries the witness's moral and legal obligations to be honest. The affirmation is a legal duty (only) to tell the truth.

Answer: Yes

The police are just one body that may make such a claim. In deciding to grant a "Public Interest Immunity" the judge must weigh up the damage done to the public interest in disclosing the evidence, against the damage done to the public interest in not disclosing the evidence (Conway v Rimmer - 1968).

In D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (1978) the NSPCC successfully raised a case of public interest immunity.