Advanced Criminal Practice Flashcards

Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, what is the test for admitting evidence of a defendant's bad character?

Answer: Bad character evidence is admissible through one of seven 'gateways' in s.101(1), and the court must consider whether admitting the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings that it ought not to be admitted

Section 101(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides seven gateways through which bad character evidence may be admitted, including by agreement (gateway a), relevance to an important matter in issue (gateway d), and propensity (gateway d). Under s.101(3), the court must not admit evidence under gateway d or g if its admission would have such an adverse effect on fairness that it ought not to be admitted.

What constitutes the mens rea for murder under English law, as established in R v Woollin [1999]?

Answer: An intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, where intention includes a virtual certainty that death or GBH would result from the defendant's actions, so appreciated by the defendant

The mens rea for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (R v Vickers [1957]). In R v Woollin [1999], the House of Lords held that a jury may 'find' intention where they are satisfied that death or serious harm was a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and the defendant appreciated this. This 'Woollin direction' applies to oblique/indirect intent.

Under the Sentencing Act 2020, which purposes of sentencing must a court have regard to when sentencing an adult offender?

Answer: The punishment of offenders, the reduction of crime (including by deterrence), the reform and rehabilitation of offenders, the protection of the public, and the making of reparation by offenders

Section 57(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020 (formerly s.142 CJA 2003) sets out five purposes of sentencing: punishment, reduction of crime (including deterrence), reform and rehabilitation, public protection, and reparation. The court must have regard to these purposes when determining the appropriate sentence, reflecting a balanced approach to criminal justice.

In relation to the partial defence of loss of control under ss.54-56 Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which of the following is a qualifying trigger?

Answer: A fear of serious violence from the victim against the defendant or an identified person, or circumstances of an extremely grave character that caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged

Sections 55(3) and 55(4) CJA 2009 provide two qualifying triggers: (1) fear of serious violence from the victim (the fear trigger); (2) things said or done constituting circumstances of an extremely grave character causing a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged (the anger trigger). Section 55(6) explicitly excludes a desire for revenge, and sexual infidelity alone cannot constitute the anger trigger (s.55(6)(c)).

What is the legal test for dishonesty in criminal law following the Supreme Court's decision in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017]?

Answer: A single objective test: the court determines what the defendant actually knew or believed about the facts, then decides whether that conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people

In Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017], the Supreme Court held that the second limb of the Ghosh test (whether the defendant realised their conduct was dishonest by ordinary standards) was wrong. The correct test is: (1) ascertain the defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts; (2) determine whether that conduct was dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary decent people. This was confirmed for criminal cases in R v Barton [2020].

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), what is the consequence of a significant and substantial breach of Code C during a suspect's detention and interview?

Answer: The court has discretion under s.78 PACE to exclude evidence if admitting it would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings that it ought not to be admitted

Section 78 PACE 1984 gives the court discretion to exclude prosecution evidence where, having regard to all the circumstances including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, its admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings that it ought not to be admitted. Breaches of PACE Codes of Practice (such as failure to caution, denial of legal advice, or oppressive interviewing) are significant factors but do not automatically result in exclusion.