Essay Question (2500-word maximum, strictly enforced)
Essay 1 topic :Discuss, with reference to case law, the effect of s. 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
PROBLEM QUESTION : Problem question (3250-word maximum, strictly enforced)
1. identify potential items of evidence
2. put those items into the order that they would appear at trial
3. discuss the potential inferences to be drawn from such evidence and how these relate to facts in issue.
4. address any legal questions that may arise about the use of such evidence, such as admissibility. You are expected to cite any statutory or case authority and to discuss that authority in the necessary depth
1. William and Constance are charged with conspiracy to possess articles for a purpose connected with an act of terrorism contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 57 reads:
(1) A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
The father of William and Constance has been convicted of the murder of a neighbour in a small town in Wiltshire, a conviction which they fervently believe was a miscarriage of justice. A detective inspector in charge of the original investigation, Jack Whicher, received information from an informant that William and Constance were planning a campaign of violence to publicise their father’s conviction. Whicher, acting without any authorisation, travels to London and enters the flat where William and Constance live. He conceals a microphone in the living room. Whicher tapes a telephone conversation between a person he believes to be Constance and an unknown caller in which Constance says, ‘We can’t wait any longer. Dad’s health is getting worse. It’s imperative we act decisively and we act now. Both of us agree.’ Whicher is told by his informant that William and Constance rent a lock-up garage in a different part of London.
Whicher obtains a search warrant and searches the garage where he discovers several sacks of ammonium nitrate. This is a commonly used garden fertiliser but which can be used to make an explosive if mixed with diesel oil. William and Constance are arrested and interviewed. They both explain that they are taking the fertiliser to their house in Wiltshire as it is cheaper to buy fertiliser in London.
After caution, Constance is interviewed. She denies that she took part in the telephone conversation and suggests that it must be another person living in the flat. Whicher calls in Savill, a phoneticist, who compares t
Durston G.: Evidence: Text and Materials (2nd ed Oxford 2011)
Munday R.: Evidence (6th ed Oxford 2011)