Criminal evidence — SQE1 Criminal question
A worked single-best-answer question on criminal evidence, with why each wrong option is wrong — the way SQE1 traps candidates.
Rhea is charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The only independent eyewitness, Saul, gave a signed witness statement to the police describing Rhea punching the victim. Saul has since died in a road accident, before trial. The prosecution wish to put Saul's statement before the jury. The defence object that it is hearsay.
Which of the following best describes whether Saul's statement is admissible?
- AIt is inadmissible, because a written statement cannot be used where the witness is not available for cross-examination.
- BIt is admissible only with the court's leave, because the witness is unavailable through fear.
- CIt is admissible as hearsay because Saul is dead and could have given the evidence orally, subject to the court's power to exclude it.
- DIt is admissible only as a business document created in the course of a trade or profession.
- EIt is admissible only if the defence agree to it being admitted.
Show answer and reasoning
Rule: A hearsay statement by an identified witness who has died is admissible under s 116 CJA 2003 if his oral evidence would have been admissible, subject to the court's discretion to exclude.
- A The CJA 2003 provides statutory exceptions, including s 116 where a witness has died. (wrong rule)
- B Leave is required only for the fear ground (s 116(2)(e)); Saul is dead. (right rule, wrong facts)
- D Section 117 is one route for documents, but the statement is admissible under s 116 because Saul has died. (answers a different question)
- E Agreement is one route to admission (s 114(1)(c)) but is not required where a statutory exception applies. (wrong rule)
Source: Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss 114, 116 and 126; PACE 1984, s 78
Practise more Criminal Law and Practice All Criminal subtopics