Evidence - 2024 Paper 1

Critically evaluate the rule against hearsay in criminal proceedings and the statutory exceptions introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Has the 2003 Act struck an appropriate balance between the need for reliable evidence and the rights of the accused?

Daniel is charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The prosecution seeks to adduce: (a) a statement made by the victim, Wendy, to her friend immediately after the alleged assault, describing what happened — Wendy has since moved abroad and cannot be traced; (b) CCTV footage from a neighbouring property showing Daniel in the area at the relevant time, but with a timestamp that may be inaccurate; (c) evidence that Daniel was convicted of assault three years ago; and (d) Daniel's interview with police in which he initially denied being present but later admitted he was at the scene. Advise on the admissibility of each piece of evidence.

Discuss the allocation and standard of the burden of proof in criminal and civil proceedings. To what extent do statutory and common law exceptions to the presumption of innocence comply with Article 6(2) ECHR?

Khalid is charged with robbery. During his police interview, conducted without a solicitor present despite his request for one, he confesses to the robbery. He later claims the confession was made under pressure — the interviewing officer told him "things will go much easier if you just tell us what happened." At trial, the prosecution also seeks to call an expert witness, Dr Peters, to testify that injuries found on the victim are consistent with the type of weapon Khalid allegedly used. The defence wishes to call its own expert, Dr Shah, whose report contradicts Dr Peters. Advise on the admissibility of the confession and the expert evidence.

Evaluate the law governing bad character evidence in criminal proceedings under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Has the statutory regime achieved its aim of creating a fair and workable framework for the admission of evidence of a defendant's previous misconduct?