Evidence Flashcards
6 cards from real BPTC practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 6 Evidence flashcards as text
What is the general rule on hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings under the Criminal Justice Act 2003?
Answer: Hearsay is admissible only if it falls within a statutory or common law exception
The CJA 2003 Part 11 abolished the common law rule against hearsay and replaced it with a statutory scheme: hearsay is admissible only if it falls within a defined gateway.
Which section of PACE 1984 gives the court a discretion to exclude prosecution evidence where its admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings?
Answer: Section 78
Section 78 PACE gives the court a broad discretion to exclude evidence on the grounds that, having regard to all the circumstances including how it was obtained, admitting it would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings.
What is the legal test for relevance of evidence?
Answer: The evidence makes a fact in issue more or less probable than it would be without the evidence
Evidence is relevant if its existence makes any fact of consequence to the determination of the case more or less probable — direct proof is not required.
Which of the following best describes 'similar fact evidence'?
Answer: Evidence of the defendant's past misconduct that is so similar to the current charge that it is relevant and not merely prejudicial
Similar fact evidence (now governed by CJA 2003 bad character provisions) is admissible where striking similarities between past conduct and the current charge make innocent coincidence highly improbable.
Oral evidence given in court is admissible only if the witness takes:
Answer: An oath or affirms that they will tell the truth
Witnesses must either take a religious oath or affirm — an affirmation has the same legal effect as an oath — before giving evidence in court.
The rule in 'Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales [1894]' established that:
Answer: Evidence of past bad acts is inadmissible to show propensity but may be admissible for other purposes such as rebutting a defence of accident
Makin established the foundational similar fact principle: evidence of other misconduct cannot be used simply to show the defendant is a bad person, but is admissible if relevant to a specific issue such as system, identity, or rebuttal of innocent intent.