You are on page 1of 4

PCLL CONVERSION EXAMINATION JANUARY 2014

Title of Paper

Evidence

Date

9 January 2014

Time

2:30 p.m. 5:30 p.m.

Instructions
1.

Write your candidate number on the cover of each answer book.


Do NOT write your name in the answer book.

2.

Start each answer on a separate page of the answer book.

3.

Write your answers only in the answer books provided.

4.

This is a three-hour examination.

5.

This is an open book examination.

6.

NO reading time is designated for this paper.

7.

This paper consists of 4 pages, including five compulsory questions. A total of 50


marks may be awarded. Candidates must answer ALL five questions. There is NO
element of choice.

8.

Each question is worth 10 marks.

9.

The passing mark for this paper is 25 marks.

DO NOT OPEN THIS QUESTION BOOK


UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO

PCLL Conversion Examination January 2014


Evidence
Question 1 (10 marks)
Malcolm is a delivery driver for Smiths Phones Limited. He is loading his truck one day for a
delivery to Westgate Limited. On his way out of the warehouse he shouts out to John "Tell
Neil, the foreman, I've loaded 100 Phones for Westgate". John tells Neil who compiles the
delivery record book.
Malcolm delivers a van-load of Phones to Westgate Limited but on the way back he is killed in
an accident. A week later Westgate Limited phones Smiths Phones Limited to say that
according to their records they are short of 25 Phones and apparently only 75 Phones were
delivered on the last delivery by Malcolm. Westgate Limited cannot now identify the employee
who received the phones delivered by Malcolm. Simon, who lives near the premises of
Westgate Limited, is found in possession of 25 Phones although they cannot be positively
identified as the missing Phones. The shop from which Simon claims he bought the 25 phones
is no longer in business and the owner cannot be traced. The prosecution believe Simon must
have stolen the phones from Malcolm's van.
(a) Advise the prosecution who wish to adduce the following evidence:
(i) The delivery record book of Smiths Phones Limited.
(ii) The stock record of Westgate Limited which is a computer print out allegedly showing
only 75 Phones received into stock on the day in question.
(iii) A statement from Simon's former girlfriend to the police that Simon has boasted that he
can make a lot of money from stealing things from the back of the van. She says Simon
will kill her if she testifies.
(b) Advise Simon who has discovered that Malcolm had two previous convictions for stealing
the property of former employers, and believes that Malcolm may have stolen the Phones
himself and falsely claimed to have loaded 100 for delivery.
(c) If, before dying after the accident Malcolm had said to the Ambulance driver "I know I am
not going to make it ... I must clear my conscience ...I sold those 25 phones, I am sorry. I
and then died. Would Malcolms statement be admissible on Simon's behalf?
Question 2 (10 marks)
Peter and Robin were arrested on suspicion of committing a burglary. Peter and Robin were
taken to Wan Chai police station where they were interviewed separately.
Peter claims that he asked to see his solicitor but that his request was refused on the ground
that waiting for his solicitor would cause unreasonable delay to the investigation. He further
claims that it was only when the police told him that Robin had confessed (and implicated
2

Peter) that he decided to confess. Peter then made a video-taped statement in which he
admitted his part in the burglary but claimed that it had all been planned by Robin. In fact
Robin had not made any confession and had maintained his silence throughout his
interrogation. Both men now stand jointly charged with burglary. Before the trial a voir dire is
held to determine the admissibility of Peters confession. On the assumption that the trial judge
accepts Peters account of what happened during his interrogation, prepare an argument to
support the exclusion of his confession using supporting case law.
Question 3 (10 marks)
Allen, Bob and Chekov were charged with three counts each relating to the theft of 3 cases of
Champagne from "Wilsons Wines", a large Wine Shop in North Point. They all pleaded not
guilty to the second and third counts but Bob pleaded guilty to the first count; namely,
obtaining office keys by deceit. Pixie, the manager of the store gives evidence for the
prosecution, stating that the three obtained the store keys without permission to perpetrate the
theft of the Champagne. Further they were in the store room on the evening that the 3-cases
allegedly disappeared.
Allen testified for himself. He claims that Bob had suggested to him at hockey practice that
there was a lucrative black market for Champagne around Christmas time and that it could be
Bob who stole the wine. He called Dr. Donald, his GP to say that he is an upstanding member
of the local community. Allen however, has a spent conviction for criminal damage to his
neighbour's car when they had a dispute over parking space ten years ago.
Bob did not testify. His counsel has cross-examined Pixie about a conviction which she had for
failing to pay her MTR fare while she was a student at City U in 1999.
Chekov testified and claimed that he knew nothing about the theft. He said he is a suspect
because Pixie would like to see him sacked, as he recently got into a fight with Pixies
boyfriend over a car-parking space. Chekov has several convictions for shoplifting.
Judge Liu has referred to Chekovs convictions briefly in his direction to the jury and asked the
jury to take note of Allens good character. Allen is acquitted, Bob and Chekov are convicted.
Advise on the evidence in the proceedings and brief direction of the judge. Is the judge's
direction appropriate? How would you direct the jury in this case?
Question 4 (10 marks)
a) The Defendant has admitted under cross-examination that he has previously made a
statement to police which conflicted with his Evidence in Chief and is inconsistent. What
directions on this evidence is the trial judge bound to make to the jury before considering their
verdict?
b) Witness X was called by the prosecution in a criminal trial of D for theft of a large quantity
of designer handbags from a delivery lorry. The witness initially gave evidence against the
Defendant (in a police statement) but has since been convicted of an unrelated drug trafficking
offence for which he is currently serving 10 years imprisonment. He was called by the

Prosecution (from Stanley Jail) in the trial of D. Giving his Evidence in Chief he now says I
cannot remember anything I said in my earlier statement to police and whatever it was, I made
it all up. What is the status of witness Xs evidence and how will the Judge direct the jury on
how they should treat this evidence?
Question 5 (10 marks)
The prosecution have charged D with Indecency with a Child under 16. D has pleaded not
guilty and therefore the child victim (aged 10) will be required to give evidence in the trial.
Explain the special rules of evidence that apply to a child giving evidence in a criminal trial in
Hong Kong, in particular in respect of the law relating to corroboration, competence, and any
special procedures that may apply to the admission of evidence from vulnerable witnesses
generally.

~ End of Examination Paper ~

You might also like