Faculty of Social Sciences – Assessment Brief for Students – 2020/21
|Module code and title
|6LW042 LAW OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE|
|Diet||May 2021 Resit
|12 May 2021 by 14.00 GMT|
|Online through Canvas|
|2500 WORDS excluding footnotes and bibliography|
|Assessment brief (if appropriate, please refer to module assessment briefing document)
| Read the following case scenarios and then answer ALL the questions:
Case 1 Riaz worked as a shop assistant at the Electrowolves shop. He was accused of stealing an iPhone by the manager, who told Riaz that if he admitted taking the device, he would take the matter no further, but that if he did not admit it, he would contact the police. Riaz admitted taking the iPhone but the manager “went back on his word” and called the police. Riaz was arrested and questioned at the police station. Riaz asked to consult a solicitor on his arrival but the police told him that it would only delay matters and they would release him anyway, provided he co-operated and confessed. Riaz confessed to the offence and in the early hours of the morning was charged and released on bail to appear at court at a later date. The next day, Riaz’s colleagues, Ahmed and Marria, were also both arrested for stealing iPhones. Neither Ahmed nor Marria made any comment in their police interviews. Marria said she remained silent because she was acting on her solicitor’s advice. Both were charged and bailed.
At trial, Riaz testified and denied the offence. Ahmed chose not to give evidence, but Ahmed’s advocate cross-examined prosecution witnesses. Some witnesses were colleagues at Electrowolves who claimed to have seen Ahmed taking iPhones. They were cross-examined by Ahmed’s advocate to the effect that they had taken the iPhones themselves and were blaming Ahmed. Another prosecution witness, Tina, claimed to have seen a man, fitting Ahmed’s description, leave Electrowolves with a large carrier bag full of iPhones, which he accidentally dropped on the pavement. The Electrowolves manager stated that Ahmed would not be authorised to take a large bag of iPhones out of the store in this way. Tina was cross-examined by Ahmed’s advocate to the effect that, as it was a dark and wet January evening when she saw this, she must have been mistaken.
Marria gave evidence at trial and, although initially she denied the offence, she later admitted taking the iPhones. She claimed that she had only done it because she knew Ahmed had mental health problems and, in her words, was “absolutely insane”. He had threatened to break her legs if she did not join in with the theft and she believed that he would carry out his threat. That is, she claimed that she had the defence of duress.
Case 2 Riaz is now due to stand trial on an unrelated matter. After he left the police station in connection with the theft of iPhones, Riaz walked back to the place where he had left his car and drove home. On the way home Riaz crashed into a bus stop, killing Derek, who was waiting for a bus to arrive. Riaz was charged with the offence of causing death by careless driving, contrary to s.2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Riaz believes that he was suffering from “inattentional blindness” and proposes to call expert evidence on this condition at trial. The expert, Dr Gian, will state that it was possible for a driver to be driving in a careful and competent way but fail to see a bus stop due to this phenomenon. In order to support his opinion, Dr Gian will rely on some unpublished reports by other experts in the new field of “inattentional blindness”, which is part of the wider (and highly controversial) subject of “mind magic”.
In relation to Case 1 only:
(1) Explain how the burden of proof will apply to Marria and Riaz AND also to Ahmed if he relied on a defence of insanity.
(2) Discuss whether it will be possible for Riaz’s confession to be excluded from the evidence that the jury will consider.
a) Explain how, if at all, s.34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 will apply to both Marria and Ahmed (for the purposes of this question assume Ahmed is not insane in law);
b) Explain how the trial judge might direct the jury regarding Tina’s evidence.
In relation to Case 2 only:
a) Will Riaz be able to call Dr Gian to give evidence?
b) What are the issues relating to the admissibility of expert opinion evidence that will be relevant to whether this evidence is admissible?
|Assessment Criteria (The actual assessment components for this assignment)|
|Criteria||Weighting (If applicable)|
|Knowledge of the relevant areas of the law of criminal evidence|
|Clear and concise explanation of the law|
|Clear and concise application of the law|
|Academic writing skills|
Other (PSRB or subject specific)
|Performance descriptors in use:
· University of Wolverhampton Yes þ No
· Professional or Statutory Body Yes No þ
· Module specific Yes No þ
|Return of assessments
(Instructions for return / collection of assessments)
You will be notified through Canvas of a date when assessments may be viewed.
|This assessment is testing Module Learning outcomes||Tick if tested here|
|LO1||Illustrate knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to graduate employment and specifically to employment within the criminal justice system and related areas. Considering ethics and the concept of justice and the institutions with which the law is administered.||ü|
|LO2||Apply theory to real world practice of policing and related areas, namely criminal legal practice. Illustrating a broad range of transferable skills, both personal and academic, enabling the individual to maximise graduate employment opportunities. Engaging with their own personal and professional development and academic integrity.||ü|
Additional information for students
The University’s Learning Information Services have produced a series of guides covering a range of topics to support your studies, and develop your academic skills including a guide to academic referencing http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx
Your module guide and course handbook contain additional and important information regarding;
Whilst many modules require referencing in accordance with the Harvard Referencing convention, some modules – for example those within the School of Law – require Oxford Referencing. Please familiarise yourself with the requirements of your module.
* Further information regarding these and other policies can be accessed through your student portal on wlv.ac.uk.
Always keep a copy of your work and a file of working papers
The requirement to keep a file of working papers is important. There may be circumstances where it is difficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If this is the case, you may be asked to submit your file and possibly meet with your tutor to answer questions on your submission.
When you submit your work you will be required to sign an important declaration confirming that:
The following information is important when:
Module Learning Outcomes
Module Learning Outcomes are specific to this module, and are set when the module was validated.
The module Learning Outcomes tested by this assignment, and precise criteria against which your work will be marked are outlined in your assessment brief.
Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the assessment criteria. The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands indicated.
To help you further:
The University’s Learning Information Services offer support and guidance to help you with your studies and develop your academic skills http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx