Evidence law- Armed Robbery Problem Question answer (1st, 75%)
27 views 0 purchase
Course
Law of Evidence
Institution
The University Of Kent (UKC)
A full length First Class answer to an "armed robbery" problem question for the module, Law of Evidence. The answer can be a good guide to follow to aim for a first class for PQs in Criminal Law and Evidence Law- it is well structured and easy to follow.
Ava is a 21-year old Sydney native who has been living in Margate since she was
14 years old. She is arrested, cautioned and charged with the armed robbery of
the Good Time Bank, Sea View Parade, Margate on 14 January 2019. At the
police station Ava is advised by the duty solicitor. She makes a ‘prepared
statement’ to the police denying any involvement in the robbery and stating that
she was at home with her elderly mother at the time.
Detective Inspector Smart takes a statement from Brian, who states that he has
known Ava a long time, and that ‘Ava would not hurt a fly.’ Two weeks after this,
Brian suffers a cardiac arrest and dies.
At the trial the prosecution wishes to adduce the following items of evidence:
(a) A statement from the bank teller who says that the robber had a scarf around
her face but that she had a very strong Australian accent when she pointed a gun
at him and shouted ‘Give me all the money!!’ A customer was lying on the floor
nearby with her hands on her head. Whilst on the floor she took out her mobile
phone and recorded the exchange (no visual). PC Woodstock has recorded this
sound recording from the mobile phone onto his mobile phone. He has listened
to the recording a number of times and compared this with Ava’s voice from her
police interview. He will say that the voices are the same person.
(b) CCTV footage of the robbery. The perpetrator’s face is not clear because they
are wearing a scarf to cover it, but the person appears to have a tattoo of a $ sign
on her right arm. Ava has a tattoo of a $ sign on her right arm.
(c) PC Woodstock will testify that following a search he found a handgun in Ava’s
flat. The defence denies any knowledge of this gun. The prosecution have
disclosed to the defence that in the past, several complaints have been made
about PC Woodstock with defendants alleging that he had planted evidence and
fabricated statements. No disciplinary action has ever been taken against PC
Woodstock as a result of these complaints.
(d) Ava’s previous convictions for shoplifting and for assault on a police officer.
Both convictions are five years old.
(e) Ava was remanded into custody for 7 days before she obtained bail. Whilst
at HMP Bronzefield she shared a cell with Bea Smith. Bea will give evidence that
one night Ava told her that she had committed the robbery and managed to get
away with about £3000. Unbeknown to the defence Bea is an undercover police
officer working on another case.
Ava has told her solicitor that she has no idea how the handgun got into her
house. She has also told him that she is a very devout Christian who hates any
kind of violence. Ava’s solicitor has taken a statement (recorded on video using
his mobile phone) from Ava’s elderly mother confirming Ava’s alibi. By the time
of the trial her dementia has gotten worse and she is unfit to attend the trial.
, Discuss the evidential issues that arise, bearing in mind the rubric at the
start of this document.
~ANSWER~
Ava has been charged with one count of armed robbery contrary to s8 of the
Theft Act 1968. She has pled not guilty to this charge and thus all evidence
pointing to her culpability is in issue. In this case, the act of armed robbery is
not a matter of dispute. Instead, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ava indeed stole with the use of a firearm.
Therefore, the main fact in issue is one of identity. The prosecution will seek
to issue the following pieces of evidence to prove her culpability:
● Bank Teller’s statement
● PC Woodstock’s testimony
○ Voice recording
○ Gun found in house search
● Ava’s previous convictions
● CCTV footage
● Bea Smith’s testimony
The defence will aim to exclude much of prosecution’s evidence and seek to
introduce the following evidence in support of the second fact in issue, Ava’s
alibi.
● Ava’s Testimony
● Brian’s statement
● Bad character evidence of PC Woodstock
● Ava’s Mother’s statement
Bank Teller’s statement
The witness has given a statement to the police, but it is unclear from the
facts if he will be giving live evidence or not. If he is to testify then it will be
direct evidence, that the defence will have a fair opportunity to cross examine
him on his testimony of the events. The bank teller’s statement is
circumstantial evidence because from the statement, the court can draw the
inference that the robber was an Australian female.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ak_1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $15.55. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
