2014 ZB Q3 “Even where a conviction is based solely or to a decisive degree on
hearsay evidence, the important issue is whether the defendant was able,
overall, to have a fair trial, not whether he or she was able to cross-
examine an important witness face to face in the witness box.” Discuss.
2015 ZB Q2 In securing a fair trial where the prosecution strongly relies on hearsay
evidence, do the safeguards in the CJA 2003 provide an acceptable
surrogate for the accused’s “right” of confrontation? Discuss with reference
to Horncastle (2009) and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK (2009).
2016 ZA Q1 “Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights has proved
ineffective in guaranteeing the right to a fair trial for accused persons in
English courts.” Discuss in relation to Hearsay.
2016 ZB Q1 “In reconsidering Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK in 2011 in the light of
Horncastle (2009), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human
Rights adopted a far too conciliatory stance towards the views of the UK
Supreme Court. Instead, the Grand Chamber judges should have
sustained a principled approach that allowing cases to proceed where
hearsay evidence is the sole or decisive evidence against an accused
person is a straightforward violation of Article 6, the right to a fair trial.”
Discuss.
2016 Oct Q3 “The hearsay provisions in the CJA 2003 pose a grave risk to a defendant’s
right to a fair trial and the safeguards provided by the Act are insufficient to
address the risks associated with hearsay evidence, regardless of what the
courts have to say on the matter.” Discuss.
2017 ZA Q4 “The law is clear: the fact that the sole or decisive evidence against a
defendant is hearsay does not prevent an accused from having a fair trial.
The extent to which this is a satisfactory state of affairs is debatable.”
Discuss.
2017 ZB Q4 “Recent case law on the admissibility of hearsay evidence suggests that the
risks associated with this evidence, and the rationale for exercising caution in
relation to its use, have been forgotten by the courts. The courts have thrown
caution to the wind, along with a defendant’s right to a fair trial.” Discuss.
2018 ZB Q4 “While Al Khawaja and Tahery v UK (2011) made convincing arguments
that the CJA 2003 had robust provisions to deal with the problems of
hearsay evidence, they have been applied very loosely since then.”
Discuss.
2018 Oct Q2 How effective is the CJA 2003 in dealing with the dangers of hearsay
evidence and preserving the rights of defendants to a fair trial?
2019 ZB Q4 “The English Courts were right to reject the suggestion by the European
Court of Human Rights that a conviction should never be secured on the
basis of hearsay evidence alone.” Discuss.
2019 Oct Q2 “The CJA 2003, and subsequent cases, makes it far too easy for the
prosecution to have hearsay evidence admitted. This undermines the
defendant’s right to a fair trial.” Discuss.
2020 Oct ZA “Hearsay evidence is so inherently unreliable that it should never be the
main basis of conviction.” Discuss in relation to the hearsay provisions of
the CJA 2003, the HRA 1998, and relevant case law.
hearsay evidence, the important issue is whether the defendant was able,
overall, to have a fair trial, not whether he or she was able to cross-
examine an important witness face to face in the witness box.” Discuss.
2015 ZB Q2 In securing a fair trial where the prosecution strongly relies on hearsay
evidence, do the safeguards in the CJA 2003 provide an acceptable
surrogate for the accused’s “right” of confrontation? Discuss with reference
to Horncastle (2009) and Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK (2009).
2016 ZA Q1 “Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights has proved
ineffective in guaranteeing the right to a fair trial for accused persons in
English courts.” Discuss in relation to Hearsay.
2016 ZB Q1 “In reconsidering Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK in 2011 in the light of
Horncastle (2009), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human
Rights adopted a far too conciliatory stance towards the views of the UK
Supreme Court. Instead, the Grand Chamber judges should have
sustained a principled approach that allowing cases to proceed where
hearsay evidence is the sole or decisive evidence against an accused
person is a straightforward violation of Article 6, the right to a fair trial.”
Discuss.
2016 Oct Q3 “The hearsay provisions in the CJA 2003 pose a grave risk to a defendant’s
right to a fair trial and the safeguards provided by the Act are insufficient to
address the risks associated with hearsay evidence, regardless of what the
courts have to say on the matter.” Discuss.
2017 ZA Q4 “The law is clear: the fact that the sole or decisive evidence against a
defendant is hearsay does not prevent an accused from having a fair trial.
The extent to which this is a satisfactory state of affairs is debatable.”
Discuss.
2017 ZB Q4 “Recent case law on the admissibility of hearsay evidence suggests that the
risks associated with this evidence, and the rationale for exercising caution in
relation to its use, have been forgotten by the courts. The courts have thrown
caution to the wind, along with a defendant’s right to a fair trial.” Discuss.
2018 ZB Q4 “While Al Khawaja and Tahery v UK (2011) made convincing arguments
that the CJA 2003 had robust provisions to deal with the problems of
hearsay evidence, they have been applied very loosely since then.”
Discuss.
2018 Oct Q2 How effective is the CJA 2003 in dealing with the dangers of hearsay
evidence and preserving the rights of defendants to a fair trial?
2019 ZB Q4 “The English Courts were right to reject the suggestion by the European
Court of Human Rights that a conviction should never be secured on the
basis of hearsay evidence alone.” Discuss.
2019 Oct Q2 “The CJA 2003, and subsequent cases, makes it far too easy for the
prosecution to have hearsay evidence admitted. This undermines the
defendant’s right to a fair trial.” Discuss.
2020 Oct ZA “Hearsay evidence is so inherently unreliable that it should never be the
main basis of conviction.” Discuss in relation to the hearsay provisions of
the CJA 2003, the HRA 1998, and relevant case law.
