University of London — LLB

🔎 Evidence
MCQ Practice

1,429 practice questions · 137 topics · Study on WhatsApp

✨ Free 3-day trial · PKR 1,999/month after · No card needed

🎓 Built by UoL LLB graduates · 🤖 Powered by AI + exam intelligence from past papers

Start Practising on WhatsApp

No sign-up · No download · Free to start

Scan to start
on WhatsApp

Exam intelligence

All topics in Evidence

Every topic in the knowledge graph — mapped from the official syllabus and textbook.

Evidence
Introduction to the study of evidence law
Human Rights Act 1998
Basic concepts
R v Humphreys [1945] 3 WLR 203
HSBC Asia Holdings BV v Gillespie [2011] ICR 192 EAT
R v Blastland (1985) 81 Cr App R 266
R v Kearley [1992] 2 AC 228
R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039
DPP v Kilbourne [1973] AC 729, 756
Wilson [2008] EWCA Crim 1754
Bracewell (1978) 68 Cr App R 44
R v Peewall [1902] 1 WLR 737
Hollingham and Head [1858] 27 LJCP 241
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) s.80
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) r.2.1(2)
Criminal Procedure Act 1865 s.4
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) r.32.1(2)
Burden and standard of proof
Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462, 481
Re B [2009] 1 AC 11
R v DPP ex p Kebilene [2000] 1 Cr App R 275
Lobell [1957] 1 QB 547
Re H and others [1996] AC 563
Salabiaku v France (1988) 13 EHRR 379
Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386
R v Hunt [1987] AC 352
Re S-B [2009] UKSC
Gill [1963] 2 All ER 688
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 6
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, s.28
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, s.101
Prevention of Crime Act 1953, s.1(1)
Road Traffic Act 1988, s.(5)(2)
Terrorism Act 2000, s.11(2)
Homicide Act 1957, s.2(2)
Confessions and improperly obtained evidence
R v Absolam (1988) 88 Cr App R 332
R v Sang [1980] AC 402
McGovern (1991) 92 Cr App R 228
Goldenberg (1989) 88 Cr App R 285
R v Paris and others (1993) 97 Cr App R 99
Christou (1992) 1 QB 979, 989
Khan v UK (2001) 31 EHRR 45
R v Sat-Bhambra (1989) 88 Cr App R 55
Mason (1998) 1 WLR 139
Gunewardene (1951) 2 KB 600
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) s.78(1)
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) s.78
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) s.76
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) s.76A(2)
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) s.82(1)
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) s.76A
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) s.76(2)
The right to silence and adverse inferences under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Gilbert (1977) 66 Cr App R 237
R v Webber [2004] 1 WLR 404
Beckles [1999] Crim LR 148
Murray (Kevin Sean) v DPP (1994) (HL)
Cowan [1996] 1 Cr App R 1

Live preview

See what you'll practice

Real questions from our database — the exact format you'll get on WhatsApp.

SaveMeTutor

● online

R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039

Question 1

In a fraud case, the only evidence is an email from an unknown sender alleging the defendant cheated. There is no corroboration. What should the judge do under Galbraith?

11:24 ✓✓

A Let the jury decide, as all evidence must be heard.

B Direct an acquittal because the evidence is too weak to support conviction. ✓

C Allow the prosecution to call additional witnesses.

11:24 ✓✓

✅ Correct!
Unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient (Galbraith). Option A ignores judicial duty. Option C avoids the sufficiency issue.

11:24 ✓✓

R v Tabbakh (2009) 173 JP 201

Question 2

Which statutory provision applies to adverse inferences from failure to mention facts during questioning?

11:24 ✓✓

A CJPOA s.35, concerning courtroom silence.

B CJPOA s.34, allowing inferences from failure to mention facts. ✓

C PACE s.76, on unreliable confessions.

11:24 ✓✓

✅ Correct!
Section 34 CJPOA governs failure to mention facts during questioning. Option A relates to trial silence. Option C concerns confession admissibility.

11:24 ✓✓

R v Mayers [2008] 1 WLR 1364

Question 3

What did R v Mayers [2008] clarify about the court’s role when considering the admissibility of hearsay under s.114(1)(d)?

11:24 ✓✓

A The court must admit hearsay if it is relevant and the witness is unavailable.

B The court must assess whether admitting the hearsay would be fair, taking into account all s.114(2) factors. ✓

C The court should defer to the prosecution’s assessment of reliability when national security is involved.

11:24 ✓✓

✅ Correct!
Mayers held that the court must actively evaluate the 'interests of justice' under s.114(2), including reliability and defendant’s rights. Option A confuses admissibility conditions; option C invents an exception not present in the statute or case law.

11:24 ✓✓

Pricing

Simple, transparent pricing

Try everything free for 3 days. No credit card needed to start.

Free Trial 3 Days

PKR 0 / 3 days

Full access — try everything before you commit.

✓ Unlimited questions
✓ All 22 subjects
✓ Instant explanations with case citations
✓ Spaced repetition (SM-2)
✓ Score tracking + weak-spot detection
✓ Exam mode with timed tests

Start Free Trial

No sign-up · No credit card · Instant access

Monthly Best Value

PKR 1,999 / month

Less than a single tutoring session. Cancel anytime.

✓ Everything in Free Trial
✓ Unlimited questions forever
✓ 70,000+ exam-quality MCQs
✓ Questions from real past papers
✓ AI-powered study plans
✓ Priority support

Start Free, Pay Later

Pay only after your 3-day trial ends

🔎 Evidence
MCQ Practice

Top 10 exam topics

All topics in Evidence

See what you'll practice

Simple, transparent pricing

Explore other UoL LLB subjects

Ready to master Evidence?

🔎 EvidenceMCQ Practice

Top 10 exam topics

All topics in Evidence

See what you'll practice

Simple, transparent pricing

Explore other UoL LLB subjects

Ready to master Evidence?

🔎 Evidence
MCQ Practice