Podcast Location:
Download it here [file size: 30.7 MB]
Categories:
Criminal Law
CPD Points:
Up to 1 point. details »

Due to the difference in guidelines between the SRA and the Bar Standards Board, CPD points are awarded differently for Solicitors, Barristers and Legal Executives:

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Regulated by the Bar Standards Board:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 accredited CPD point (60 minutes)

Regulated by ILEX:
Listen and pass the quiz: Gain 1 CPD point (60 minutes)
Listen only, gain ½ a CPD point (30 minutes)

Cost:
  • FREE
Length:
30 minutes of audio
(+ optional 5 minute online quiz)
Plays on Computer:
Yes Downloadable as MP3:    Yes
Contributor(s):
Course Aims:

This podcast is aimed at criminal lawyers interested in keeping abreast of recent developments within criminal law and evidence. It touches on a number of pertinent authorities across a broad range of areas including the question of admissibility of bad character evidence, developments concerning hearsay evidence, a recent case concerning the evidence capable of establishing harassment alarm or distress under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, a decision regarding the appropriateness of placing ABE transcripts before the jury and developments concerning the admissibility of admissions and confessions.

Outcomes:
After completing the course you will:
  • Be familiar with the case of Barnard v DPP [2011] EWHC 1648 (Admin) which considered how a tribunal should approach bad character in an appeal to the Crown Court;
  • Be aware of recent developments regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence under the interests of justice gateway by examining both R v Burton [2011] EWCA Crim 1990 and CT v R [2011] EWCA Crim 2341;
  • Understand how R v Ashraf [2011] EWCA Crim 1517 assists in determining how to direct the jury in recent complaint cases;
  • Have considered the case of Harvey v DPP [2011] EWHC B1 (Admin) which looked at the evidence capable of establishing harassment, alarm or distress under s.5 of the Public Order Act 1986;
  • Appreciate the principles arising from the decision in R v Aamir Sardar [2012] EWCA Crim 134 concerning the appropriateness of placing ABE transcripts before the jury;
  • Be aware of developments regarding the ambit of s.76 of PACE and the admissibility of confessions and the principles that the case of R v Roberts (Neil) [2011] EWCA Crim 2974) help to confirm.
Level:
Specialist Difficulty: 5 of 5
Classification:
Case Update
Legal Principles
Sources and References:
  • Al-Khawaja [2005] EWCA Crim 2697 CA (26766/05) ECHR 20 January 2009;
  • Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK (2011) The Times 22 December;
  • Barnard v DPP [2011] EWHC 1648 (Admin);
  • Burton v R [2011] EWCA Crim 1990;
  • Cheeseman v DPP Crim LR [1991] 296-298;
  • CT v R [2011] EWCA Crim 2341;
  • DPP v Orum [1989] 88 Cr App Rep 261;
  • Harvey v DPP [2011] EWHC B1 (Admin);
  • Holloway v DPP [2004] EWHC 2621 (Admin);
  • McEwan v DPP [2007] EWHC 740 (Admin);
  • R v AA [2007] EWCA Crim 1779;
  • R v Aamir v Sardar [2012] EWCA Crim 134;
  • R v Ashraf [2011] EWCA Crim 1517;
  • R v Horncastle [2009] EWCA Crim 964 and [2009] UKSC 14;
  • R v Ibrahim [2010] EWCA 1176;
  • R v Popescu [2010] EWCA 1230;
  • R v Roberts (Neil) [2011] EWCA Crim 2974;
  • R v Twist [2011] EWCA Crim 1143;
  • R v Welstead [1996] 1 Cr App R 59;
  • R v Z [2009] EWCA 20;
  • Sak v CPS [2007] EWHC 2886 (Admin).

In this podcast Adrian Lower from the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division of the CPS discusses recent developments within criminal law and evidence.

Date recorded: 13th Jul 2012

Start this CPDcast Activity

© CPDcast.com