Loading study pack…
Loading study pack…
Loading topic preview…
7 building blocks · blurt the topic, then mark it block by block against the answer key.
Topic preview
Preview the first part of the topic. Unlock SQE2 Playbook to answer prompts, get marked against the answer key, repair gaps, and carry the topic into review.
6 of 7 shown
Defending Rosa Dean on a fraud charge, counsel challenges an interview conducted after she reported panic symptoms and before a promised health assessment. The prosecution relies on her answers about the missing cash. Under PACE section 78, connect the identified conduct to concrete trial unfairness and explain why naming a breach alone is insufficient.
At trial Rosa Dean relies on a dated pharmacy receipt as an alibi, having answered no comment when asked where she was. The prosecution seeks a section 34 inference. Acting for the prosecution, identify the later fact, the earlier omission, the question that occasioned it and why Rosa could reasonably have been expected to mention it then.
Rosa Dean's no-comment interview followed visible panic symptoms, an unfinished health assessment and legal advice to remain silent; some questions asked only about cash records, not her location. Defending Rosa against a section 34 inference, explain how health, advice, question scope and the particular receipt affect what she could reasonably have been expected to mention.
Police continued Rosa Dean's interview after she requested a pause, but the prosecution says the recording remains clear and reliable. For the defence under section 78, accept that continuation does not compel exclusion, then identify its effect on participation, answer quality and forensic disadvantage in the circumstances of the trial.
The judge asks, 'Rosa Dean had a solicitor; why could she not simply mention the pharmacy receipt?' Answer for Rosa directly, using her panic symptoms, the unfinished assessment, the limited location questioning and the reason for the legal advice, without suggesting that advice creates an automatic bar to an inference.
At the close of Rosa Dean's voir dire, defence counsel challenges both the interview answers and a proposed section 34 inference about the receipt. Ask separately for exclusion under section 78 and for no—or only a limited—inference, giving distinct reasons and a focused direction that avoids treating silence as the sole basis for conviction.
The full topic unlocks with SQE2 Playbook, including the remaining prompts and answer-key marking.
New to the method? See why Paper Tiger beats rereading