Law of evidence 
Discuss the admissibility and weight likely to be attached to any identification evidence. (1000 words)
Rebecca Bland
Inspector mendel only showed her Haydons picture so in her mind he must have been the culprit as the inspector was saying so,  however this may have caused her to be biased in the viper parade as this may have been affected by the inspectors visit.
Identification of a picture (Lucas v Williams & Sons [1892] 2 QB 113)
How did she see his head when the balaclava was pulled over it – need to check if valid????
Carla Westerby
Heard his voice 10 years ago, not likely to be able to remember how some ones voice you heard in passing sounds
She may have also automatically suspected haydon because he was sent to prison because of the testimony from Martin and had shouted that he would, ‘get the grass who stitched him up’
Familiar voice (Flynn [2008] EWCA Crim 970, [2008] 2 Cr App R 20 (266))
Martin Priddeaux
He didn’t specify any physical attributes which would describe the assailant, he only said that he thinks it was haydon and nobody was found when the police officer searched.
Paul Guillam
Has previous convictions for fraud and perjury- can he be trusted??

2) Discuss the admissibility of the previous convictions of Haydon. (500 words)
1995 – Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life (4 years imprisonment)
Haydon has stated that he would not know how to obtain a gun, whereas he has been convicted if being in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Need to check if this would be so, maybe its been too long time
1999 – Rape (6 years imprisonment)
2005 – Dwelling house burglary (4 years imprisonment)
2010 – Robbery (10 years imprisonment – the offence described above)
3) Discuss the admissibility of the comments made by Haydon to the police and the discovery of the gun. (750 words)
Obtained unlawfully under the PACE act as they manipulated and tried to threaten him by intimidation
However, when he spoke about the canal, he was not directly answering the questions of the police officers and seemed like a slip of the tongue, this paired with the fact that the weapon was actually found in the canal seems admissible

You have been asked to prosecute James Haydon who has been charged with the murder of Martin Priddeaux.
The facts are as follows;
In 2010, Haydon and Priddeaux were arrested as a result of conspiracy to commit an armed robbery on a cash in transit van. Priddeaux admitted the offence in interview and Haydon denied it. Priddeaux agreed to give evidence for the prosecution in return for a discount to his sentence. Haydon was convicted after trial. Priddeaux was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and Haydon was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. As he was being sent to prison Haydon shouted that he would; ‘get the grass who stitched him up.’
Haydon was released from prison in December 2020.
On 19 December 2021, at 21.02, Martin Priddeaux made a phone call to the police stating that he had seen a figure in his front garden. His address is 217 Martindale Street, Leicester.
PC Wilberforce attended and took a statement from Priddeaux. In this statement Priddeaux said he had seen a shadowy figure at the far end of his garden behind a tree. He believed this man was James Haydon. He was unable to give any physical description. PC Wilberforce searched the area and could find not find anybody.
At 23.37 on 19 December, William Tarr, Priddeaux’s neighbour heard a loud bang. He looked out of the window and saw a figure running away in the direction of Gilmorton Street. He called the police.
At 00.13 hours on 20 December, police arrived and found the body of Martin Priddeaux. He had been shot.
Police launched a murder investigation and made a number of appeals to the public. As a result they collected the following evidence;
1)  Brian Sachs was on a bus travelling in the vicinity of the crime scene. At about 23.45 the bus was near Percival Street (which is adjacent to Gilmorton Street). Another passenger on the bus shouted that there was masked man getting into a car and that it looked suspicious. They asked Brian to write down the number of the car which he did. He did not see the car himself. Mr Sachs still has the note and the registration he wrote down is FOX 15AT. The police have been unable to locate the passenger who saw the car. The police have confirmed with the DVLA that the registered keeper of the car with that registration plate is James Haydon.
2)  Police recovered a Sainsburys’ carrier bag from the garden of 217 Martindale Street. It was caught in a hedge. It was sent for scientific analysis. The result of this analysis was that a mixed sample of low-quality DNA was found on the bag. The expert analysis identified that at least three different people’s DNA were contained in the sample. One of these matched James Haydon. The expert report concludes that;
‘The odds against an innocent person coincidentally providing a DNA sample matching the crime sample (a.k.a. the ‘random match probability’) have been calculated at a million to one. This report can only comment on who the DNA came from. I cannot comment on how the DNA was deposited.’
3)  Rebecca Bland was walking down Martindale Street at 23.30 on 19 December. She saw a
man walking towards her. He was holding a carrier bag which appeared to contain a heavy object. He also appeared to have what looked like a balaclava pulled back over his head. She described the man as being 6’0 tall, in his 50’s with a shaved head and stubble. She gave this account to the police on 21 December. Inspector Mendel, knowing this description matched Haydon, visited her at her home address and showed her a picture of Haydon. She agreed he looked very similar to the man she saw. He did not show her any other pictures. She does not know Haydon. Bland was subsequently asked to attend a VIPER parade. She identified an image of Haydon as being the man she saw.
4)  Carla Westerby is also a neighbour of Priddeaux. She also heard the shooting. Immediately prior to it she was woken from her sleep by a voice next door shouting ‘I told you, you would get this you grass.’ Westerby was formerly employed as a court usher and worked in court during the 2010 trial. When she heard who the victim of the crime was, she realised that she recognised the voice as belonging to Haydon who she had heard speak when he gave evidence at his trial. She has not had any dealings with Haydon since the trial. She is certain that it was Haydon’s voice she heard.
5)  The police were contacted by Paul Guillam on 27 January. Guillam provided a statement saying that he was sharing a flat with Haydon and that on 19 December Haydon left the flat at about 20.30 saying that he ‘had some business to sort out.’ He had a balaclava and a heavy item in a bag which looked like a gun. He returned home at about midnight. Guillam has provided a statement to the police however he has refused to testify saying he believes there will be retaliation and he is scared. Guillam had been arrested on 22 January for robbery and was in custody awaiting sentence. He has asked if providing the information would reduce his sentence. He has two previous convictions for fraud and one for perjury.
On 28 January, the police arrested Haydon. He is 5’11’ with a shaved head and stubble.
Inspector Mendel and Sergeant Esterhese placed him in the police vehicle. Rather than taking him to the police station, the two officers drove him to a remote country lane where they parked the police vehicle. Mendel said to Haydon ‘look we can do this the easy way here, or the hard way back at the station. Tell us where the gun is or we tell Alleline you have been informing on him.’ (Alleline is a reference to Jack Alleline, who is suspected of being the head of a feared organised crime gang). Haydon replied ‘You can drag the canal all you want, you’ll never find it.’ This conversation was recorded on Mendel’s police body camera. In his statement Mendel explains this conversation by saying although he knew it would breach PACE, Code of Practice C, he thought it was necessary as he did not want there to be a gun in the public domain.
The police subsequently searched the canal and found a revolver. Analysis of the barrel has established it was the gun which fired the shot which killed Priddeaux. There is no evidence to connect it to Haydon and no evidence to link Haydon to the canal.
Haydon was interviewed on tape, under caution at the police station in the company of his solicitor Ms Smiley. He made no comment to all matters put to him.
There is currently no other evidence against Haydon.
Haydon is 55 years of age and has the following convictions;
1995 – Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life (4 years imprisonment)
1999 – Rape (6 years imprisonment)
2005 – Dwelling house burglary (4 years imprisonment)
2010 – Robbery (10 years imprisonment – the offence described above)
Advise the CPS on the admissibility issues which arise in this case and the overall prospects of success.
The defence have written to indicate that they are going to object to the introduction of much of the evidence and argue that there is no case to answer. They have indicated that Haydon denies any involvement with the murder and his presence at the scene. He makes no admissions to his car being in the area. He accepts that he has shopped at Sainsburys from time to time. He states that he would not know how to get a gun.