← Back to blog

Evidence in Criminal Proceedings for SQE1

Part of our SQE1 Criminal Practice guide → View the full SQE1 Criminal Practice guide

16 Apr 2026

Evidence law determines what can be put before court. SQE1 tests hearsay, bad character, confessions, identification evidence and burden and standard of proof.

Criminal Practice > Evidence in Criminal Proceedings

Evidence rules are one of the highest-yield areas in SQE1 because students often fail to identify the correct statutory exception, leaving inadmissible evidence unfiltered. Master the statutory framework and half your questions will resolve predictably.

What Is Evidence in Criminal Proceedings?

Candidates frequently confuse the separate admissibility tests for bad character evidence and hearsay — mistakes that commonly cost marks on SQE1.

The fundamental principle is that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This connects closely to both the trial procedure rules and broader criminal practice frameworks.

Key Principles for SQE1

Burden and Standard of Proof

The prosecution bears the legal burden of proving every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The defence does not need to prove innocence. Where the defendant raises a statutory defence (e.g., diminished responsibility), they bear an evidential burden on the balance of probabilities.

Hearsay

Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss.114–136, hearsay is a statement made out of court that is relied on as evidence of the truth of its contents. It is generally inadmissible unless it falls within a statutory exception (s.114(1)): (a) a statutory provision makes it admissible; (b) a preserved common-law exception applies; (c) all parties agree; (d) the court is satisfied it is in the interests of justice.

Bad Character

Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss.98–113, evidence of a defendant's bad character (misconduct or previous convictions) is admissible only through one of seven 'gateways' in s.101. Key gateways include: (d) relevant to an important matter in issue between defendant and prosecution; (f) to correct a false impression given by the defendant; (g) the defendant has attacked the character of another person.

Confessions

Under PACE s.76, a confession is inadmissible if obtained by oppression (s.76(2)(a)) or in circumstances likely to render it unreliable (s.76(2)(b)). The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not so obtained.

Exclusion of Evidence

Under PACE s.78, the court may refuse to allow evidence if its admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings that it ought not to be admitted.

Identification Evidence

Under the Turnbull guidelines (R v Turnbull [1977]), where the prosecution case depends wholly or substantially on identification evidence, the judge must warn the jury of the special need for caution and direct them on the quality of the identification using the ADVOKATE mnemonic.

Competence and Compellability

All persons are competent to give evidence (Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s.53). The defendant is competent but not compellable for the prosecution. A spouse is generally competent and compellable for the prosecution in cases involving assault or injury to the spouse or a child.

Exam tip

SQE1 questions often present an item of evidence and ask whether it is admissible. Common traps include allowing hearsay without identifying a valid exception, admitting bad character evidence without specifying the correct gateway, and forgetting that the prosecution bears the burden under s.76 for confessions. Questions on identification evidence test whether the Turnbull guidelines apply and what directions the judge should give.

How This Appears in SQE1 Questions

SQE1 questions often present an item of evidence and ask whether it is admissible. Common traps include allowing hearsay without identifying a valid exception, admitting bad character evidence without specifying the correct gateway, and forgetting that the prosecution bears the burden under s.76 for confessions. Questions on identification evidence test whether the Turnbull guidelines apply and what directions the judge should give. SQE1 questions may test these distinctions repeatedly.

Quick Example Scenario

A witness tells the court that her neighbour told her he saw the defendant running from the scene of a burglary. The prosecution relies on this evidence to prove the defendant was present at the scene. Is this admissible?

This is hearsay — an out-of-court statement (the neighbour's account) relied on for the truth of its contents (that the defendant was at the scene). It is inadmissible unless the prosecution can identify a statutory exception under s.114(1) CJA 2003 — for example, if the neighbour is unavailable as a witness (s.116) or if the court admits it in the interests of justice (s.114(1)(d)).

Common Mistakes Students Make

  • Admitting hearsay without identifying a valid statutory exception — the default rule is that hearsay is inadmissible
  • Confusing the seven bad character gateways and applying the wrong one to the facts
  • Forgetting that the prosecution bears the burden of proving a confession was not obtained by oppression or in unreliable circumstances under s.76
  • Overlooking the Turnbull guidelines when identification evidence is in issue — a failure to give a Turnbull direction can lead to a conviction being quashed on appeal

Quick Summary

Evidence law governs what is admissible and how it is assessed:

  • Burden and standard: Prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt; defence proves statutory defences on balance of probabilities
  • Hearsay: Out-of-court statement relied on for truth inadmissible unless exception applies (s.114 CJA 2003)
  • Hearsay exceptions: Statutory provisions, preserved common-law exceptions, agreement, or interests of justice (s.116–120)
  • Bad character: Admissible only through one of seven gateways in s.101 CJA 2003 (e.g., important matter in issue, correct false impression)
  • Confessions: Inadmissible if obtained by oppression or in unreliable circumstances (s.76 PACE) — prosecution bears burden of proof
  • Exclusion of evidence: Court discretion to exclude under s.78 PACE if admission would prejudice fairness
  • Identification evidence: Turnbull direction required if case depends wholly or substantially on identification
  • Competence and compellability: All competent; defendant not compellable for prosecution; spouse generally compellable

What Admissible Evidence Can Prove the Elements of an Offence

Evidence law determines what material can be put before the court and how it is assessed. SQE1 criminal practice questions regularly test hearsay, bad character, confessions, identification evidence, and the burden and standard of proof.

Want to test this now? Try a few SQE1-style questions below before moving on.

Test Yourself

Test yourself

Quick check questions based on this article.

Question 1

Scenario

A man is on trial in the Crown Court for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The prosecution's case relies primarily on the evidence of a single eyewitness who identified the defendant at a video identification procedure conducted at the police station. The eyewitness saw the assault from across a street at approximately 11pm on a winter evening. The street was lit by a single streetlight approximately 20 metres from the location of the assault. The eyewitness observed the assailant for approximately 10 seconds before the assailant ran away. The eyewitness had never seen the defendant before the incident. The eyewitness picked the defendant out from a set of nine images during the video identification procedure three weeks after the incident. No other evidence directly links the defendant to the assault. The defendant denies being present at the scene and provides an alibi witness. The defence barrister submits that the identification evidence is unreliable and should be excluded. The prosecution argues that the eyewitness was credible and confident in the identification.

What direction should the trial judge give the jury regarding the identification evidence?

Question 2

Scenario

A woman is the victim of a robbery at a bus stop. She describes her attacker to the police as a young man wearing a dark hooded jacket and carrying a green rucksack. The police arrest a suspect matching the description approximately thirty minutes later, a short distance from the scene. The suspect denies involvement and states he was walking home from a friend's house. The investigating officer speaks to the woman at the scene and asks whether she could identify the person who robbed her. The woman says she had a clear view of the attacker's face for approximately ten seconds before he grabbed her bag. The suspect is known to the police but has not been previously identified by the woman. The investigating officer decides that an identification procedure should be held. The officer considers which type of identification procedure to use. The suspect's solicitor has been notified and is available to attend the procedure. The suspect has no physical features that would make a video identification impracticable.

Which identification procedure should the investigating officer arrange in the first instance?

Question 3

Scenario

A man is on trial in the Crown Court for an offence of theft from his employer. The prosecution alleges that the man stole £15,000 from the company over a period of three months. The man denies the offence and claims the money was authorised bonus payments. The prosecution wishes to adduce evidence of the defendant's bad character. The defendant has two previous convictions. The first is for theft from an employer five years ago, for which he received a community order. The second is for driving without insurance two years ago, for which he received a fine. The prosecution makes an application under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to admit both convictions. The defence argues that admission of the convictions would be unfair and applies to exclude them. The judge considers the application. The prosecution argues that the previous theft conviction is relevant to an important matter in issue between the prosecution and the defendant. The trial has been listed for three days.

Which of the defendant's previous convictions is the court most likely to admit?

Want to test your SQE1 baseline?

Try 100 free SQE1 questions across FLK1 and FLK2, with instant feedback, full explanations and no login required.

Try 100 free SQE1 questionsTry demoView pricing

Related Topics

Practise Evidence in Criminal Proceedings Questions for SQE1

Not sure where you stand for SQE1? Take ActusPrep's free 100-question SQE1 diagnostic test across FLK1 and FLK2, then use your results to focus your revision.