top of page
CELE SQE1 模拟练习

Examination Timing: 00H00M05S

Your firm represents Michael Johnson, who has been charged with possession of cannabis with intent to supply, contrary to Section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Michael has been granted unconditional police bail to attend the local magistrates’ court in four days’ time. At this hearing, Michael fails to attend, and you are unable to provide the court with any explanation for his non-attendance. An application is made by the prosecutor for a warrant not backed with bail, which is granted by the court. Two weeks later, Michael is arrested on the warrant. Which ONE of the following statements is CORRECT?

< 上一页

You have chosen the correct answer
Your selected option: B

下一页 >

In these circumstances, the prosecution will always apply for a warrant not backed with bail, which means that the police must keep the arrested person in custody until they can be brought before the next available court. If the warrant had been backed with bail, option A would have been correct. Although there is a good chance that Michael will be charged with failing to surrender, it will not always be the case; if he had a good reason for not attending, which the prosecutor accepts, the charge may not be pursued, so C is incorrect. Typically, if bail is granted again, it would be conditional rather than unconditional. Michael's bail outcome will depend upon his reasons for non-attendance, his antecedents, and his personal circumstances, so D is incorrect. Option E is a misleading distractor, as the police cannot overrule the court's decision. 


Key Point: This question examines the understanding of bail procedures and the consequences of failing to surrender to custody under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It highlights the prosecution’s typical response to non-attendance at court and the subsequent custody requirements until the next court appearance.

收集问题

用户内容

学习 CELE SQE.png
来自 Lucky Lion 的 CELE SQE PASS 祝福_

人工智能内容

bottom of page