Speaker 1: Welcome, when cross-examining a defendant, the prosecuting advocate's aim is to expose any inconsistencies, errors, exaggerations and omissions in the account the defendant puts forward at trial. The reason for this is to show that the defendant's account is flawed. In this video, we're going to focus on how to strategically expose inconsistencies between what the defendant says when interviewed by the police, before trial, and what she says whilst giving evidence in court. Before we move on, I'd like to introduce you to Heather Lightfingers. Miss Lightfingers has been charged with theft. Here's a summary of the prosecution case against her. Please pause the video and read the summary. Resume the video when you've finished. Let's watch a portion of the police interview.

Speaker 2: Heather, you were arrested on Old Compton Street today following a report that a person matching your description had stolen a purse from a bag in the Happy Vegan Cafe.

Speaker 3: It wasn't me.

Speaker 2: Were you in the Happy Vegan Cafe on the 6th of July at about 2pm?

Speaker 3: No, I hate vegetables.

Speaker 2: When you were arrested, you were searched and two Barclays credit cards in the name of Mercy Ajibadi were found in your jacket pocket, as well as a £50 note. Where did you get the credit cards?

Speaker 3: I found them.

Speaker 2: Where did you find them?

Speaker 3: On Old Compton Street. They were on the pavement. I picked them up and I was going to take them to Hoban Police Station.

Speaker 1: The defendant was subsequently charged with the offence of theft. She pleaded not guilty to the charge. Her trial is taking place in the Crown Court. Her barrister is questioning her. Let's watch some of the examination in chief.

Speaker 2: The prosecution have alleged that you were in the Happy Vegan Cafe at about 2pm. Were you?

Speaker 3: No, I'm not vegan. I love my meat. Give me a doner kebab over a smashed avocado on toast any day of the week.

Speaker 2: The court has heard that you were arrested on Old Compton Street and searched. Two Barclays credit cards were found in your jacket pocket.

Speaker 3: Yes.

Speaker 2: Please explain why you were in possession of those credit cards.

Speaker 3: They were on the pavement. I picked them up because I was going to take them to Barclays Bank and hand them in to a cashier.

Speaker 1: Did you spot the major inconsistency in the defendant's account? Well, the defendant gave two inconsistent explanations for what she had intended to do with the credit cards. No doubt the prosecution advocate has picked up on the inconsistency and will want to expose the inconsistent accounts to show the defendant is not to be believed. We're going to now take you through the steps needed to strategically highlight the inconsistencies. The first step is to get the defendant to confirm that the evidence she is now giving to the court is correct. The prosecution advocate will need to pin the defendant down to this version.

Speaker 4: Miss Lightfingers, a few moments ago you told this court that you were intending to take the credit cards to Barclays Bank. Is that correct?

Speaker 3: Yes, that's right.

Speaker 4: So before you were arrested, your intention was to hand the credit cards to a cashier at Barclays Bank, correct?

Speaker 3: Yes.

Speaker 1: The second step is for the prosecution advocate to ask for the interview transcript to be given to the defendant.

Speaker 4: Your Honour, perhaps the usher could pass up Miss Lightfingers' transcript of interview, Exhibit No. 5.

Speaker 1: The third step is to shut down escape routes. I'll explain what I mean by that. When an inconsistency is put to the defendant, the defendant will often put forward an explanation as to how the inconsistency occurred. For example, the defendant might say, I must have forgotten. These explanations are known as escape routes. Escape routes can seem plausible if they are not shut down before the inconsistency is put to the defendant. So how do you shut down an escape route? Well, let's focus on a common escape route, where the defendant explains that the reason for the inconsistency is because she made a mistake when she gave her earlier account in interview. The advocate should ask a series of questions, establishing that the defendant had a clear recollection of the relevant events at the time she was interviewed. The advocate will ask these questions before highlighting the inconsistent accounts. If the defendant has agreed with these questions, it would then be illogical for the defendant to later argue that she must have been mistaken. Let's see how this works in practice.

Speaker 4: You were interviewed at Hempel Police Station on the 6th of July.

Speaker 3: Yes.

Speaker 4: You were interviewed only three hours after your arrest. Yeah. So when you were interviewed, you would have had a full and clear recollection of the events leading up to your arrest.

Speaker 3: Yes, that's right.

Speaker 1: OK, so the prosecution advocate has shut down that escape route. Let's turn to the fourth step. The prosecution advocate should now take the defendant to the inconsistency contained in the interview transcript.

Speaker 4: Miss Lightfingers, could you turn to the second page of your interview transcript, the second entry down, where PC Young asks, where do you find them? Do you see that?

Speaker 3: Yes, I see it.

Speaker 4: Please read out loud your response to the question.

Speaker 3: On Old Compton Street. They were on the pavement. I picked them up and I was going to take them to Holborn Police Station.

Speaker 4: Miss Lightfingers, a few moments ago under oath, you said that you were going to take the credit cards to Barclays Bank.

Speaker 3: Yes, I did. I think I was a little confused during the interview. I must have been mistaken. I was definitely going to take the credit cards to Barclays Bank.

Speaker 4: A few moments ago, you accepted that when you were interviewed, you had a clear recollection of the events that led to your arrest.

Speaker 3: You're confusing me.

Speaker 1: The advocate has clearly highlighted the inconsistent accounts. Now, the final step is to challenge the defendant about the reason for the inconsistency.

Speaker 4: Holborn Police Station is one and a half miles away from where you say you found the credit cards, isn't it?

Speaker 3: I don't know.

Speaker 4: Barclays Bank is less than 500 metres from where you say you found the credit cards. I guess. So it would have been easier to take the credit cards to Barclays Bank than travel one and a half miles to the police station.

Speaker 3: I suppose so.

Speaker 4: It's been five months since you were interviewed by the police, hasn't it?

Speaker 3: Yes.

Speaker 4: You've had five months to think about what you said in that interview.

Speaker 3: I haven't thought about it at all.

Speaker 4: You've realised that what you said in your interview in relation to taking the credit cards to the police station is completely implausible.

Speaker 3: That's rubbish.

Speaker 4: That's why you've changed your story today.

Speaker 3: No, I just made a mistake.

Speaker 1: You now know how to highlight inconsistencies in a defendant's account. See you next time.