The Conflicting Witness Statements
Constable Alleyne is preparing a summary of a reported theft at a rum shop in Oistins. Three statements were taken. Witness A says the suspect wore a red shirt and left at about 9:15 p.m. Witness B says the suspect wore a dark shirt and left at about 9:40 p.m. Witness C, the shopkeeper, says the man ran out 'just after the 9 o'clock news ended' and that the streetlight outside was working. The incident log records the report was called in at 9:52 p.m. The suspect was detained two streets away at 10:05 p.m. wearing a dark blue shirt. Constable Alleyne must draft a report that is accurate without overstating what the evidence proves.
1. Identify which details are consistent across the statements and which are in conflict. Explain how you would present each type in the report.
Read the worked answer
Consistent or reconcilable points: the suspect left the shop in a hurry, the departure was in the evening, and a single male was involved. Witness C's 'just after the news ended' places departure near 9:30 p.m., which sits between A's 9:15 and B's 9:40 and is compatible with the 9:52 call. The dark clothing described by B matches the dark blue shirt seen at detention; A's 'red' is the outlier.
Conflicts: the exact time (9:15 vs 9:40 vs about 9:30) and the shirt colour (red vs dark).
In the report, state agreed facts plainly as facts. Present conflicts as attributed accounts, not as conclusions: 'Witness A stated...; Witness B stated...; these accounts differ as to time and clothing.' Do not choose a winner without corroboration. Note the call time and detention time as objective anchors, and flag the shirt colour as unresolved pending further inquiry. This keeps the report truthful and shows a supervisor where follow-up is needed.
2. The supervisor asks whether the evidence is strong enough to say the detained man is 'the person who committed the theft'. Give your judgement with reasons.
Read the worked answer
The evidence does not yet support that statement. What exists: a report called in at 9:52, a man detained nearby at 10:05 in dark clothing, and witnesses who broadly agree someone left hurriedly around 9:30 to 9:40. That supports 'a male matching a general description was detained in the area shortly afterwards' - a reasonable suspicion, not proof of identity or guilt.
Gaps: no witness has identified the detained man; the shirt colour is disputed; no property is recorded as recovered; there is no link between the man and the shop beyond proximity and timing. 'Nearby shortly after' is circumstantial.
A defensible report says: 'A male was detained in the vicinity a short time after the report. Identification has not been confirmed. Inquiries are continuing.' Overstating guilt risks contaminating later identification and misleads the court. The correct judgement is to record suspicion accurately and pursue identification evidence.