Law of Evidence

It targets candidates who must apply evidential rules in practice: paralegals, CILEX-style learners, apprentices, litigation support staff and anyone moving into contentious work. It assumes basic knowledge of civil and criminal procedure, so study those foundations first if you are new to litigation.

Moderate to demanding. Individual rules are easy to state but hard to apply under pressure, and questions often turn on a single fact. Candidates who memorise definitions without practising application tend to plateau. Expect to spend most study time on scenario questions rather than reading.

Start with relevance and admissibility, then burden and standard of proof, then witnesses. Hearsay follows naturally once you understand why oral testimony is preferred. Confessions and exclusion come next, and character, similar fact and opinion last. This order builds each topic on the previous one.

Treat it as a priority. It carries 20% of the marks and generates the most sophisticated questions, because you must identify the out-of-court statement, decide whether it is hearsay, then work through exceptions and any statutory gateway. Learn the exceptions as a checklist you can apply quickly.

The format is not stated in the source material available here, so confirm it with your training provider before booking. Prepare for both: practise short-answer identification of issues and full written applications, since written technique transfers to either format.

Retake policy, fees and any waiting period are set by the awarding organisation and are not confirmed in the source material available here. Check directly with your provider or the relevant awarding body before relying on any assumed rule.

Duration and passing score are not confirmed in the source material available here. Do not rely on figures from older forums or memory, as these change between revisions. Confirm current details with your provider when you book.

Three recur. First, answering the general rule instead of the specific issue raised by the facts. Second, confusing burden of proof with evidential burden. Third, asserting that evidence is inadmissible without identifying the exclusion route and any discretion to admit it.

Switch from reading to writing. Attempt full scenario questions under timed conditions, then mark your own answers against the rule and the application. Keep a single sheet listing hearsay exceptions, confession exclusion grounds and similar fact safeguards, and review it daily.

No. This is independent study material written for candidates searching this exam. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or produced by CILEX or any examining body, and it does not reproduce any official question bank. Always verify exam logistics with your provider.