Renaissance and Reformation Flashcard

Renaissance and Reformation

Criminal evidence problem question (2000 words) Essays

Criminal evidence problem question (2000 words) Essays Criminal evidence problem question (2000 words) Essay Criminal evidence problem question (2000 words) Essay Condemnable grounds job inquiry ( 2000 words ) In this scenario, there are three fatal accidents affecting the consecutive married womans of Tom. The first involves Alice, who is stabbed to decease by an interloper ; the 2nd involves Barbara who is shot by a individual at the front door ; and the 3rd relates to Charlotte who drowns in her bath. On the occasions of all three of these accidents or slayings, Tom has been in the detention of the constabulary for assorted offenses. The job is concerned with two farther histrions in the scenario, Enid and Diane, who live together in a civil partnership, and a 10 twelvemonth old kid, Fay, every bit good as Fay’s sister’s fellow and the three detention officers who have dealt with Tom on the three occasions outlined supra. There are, so, assorted issues associating to grounds in this affair which need to be considered, including what type of grounds has been produced by the assorted parties ( that is, whether it is hearsay ) and whether that type of grounds is admissible in a condemnable test, the competency of the assorted histrions to move as informants in the instance, and the liability of each of the suspects. Tom, so, is the accustomed hubby whose three back-to-back married womans meet with their deceases in similar fortunes, and each of whom leave their gaming widowman considerable heritages. Of class, in each of the three slayings, Tom is in the detention of the constabulary, and hence has an alibi for himself. He is non, hence, a suspect in really commiting the slayings. The jobs here relate to what grounds Tom can supply, or which relates to Tom, which would be admissible for the Crown Prosecution Service to utilize when prosecuting him. The legal load of cogent evidence, of class, rests with the prosecuting officer in condemnable instances, as per the taking instance ofWoolmington V DPP( 1935 ) . The first inquiry is whether Tom is a competent informant ; that is, can he be called upon to give witness grounds. The reply to this inquiry will associate to the fact that Tom has been inebriated at the times in inquiry. Aside from this, nevertheless, there is nil to forestall him being a competent informant. A farther possible debatable issue is the competency of Fay to give grounds. Of class, in the scenario, it is Fay’s grounds that is the anchor to turn outing the blameworthiness of the parties. Fay is 10 old ages old. The relevant statute law here is theYouth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Section 53 ( 1 ) of the Act provides that at every phase in condemnable proceedings all individuals are ( whatever their age ) competent to give evidence. This would propose, so, that Fay is able to supply grounds to the tribunal of her narrative. The fact that she is merely 10, nevertheless, may be considered to be ground to doubt her competency. As such, the trial of competency set down in subdivision 53 ( 3 ) will hold to be satisfied. It will be for the tribunal to see whether Fay meets the trial of intelligible testimony . Under subdivision 56 of the Act, Faye will be presumed to be competent to give unsworn grounds, because she is under the age of 14. Assuming, so, that the parties are considered competent to give apprehensible testimony in tribunal, so, the undermentioned inquiry relates to the compellability of the informants. It is normally the instance that where a individual is competent, they will besides be compellable. A compellable informant is one who can be made to give grounds as a affair of jurisprudence and failure to make so may ensue in that informant being held to be in disdain of tribunal. The two exclusions to this general regulation, which may hold an impact in this scenario, relate to the suspect, and the defendant’s partner. Enid, Tom and Dick are all suspects in the instance of Charlotte’s slaying. Under subdivision 53 ( 1 ) of the YJCEA 1999, as mentioned above, a suspect is a competent informant in his or her defense mechanism at every phase of the proceedings. This does non intend, nevertheless, that the suspect is compellable ; he or she does non hold to give grounds in denfence as other in formants do. This is a right enshrined in subdivision 1 ( 1 ) of theCriminal Evidence Act 1898. None of the three suspects in the present instance, so, are compelled to give grounds in their ain defense mechanism, although they may make. The place is different, nevertheless, in relation to grounds for the prosecution. None of the three are considered to be competent informants for the prosecution. Under subdivision 53 ( 4 ) of the YCJEA, a co-accused can non give grounds for the prosecution while the proceedings to which he is a party are go oning. In other words, Enid can non give grounds for the prosecution against Tom or Dick, nor can Tom be called upon to give grounds against Enid or Dick, and Dick can non give grounds against his co-accused. Dick, so, can non be called upon by the CPS to give grounds in relation, for illustration, to the meetings with Tom in the saloon instantly anterior to each of the slayings. The state of affairs would alter if one of the accused ceased to be a party to the proceedings, that is if they were acquitted, or sentenced, or else they made a successful supplication of no instance to reply. A farther issue associating to grounds which the CPS will hold to see is that of grounds of the co-defendants’ character. Evidence of good character on the portion of the suspects will ever be admissible, for the intents of demoing that the suspect in inquiry is non the type of individual to perpetrate the offense in inquiry. In this instance, the absence, for illustration, of condemnable records on the parts of Tom and Enid would be admissible. The attack to grounds of good character was set out inR V Vye and Other ( 1993 ). In this instance it was held that where the suspect has no past strong beliefs, he may profit from a good character way. If the test justice does non give a good character way on the apart of any of the suspects, this may be sufficient evidences for entreaty at a ulterior phase. The other side of this, nevertheless, is the inquiry of bad character. This is now governed by Part II of theCriminal Justice Act 2003. These commissariats, which came into force in December 2004, extend well the evidences on which grounds of a defendant’s bad character can be admissible. Previously, grounds of bad character was inadmissible for intents of demoing that the suspect was capable of perpetrating the offense in inquiry. The concluding behind this is clearly that in a justness system that places the load of cogent evidence in condemnable instances on the prosecution, abducing bad character grounds disproportionately slanted in favor of the prosecution at the disbursal of the suspect. Under the new government, this is non the instance. Section 98 of the CJA 2003 defines bad character grounds as evidence of, or of a temperament towards, misconduct on his portion other than grounds which ( a ) has to make with alleged facts of the offense with which the suspect is char ged, or ( B ) is grounds of misconduct in connexion with the probe or prosecution of that offence. In this instance, so, it may be possible to abduce grounds of Tom’s past gaming and imbibing jobs ; or of Enid’s money-earning undertakings ; or so of Dick’s character. A farther statutory proviso that will be of relevancy to the issue of bad character grounds is that contained in subdivision 101 ( 1 ) CJA 2003. This is concerned with gateways’ through which grounds of a defendant’s bad character can be admitted. This can be if all the parties agree to it being admissible ( which is, of class, unlikely where it is likely to damage the defendants’ instance ) , where it is of import explanatory grounds, or where it is relevant to an of import affair in issue between the suspect and the prosecution. In this scenario, the huge bulk of the grounds which the CPS will seek to abduce to help in their prosecution is classed as hearsay grounds. This means there are of import effects in relation to its admissibility and probatory value. First, hearsay grounds is second-hand grounds. In the present context, it will originate because the chief informants, including Fay, George, and Diane, have merely second-hand cognition of the affairs about which they will be attesting. Whoever is attesting, it is likely that much of what they say will hold been passed to them by another individual who is non in tribunal, instead than something that they have first-hand cognition and experience of. The general regulation about rumor grounds is that it is inadmissible in a condemnable test, unless it falls within one of the common jurisprudence or statutory exclusions. In the instance ofR V Kearley( 1992 ) , hearsay grounds was described as any statement other than one made by a individual while giving unwritten grounds in the proceedings is inadmissible to turn out the truth of any fact stated in it. There are three elements to grounds that is deemed to be hearsay. The first is that it must be contained in a statement , whether this is a written or unwritten statement, or even by a gesture of the informant harmonizing to the 19th century instance ofR V Gibson( 1887 ) . Second, the statement must hold been made at a clip other than when the informant was giving grounds in tribunal in the present proceedings. Finally, the statement must be put in grounds strictly to turn out the truth of affairs in issue, and non for any other intent. As has been mentioned, so, it is clear that much of the grounds that the CPS will seek to abduce in the present scenario will number as rumor, and will hence be inadmissible, unless it falls within one of the exclusions to the regulation. These exclusions exist at both common jurisprudence and statutory jurisprudence. It is possible that the grounds would fall under theRESs gestaeregulation, as set down in the instance ofR V Andrews( 1987 ) . This regulation states that a statement may be admissible if it was made at or sufficiently near the clip of incident in inquiry. Although this originated as a common jurisprudence exclusion to the rumor regulation, it has now been preserved under subdivision 118 of theCriminal Justice Act 2003. It is, so, possible that the grounds of certain of the informants, including Diane, George and the detention officers will be admissible because their statements were made sufficiently contemporaneously to the committee of the offenses. The other statuto ry exclusion to the rumor regulation is contained in subdivision 9 of theCriminal Justice Act 1967, and relates to situations where witnesses’ statements are read to the tribunal in the absence of the informant provided that it has been signed and authenticated by that informant. There are, so, a figure of complex issues which the CPS will hold to turn to in the scenario in relation to the grounds that they seek to abduce in their prosecution of Dick, Tom and Enid. They will necessitate to see whether grounds associating to the old slayings of Tom’s foremost two married womans can be adduced in order to demo a leaning for the slaying of Charlotte which is in issue, and whether they can utilize much of the grounds because of its nature as rumor. Bibliography Legislative acts Criminal Evidence Act 1898 Criminal Justice Act 1967 Criminal Justice Act 2003 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 Cases R V Andrews [ 1987 ] AC 281 R V Gibson [ 1887 ] LR 18 QBD R V Kearley [ 1992 ] 2 AC 228 R V Vye and Others ( 1993 ) 97 Cr App R 134 Woolmington V DPP [ 1935 ] AC 463 Secondary beginnings Hannibal, M. and Mountford, L. ( 2005 )Condemnable Litigation( Oxford: OUP ) Munday, R. ( 2005 )Evidence( Oxford: OUP ) Roberts and Zuckerman ( 2005 )Condemnable Evidence( Oxford: OUP )