Describe both the qualifications required for juries and the procedure for selecting a jury.
Describe both the qualifications required for juries and the procedure for selecting a jury? The basic qualifications required for jury service are laid down in the Jury's Act 1974. People are chosen from an electoral register at random by a computer. To qualify for jury service a person must be aged between 18 and 70. They must also have been a resident in the UK for at least 5 years since their 13th birthday. The person must be a British citizen. Everyone must take part of a jury service unless disqualified or excused. People with certain criminal convictions cannot sit such as; those who have been sentenced to life imprisonment or a custodial sentence of 5 years or more, those who have served a custodial sentence for public protection or have been given an extended sentence, those who are currently on bail. Those who cannot sit are also the mentally disordered persons. A judge can discharge any person from being a juror if they do not have the capacity to cope with the trial such as not being able to understand English or being blind or deaf. The Juries Act 1974 was amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows categories of people which used to be excluded able to serve on a jury. This included members of the judiciary and people involved in the administration or justice or the armed forces, the medical professions and MPs. Under the discretionary excusals, people
Examine the debate as to whether the law should reflect moral values, and discuss issues which show the continuing importance of that debate.
Consider the view that there is a close relationship between law and morality? Examine the debate as to whether the law should reflect moral values, and discuss issues which show the continuing importance of that debate. (30+5 marks) Morals are society's values and beliefs which distinguish from right and wrong. They are constantly changing to reflect society's attitudes ad current social circumstances. Morality can either be prescriptive or normative; which specifies what ought to be done and what is morally acceptable or unacceptable behaviour. This has mainly been influenced by religious beliefs which set the moral code of ones attitudes and beliefs. However, laws are a 'rule of a general norm mandating or guiding conduct,' state from Twining and Miers. Law and moral rules are similar in that they guide social conduct and behaviour, but the main difference is that only rules with legal statuses lead to sanctions and remedies which courts will enforce. Even though law develops from a shared morality, there are differences between the two. Morality develops over a long period of time, whilst the law can be introduced instantly. Morality cannot be changed deliberately; it is formed slowly, and changes according to the will of people and society's opinions and attitudes. For example, in the late 19th century, Oscar Wilde was ruined and imprisoned over his
Bail. Under S.4 of the Bail Act 1976 there is a presumption that un convicted suspects will be given bail. This ties in with the fact that everyone is innocent until proven guilty
Assignment 2.11 Bail means a person is allowed to be at liberty, rather than held in custody while awaiting the next stage of the case. The right to bail has been reduced in recent years amid concern that individuals on bail reoffend and fail to turn up at court for their trial. Fourteen percent of those bailed to appear at court fail to do so according to the Criminal Justice Statistics 2003, another statistic says nearly twenty-five percent of defendants commit at least one offence while on bail. The criteria for granting or refusing bail are contained in the Bail ct 1976. There is a general presumption in favour of bail for un convicted defendants but there are some important exceptions. Bail need not be granted where there are substantial grounds for believing that, unless kept in custody, the accused would fail to surrender to bail, or would commit an offence and the probable sentence, along with the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the defendant. The Act which makes the decision on bail is the need to protect the public Vs all suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Under S.4 of the Bail Act 1976 there is a presumption that un convicted suspects will be given bail. This ties in with the fact that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. However, the general public have the right to be protected from criminals. This means that the criminal
Describe the law making procedure in Parliament.
Describe the law making procedure in parliament. There are three main types of Bills: Public Bills, Private Bills and Hybrid Bills. Public Bills affect the general public. There are two types of public Bills: Government Bills and Private Members Bills. Government Bills are introduced into parliament by Government Ministers whereas Private Members Bills are introduced by backbench MPs or peers. Private Bills affect a particular person or organisation or locality. Hybrid Bills is a cross between a Public Bill and a Private Bill which is introduced by a Government Minister but only affect a particular person, locality or organisation. The first step taken is the first reading. In the first reading the title and main aims of the bill are announced and copies of it are distributed. There is no debate taken at this stage but a verbal vote is taken to decide whether the bill should progress through to the second reading. If the vote is in favour of the Bill a date is then set for the second reading. In the second reading the House debates the whole Bill and is focused on the general principles of it. It is the Minister or other promoter of the Bill who starts the debate. At the end of the debate there is a vote for or against the Bill progressing further. If the Bill progresses to the next stage it is quite likely it will become an Act of Parliament. After the second reading the
Discuss whether the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law are in a satisfactory state or are in need of reform.
Q3 Discuss whether the rules governing insanity as a defence in criminal law are in a satisfactory state or are in need of reform. [50] Insanity is a complete, general defence. A complete defence is where the mens rea is completely removed from the crime; mens rea is Latin for ‘guilty mind’ and refers to the definition of a crime that deals with what the defendants state of mind must have been to be guilty for example Murder, the mens rea of it is the intent to kill or do GBH.. The general part of insanity Is something which can be used for any crime. Insanity is also known as insane automatism and the Criminal Procedure Act 1991 gives the outlines for the defendant who is found not guilty by way of insanity. Insanity cannot count as a defence to strict liability crimes such as speeding and these are crimes which are less serious and don’t have a mens rea. At any time throughout the trial the defence for insanity can be called upon by any member of the defence or prosecution. If a claim for insanity is successful then the defendant will end up with a verdict of not guilty however they will have to go to a mental hospital to prevent further danger to themselves and other people. If there is an unsuccessful claim of insanity then the defendant may be found guilty and therefore go to prison etc, or he may be fully acquitted. Whether the defendant can be classed as
English law does not normally impose liability for an omission or failure to act despite the fact that there may be compelling moral justifications for doing so. For example, the courts have often explained that there is no legal duty upon a stranger to rescue a drowning child. Consider whether the current legal principles governing omissions are satisfactory (50 marks)
‘English law does not normally impose liability for an omission or failure to act despite the fact that there may be compelling moral justifications for doing so. For example, the courts have often explained that there is no legal duty upon a stranger to rescue a drowning child.’ Consider whether the current legal principles governing omissions are satisfactory (50 marks) The term Actus Reus is the Latin translation of ‘Guilty Act’. The Actus Reus of an offence concerns all those elements of the offence not relating to the defendants state of mind, the Mens Rea. For the Actus Reus the act or omission must be a positive voluntary act on the part of the defendant. If the defendant has no control over his actions then he has not committed the offence. The Actus Reus must also be Positive except in certain cases; this is the area of law that states for someone to commit an offence they must positively cause an act and not an omission to act, The law also states that there is no legal duty upon a stranger to rescue a drowning child. On the other hand, as there are several areas of law, 5 implemented by courts and 1 implemented through parliament, where a duty to act is existent there is often uncertainty on behalf of the defendant that they were under a duty to act in the first place. This could be solved by putting in a ‘good Samaritan’ law such as is in place in
With close reference to the cases of Shaw v DPP and Knuller v DPP , Show how the law relates to morals and religion.
1/18/2012 With close reference to the cases of Shaw v DPP and Knuller v DPP , Show how the law relates to morals and religion. What is the relation of law to morality? Law’s relation to morality has been debated ever since jurisprudence itself came to be and it seems as though it is destined to remain as one of the great philosophical debates. They are mutually engaged along a course that winds through a political society’s life. Laws are generally based on the moral principles of society. Both regulate the conduct of the individual in society. They influence each other to a great extent. Laws, to be effective, must represent the moral ideas of the people. But good laws sometimes serve to rouse the moral conscience of the people and create and maintain such conditions as may encourage the growth of morality. However, it is said that not because something is immoral that makes it illegal, example: pre-marital sex, neglecting your family and adultery are just a few. Sometimes morality can influence the law in the sense that it can provide the reason for making whole groups of immoral actions illegal. With regards to this, in the case of Shaw v DPP (1962), Lord Diplock said “Shaw’s act of publishing advertisements for prostitutes soliciting fornication tended to corrupt public morals. Therefore Shaw’s agreement to do that act was a crime at common law”. The
Briefly outline the various sentencing options available to the courts for both over and under 21s.
Briefly outline the various sentencing options available to the courts for both over and under 21s. The sentencing options available to courts are based on a number of factors. Firstly, sentencing in the UK commensurate to the crime committed. Second, the severity of sentences available will depend on the authority of the law 'awarding' the sentences. Thirdly, the overarching principles of sentencing under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) must be observed. Lastly, sentencing options available to the courts are dependent on the age of the defaulter, which will be the dividing criteria of the essay. Sentencing based on proportionality of the crime committed is an important characteristic of the English legal system. There exist both mitigating and aggravating factors which may reduce or make the sentence harsher respectively. Examples of mitigating factors on the part of the offender would be remorse in court, previous good character, provocation, leniency of the victim and pleading guilty while examples of aggravating factors include racially motivated crimes, vulnerability of the victim, previous convictions and the crimes general effect on the victim and society. Different bodies of the law are given different levels of mandate in which to sentence offenders. The most noticeable difference would lie between the severity of sentences awardable by magistrates' courts
Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do 'the right thing' in a moral sense and not to turn a blind eye or to fail to act to help someone who is in need. Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions (failures to act)
"Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do 'the right thing' in a moral sense and not to turn a blind eye or to fail to act to help someone who is in need." Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions (failures to act) reflects this view. An omission is when a person voluntarily fails to act. The general rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence. This was explained by Stephen J in which he stated; "A sees B drowning and is able to save B by holding out his hand. A abstains in doing so in order that B drowns. A has committed no offence." However, there are exceptions where the failure to act is the actus reus of a crime; an Act of Parliament can create liability for an omission because the defendant has a statutory duty. An example of this would be if a parent had neglected their child of food and clothing then they would be in breach of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Therefore the defendant could be prosecuted for not carrying out the duty made by this act. Another exception to the rule of omissions is if the person has a contractual duty, and fails to carry out their responsibilities in their contract. This happened in the case of R V Pittwood 1902 where the defendant was a railway-crossing keeper who failed to shut the gates when a train was approaching which resulted in the death of someone who was
‘Trial by jury is outdated, expensive and ineffective in ensuring justice’ Analyse arguments for and against this statement in relation to the recent changes proposed and the relevant literature
'Trial by jury is outdated, expensive and ineffective in ensuring justice' Analyse arguments for and against this statement in relation to the recent changes proposed and the relevant literature Jury trials have become a contentious point within the English legal system since the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, or the Runciman Commission, made its report in 1993 (James & Raine, 1993:40). The history of trial by jury can be traced back to the county assize courts and the county quarter sessions of the eighteenth century, where jury trial was used in addition to the presence of judiciary. They were there for the purpose of active participation - interrupting proceedings to ask questions and so on. Since the 1700's however, the jury have gradually become an 'audience' who, despite the entitlement to ask questions at any time, generally do not exercise the right (Emsley, 1997:75). The courts of the time were notoriously corrupt, and juries were a means of the public holding an element of control in the criminal justice system. Trial by jury has changed little in format since its introduction over two centuries ago. It is still a panel of twelve lay-persons, made up of those who are willing to sit on the jury. Under English law: '..the jury system gives ordinary persons a part to play in the administration of justice.' (Keenan, 1998:95). At present, 'ordinary persons'
