"Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." - Lord Hewart
"Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."1 - Lord Hewart "This is not about your client's harsh upbringing, nor their life-story, this proceeding regards the law."2 - District Court Judge Introduction The popularised image of courtroom dramas in no way prepared me for the everyday realities of our court system. Interestingly, glimpses of this over-dramatised form of the law appeared on occasions, through the conduct of enthusiastic prosecutors or dry magistrates. The marked separation in formality, conduct and atmosphere of each court was of more surprise than the variations in procedure. The local courts were characteristic of what might be called 'assembly-line law', where large numbers of cases were dealt with summarily, the magistrate often taking only minutes to move the accused on. The cases were simple and repetitive, it became difficult to see the participants as individuals, instead of yet another number to be dealt with. The complexity of the Supreme Court was very different, and the situation far more reflective of the discourse of justice and rationality that the law promotes. Whilst there is clear merit in the argument that different tiers of justice exist3, it is generalist to argue it is the result of an insidious state ideology. Communication difficulties, unrepresented defendants, and uncompromising
"All inchoate offences should be abolished on the theory that society is not harmed until the crime is completed" - Critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the above proposition.
"All inchoate offences should be abolished on the theory that society is not harmed until the crime is completed" Critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the above proposition using examples drawn from any of the inchoate offences of incitement, conspiracy and attempt. 'All inchoate offences should be abolished on the theory that society is not harmed until the crime is completed', during this essay I shall critically evaluate this statement, using examples from the inchoate offences of incitement, conspiracy and attempt. The definition of Inchoate offences, are the incomplete offences. I shall first explain the actus reus and the mens rea required for all the inchoate offences. The actus reus of conspiracy is the agreement with another or others that a course of conduct will be pursued, which if carried out by their instructions, will lead to an offence. The mens rea of conspiracy is intention, although in Anderson 1986 the House of Lords decided that the defendant was to be found guilty even when intention was not established. The actus reus of incitement is when the offender urges, suggests, persuades, etc. another to commit a crime. The mens rea of incitement is again intention, this intention is to bring about the required result. The actus reus of attempts exists when a party does an act, which is more than merely preparatory. Once again intention is the
Critically consider all arguments concerning spousal compellability and conclude whether or not it is justifiable.
In 1940, Wigmore described the rule that spouses should not be compellable as: �the merest anachronism, in legal theory, and an indefensible obstruction to truth, in practice.� 1 Whereas Lord Wilberforce stated: �to allow her to give evidence would give rise to discord and perjury and would be, to ordinary people, repugnant.�2 These are two very differing opinions, highlighting the fact that spousal compellability is a highly debatable area of law. Under section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 19843 (PACE), spouses are non-compellable unless the offence is one which is specified.4 This spousal privilege has sparked intense criticism and renders the justification questionable. Utilising academic opinion, case authority and relevant sources, I will critically consider all arguments concerning spousal compellability and conclude whether or not I think it is justifiable. Hoskyn v Metropolitan Police Commissioner5was the first significant step towards the PACE. This case concerned a marriage two days before the trial date, the defendant was convicted and he appealed on the grounds that his wife should not have been a compellable witness. The House of Lords ruled that when her husband is charged with violence against her, she is competent but not compellable. There were dissenting judges and vast criticism because of this decision and this
Criminal Law Omissions. In the English legal system there is generally no liability for an omission to act, the English legal system does not have a good Samaritan rule neither is there no duty of easy rescue.
In the English legal system there is generally no liability for an omission to act, the English legal system does not have a 'good Samaritan rule' neither is there 'no duty of easy rescue'. Fitzjames Stephen gave a classical example of 'A seeing B drowning and is able to save him by holding out his hand. A abstains from doing so in order that B may be drowned, A will have committed no offence.'1 This example clearly shows that there is no positive duty for B to act, even though B holding his hand out may have saved A's life. This is a controversial issue as the law allows one to watch a person drown without them being prosecuted for any offence. However in some European countries this is different such as in France and Germany where there is a duty of easy rescue and failure to do so will amount to a criminal offence2. As I have earlier said generally there is no liability for failing to act, however there are six exceptions and if a person fails to act then they will be committing a criminal law offence, there is a vast amount of case law in this field which will be used to illustrate the exceptions to an omission. The first exception I will discuss is a special relationship, this is where the law will require an individual to act where there is a special relationship, it is generally recognised the more closer the relationship the more likely the law will impose a duty.
Offender Profiling...............USA or UK?
Aneeq Mushtaq Offender Profiling...............USA or UK? Offender profiling aims to present a composite description of a perpetrator, based on biographical and behavioural cues that can lead to the apprehension of that perpetrator. Profiling techniques have been used to narrow the focus of an investigation (by specifying the perpetrators location, sex or age) or to provide suggestions for interviewing suspects (McCann, 1992). As a result of collecting data and analysing evidence, the use of such techniques have led to arrests of serious criminals such as John Duffy (UK), who murdered his victims near railways (Canter 1989). This assignment will aim to compare and contrast the FBI's 'Crime Scene Analysis' of offender profiling with that of David Canter's 'Five Factor Model. The strengths and weaknesses of each approach will be highlighted including the main differences between profiling in the USA and UK. Due to the rapid increase of serial murders and rapes in the USA within the 1970's, the FBI invented the first systematic approach of offender profiling. Counteracting the rising numbers of serial murders lead to the development to the Behavioural Sciences Unit (BSU). BSU interviewed 36 convicted sexually orientated murderers and classified them into organised (average / above average intelligence, crime planned) or disorganised (low intelligence, messy crime scene,
The search of Arnold - Police stop and search powers.
The search of Arnold Introduction A police officer is given the power to stop and search a person under section 1(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, where it states that a constable may search "any person or vehicle, anything which is in or on a vehicle, for stolen or prohibited articles or any articles to which subsection (8A) below applies". A police officer can also be given the power to randomly search people under s.60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, without the need for reasonable suspicion. To consider whether the stop and search was lawful, I will begin by determining whether the statutory requirements were fulfilled for a s.1 PACE search, then the alternative means of searching Arnold, and finally questions over the legality of the search in other aspects of the law. S.1 Pace Search The first issue which we must deal with is where the section 11 search takes place. Under section 1 of PACE2, it specifies that a search may take place where the "public has access" or "any other place to which people have ready access at the time", but is not the suspect's garden. In this case it is in The Shires shopping centre in Leicester; this suggests that it complied with s.1(1) and 1(4) of PACE, unless the police officer took him to a part of the shopping centre which was not open to the public. However, this isn't specified in the information
"There is no statutory definition of intention in English law. Indeed, over the past few decades there has been much controversy over the actual meaning of the concept 'intention'". Explain and evaluate this statement.
This essay will deliberate the extent to which the meaning of the concept of 'intention' in criminal law has proven controversial through analysis of pertinent case law and academic critiques. In particular this essay will explore how the concept of 'intention' has changed in various cases in chronological order and the effect this has had. The essay will then focus on the current criticisms of the concept and proposals for reform will be discussed. A conclusion will be made reasoning the extent of controversy that surrounds the concept of intention in both the past few decades and in the present day. In many conduct crimes whereby the defendant's conduct is required to produce a particular consequence, liability can either be based on his intention or his recklessness as to that consequence. The offences that are based on the proof of, and rely on the definition of 'intention' to find liability are most notably the more serious crimes1, with much of the debate on the meaning of 'intention' being centred around the offence of murder2. Nonetheless, intention is not defined in any statute therefore its meaning must be derived from judicial decisions3, thus one would think that such an elementary term would have been definitively defined a long time ago; however this is not the case as we will see. Lord Steyn suggested obiter, in the House of Lords (HoL) judgement of R v
IMPOSING LIABILITY ON OMISSIONS
Foundations of Criminal Law Level 2 LLB LAW Student ID: 33165044 Year: 2006/07 Word count: 1486 I certify that this is my own work. The work has not in whole or in part, been presented elsewhere for assessment. Where material has been used from other sources it has been properly acknowledgement. If this statement is untrue I acknowledged that I will have committed an assessment offence. I also certify that I have taken a copy of this assignment, which I will retain until after the Board of Examiners has published results and which I will make available on request. In recent times the criminal law has been concerned with imposing liability for omissions. However, this was not the case in the past as the law was more concerned with the prohibition and punishment of positive acts (Card, 2004). 'An act is the most common basis of the actus reus' (ibid, p57). The actus reus of an offence is its conduct element. It 'describes what the defendant must be proved to have done (or sometimes failed to do), in what circumstances, and with what consequences' (Herring, 2006, p85). Before proceeding further it is necessary to clarify what is meant by an omission. An omission is the failure to act which can sometimes give rise to criminal liability and this failure to act can constitute the actus reus of an offence (Herring, 2006). According to Herring (2006, p88), the criminal law on
The concept of retribution implies.
Theories to be discussed:- * Retribution * Rehabilitation * Incapacitation * Deterrence The concept of retribution implies: A criminal deserves to be punished because he has done something socially or morally evil... * Is eye for an eye punishment In 1993 Michael Howard, the then Home secretary made a statement saying: "Let's make one thing absolutely clear; Prison works, it ensures we are protected from murderers, muggers and rapists; and it makes many who are tempted to commit crime think twice. This may mean that more people will go to prison. I do not flinch from that, we shall no longer judge the success of our system of justice by a fail in our prison population" (Ashton J, Wilson D: 16: 1998) * conviction for rape can carry a life sentence Look at R v Billam (1986), which sets out sentence tariffs for rape. This case set out guidelines for imprisonment of rapists, Billam suggests that rape carries an automatic custodial sentence, 'other than in wholly exceptional circumstances', the maximum sentence for rape is life, although, In terms of mitigation, if a plea of guilty is entered, effectively relieving the victim of the ordeal of having to appear in court, the guidelines state that this 'should normally result in some reduction from what would otherwise be the appropriate sentence'. Rehabilitation: Emphasis on the individual can be seen no more clearly
Criminal Justice System of Great Britain
The Role of the Trial The role of the judicial system is to protect the innocent, to pass judgement and to serve an appropriate form of punishment on convicted felons. This may include receiving a custodial sentence, serving a specified amount of community service or incurring a disqualification or penalty fine. All criminal cases in the UK initially commence in the same system. However the severity and details of the offence will affect the following: which court the accused may be trialled and sentenced in, the criminal proceedings and the level of punishment received. This essay will examine the differing categories of offence and describe the role of the trial to provide a basic overview of the Crown and Magistrates court systems of Great Britain. The criminal court system has two rankings. The lower is the Magistrates' Court and the higher ranking is the Crown Court. The Youth Court established in 1992 is a separate less formal division of the Magistrates' Court. It was set up for the trial and punishment of minors aged between ten and seventeen years old. Young offenders too young to be trialled as adults (unless they are being tried alongside an adult) and old enough to know right from wrong are forced to face the consequences of their actions. The youth justice system can impose sentences up to 24 months detention in a young offenders unit or a fixed amount of