Case Studies on Lawful Arrest
Course W100: eTMA 4: David. Using 'common sense rules', 'concealing a handbag matching the description of the stolen handbag', represents suspicious behaviour which should be explained. However the advice as to whether the need to explain can be avoided because of unlawful arrest must be given relative to analysis of specific legal rules. Those rules are contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (hereinafter 'PACE'). Specifically, arrest without a warrant (a summary arrest) by a constable is governed by s.24 of PACE. S.24(3)(b) provides that "where an offence has been committed, a constable may arrest without a warrant ... anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it." PC Patel reasonably believed he knew that an offence had been committed (from his radio call). Absent the radio call, PC Patel may well still have had 'reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed' as provided for in s.24(2) based simply on David's running away (if he had done so) when stopping him to ask something. As David was wearing the same type of jacket as the person suspected of stealing the handbag, in tandem with his decision to run away rather than cooperate, PC Patel fairly unequivocally had 'reasonable grounds for suspecting' David. It might be possible to argue
Do You Feel That Custodial Or Non-Custodial Sentences Have The Most Impact In Controlling Crime?
DO YOU FEEL THAT CUSTODIAL OR NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCES HAVE THE MOST IMPACT IN CONTROLLING CRIME? In this essay I will be talking about crime and its effects on society and the people who live in it, the problems with controlling crime. Furthermore, I will be looking at forms of sentencing in the criminal justice system, problems with the current method of custodial sentencing, including its effects on prisons, alternative methods of sentencing and finally questioning the possibility of a change in the sentencing framework. Feelings about crime are both contradictory and complicated. Crime is a highly emotive issue for people, particularly for those who have lived in the same area for many years and perceived its fabric being eroded by vandalism, burglary, drug and street crime. Many feel that society is trapped in an irreversible decline, which criminal justice institutions are powerless to stop. These views tend to lead to feelings of anger and bewilderment that translate, at the most immediate level, into a demand for a tougher, harsher response to crime. However, it is also perceived that simply punishing people is not enough. There is a frustrating feeling amongst the more liberal thinkers, that there has to be a better way of doing things: sentencing has to prevent crime and tackle its causes, otherwise it does no more than take bad people off the street for a while.
On the Necessity of Justice: An Analysis of Plato's Republic.
On the Necessity of Justice: An Analysis of Plato's Republic Devin Pratt #0131759 January 28, 2003 PHIL 210 Prepared for: David Morris On the Necessity of Justice - an Analysis of Plato's Republic The central theme of Plato's Republic is the question of whether it is better to govern oneself justly, or to behave unjustly. The argument, however, is not proposed to determine whether it is "better" to be just on some abstract moral scale, but rather to determine whether it is truly advantageous in life for a human to love justice and be just. In addition to using examples about justice that explain its advantage, Plato attempts to define justice on its own in order to fully and appropriately deal with the issue at hand. This is not surprising when you take into consideration Plato's belief in the forms. Plato has Socrates trying to prove to his fellow Athenians that the just is truly more advantageous for many reasons. Socrates uses arguments that attempt to show how justice is more advantageous to people while they are on earth, to their soul once they leave earth, and to their subsequent lives that follow. He also attempts to show us how justice is better for a city in order to convince us that justice is a virtue. Although he makes fairly good arguments all around, I am not interested in anything regarding justice as involved in a larger group or the justice
It is accepted that a person may generally defend themselves and their property from attack. To what extent do the laws of self defence and the prevention of crime support this contention?
Sarah Ghalaey Self defence essay It is accepted that a person may generally defend themselves and their property from attack. To what extent do the laws of self defence and the prevention of crime support this contention? 50 marks While it is accepted that a person may generally defend themselves and their property from attack, the courts and parliament have always been mindful of minimizing the risk of over-zealous retaliation in such a situation. There is always the danger that the defendant may take on the role of attacker. Public policy also dictates that revenge attacks or vigilante type behaviour must be discouraged at all costs. For this reason, the use of any force in self defence must always pass the test of reasonableness. This is however a question of fact for the jury, taking into account all revelant factors in the case. Force causing damage to property, injury or even death may be justified if the force was reasonably used in the defence of certain public or private interests. The use of lawful force is not an offence: because an element of the actus reus is missing. There are actually three situations where force can be used:- Firstly there is self defence which is regulated purely by the common law. Secondly there is prevention of crime which is covered by s.3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which provides that a "person may such force as is reasonable
On the 9th December PC Elizabeth stopped and search Mr Cromwell in the high street in Chelmbridge which is under Section 1(2) of PACE, a police officer may search a person or vehicle if he has reasonable ground for suspecting that he will find or possessi
From the fact of the question the issues has been identified in turn: . Whether the constable has right to search any person under the pace code? 2. Is their any reasonable ground present for suspecting Mr Kevin Cromwell? 3. Is their any possible breach of S2(2) and S2(3) of PACE? 4. Is their any possible breach of S(10)(1)(a) of PACE,where constable seized the letter from solicitor which address to the suspect ? 5. Do the constable had authority to ask to the suspect to remove his shirt? 6. Is that necessary to arrest Mr Kevin,Code G para 2.22? 7. Is their any breach of detainee rights by police? 8. Whether the suspect were physically fit for the interview? Stop and Search Here, the police have statutory power to stop and search a person in connection with investigation of a criminal offence, which govern by PACE 1984,Misuse of Drugs Act 1971,Terrorism Act 2000,Pace Codes A & B and Serious and Organized Crime and Police Act 2005. In common law an officer cannot stop and search or detain a person unless they give consent,(Rice v Connelly)1. On the 9th December PC Elizabeth stopped and search Mr Cromwell in the high street in Chelmbridge which is under Section 1(2) of PACE, a police officer may search a person or vehicle if he has reasonable ground for suspecting (which should be objective test)that he will find or possessing(which should be subjective test)
Reena in respect of Chloe.
Paragraph 1 - Reena in respect of Chloe Charges brought against the accused depend upon the injuries caused to and suffered by the victim. In this case Chloe only suffers bruises and scratches, which constitute as minor injuries therefore Reena can be charged with the common assault known as a battery as defined by section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act. The Actus Reus for a battery is the application of unlawful force to someone else. The applying of force does not have to be personal contact; touching another's jacket would suffice for a battery as long as the other feels it. As is known from the case of Cole v Turner the slightest degree of force, even the mere touching will suffice. The definition of force in this context would be the application of strength or energy. If there is no application of force there cannot be a battery. The harm suffered also needs to be physical; causing someone psychiatric harm does not constitute a battery. With this in mind it is not clear whether Reena could be liable for a battery, as she has not actually touched Chloe in any way. However from the case of DPP v K concerning a schoolboy pouring sulphuric acid into a hot air shaft and when another comes to use it the acid blows onto his face resulting in permanent scarring, it was found that force could be applied directly or indirectly. Indirectly would apply in those situations where
Consider what offences, if any, Aftab and Yolande have committed.
Aftab and his girlfriend Yolande are members of an activist group called Foetus which is pledged to take direct criminal action, if necessary, as part of their campaign to abolish abortion. Aftab and Yolande agree a plan to assassinate the Home Secretary, Bill Jones, who has frequently spoken against the aims and methods of Foetus. They choose Christmas Eve as the date upon which they will achieve the most publicity for their organisation. However, unknown to Aftab and Yolande, Bill Jones has taken a last minute skiing holiday in Europe. Bill has arranged to allow his identical twin brother, Fred Jones, to use his chauffeur driven limousine and stay in Bill's country house during the Christmas period. They lie in wait for Bill's car in a dark lane, pull out in front of it and force it to stop. Yolande jumps out and fires a shot into the car. It misses Fred and kills the chauffeur, Charles. Terrified, Fred leaps out the other side of limousine. Aftab chases Fred who jumps over the parapet of railway bridge on to the track below and is immediately killed by a passing train. Consider what offences, if any, Aftab and Yolande have committed. This case is most complex and involves several different law issues which I will examine thoroughly. Firstly I will examine the criminal liability of Aftab. He and Yolande have both conspired to kill Bill Jones which is an offence in
Explain and evaluate the meaning of intention.
"Numerous offences are defined so as to require proof of 'intention' ... It might be expected that the meaning of such a fundamental term would have been settled long ago but this is not so. The cases are inconsistent, judicial opinion has recently changed and there is still some measure of uncertainty." (Ormerod, D Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law, 2005, p.93) With particular reference to recent authority and academic critiques, explain and evaluate the meaning of intention in the light of this statement. Intention is one of the main forms of mens rea, the absolute meaning of this term, however, is unsettled and the legal modifications and definitions regarding this term have undergone much academic scrutiny over the years. There are several forms of intention, the main two being direct intent, and oblique (or indirect) intent. There is also specific intent, basic intent and ulterior intent. It is thoroughly established that direct intent is defined as when it is a persons aim to bring about a certain consequence. With many crimes it is not necessary to prove that the actus reus was intended, however some crimes do require an intention, for example murder requires intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm; recklessness is not adequate. This is why it can be vital to find out whether there was intention. In the case of R v Moloney 1, Lord Bridge of Harwich claimed
In Plato's Republic, Socrates and the interlocutors Polymarchus, Thrasymacus, Adeimantus, or Glaucon discuss the nature of justice.
In Plato's Republic, Socrates and the interlocutors Polymarchus, Thrasymacus, Adeimantus, or Glaucon discuss the nature of justice. They investigate many ideas pertaining to what justice is, outline the various sections of society, and eventually come to define justice itself. The climax of the dialogue is reached in Book VI when the underlying cause of justice is revealed. This fundamental principle is not limited solely to justice, however, but is the cause of all of the virtues. Socrates utilizes an analogy of the sun, as it pertains to the sensible world, to illuminate the way in which the Good, the underlying principle in question, affects the intelligible world. He demonstrates how the ideal rulers come to know the Good by way of their education and that once this knowledge is possessed they can implement order that will bring about a just, virtuous and ultimately good city-state. The Good causes the forms of the intelligible world and makes them understandable to the intellect, and in doing so creates justice both within the soul and the state. Before any kind of exploration of the Good is attempted two ideas must be made clear. Firstly, Socrates does not ever explicitly say what the Good actually is. In fact, he states that it is too wide and complex a subject and will therefore leave it unexamined.1 Consequently, he elucidates what he calls an 'offspring of
This critique will attempt to argue for and against Buning in 1993. 'If a person is not willing to give up his or her drug use then we should help them in causing less harm to himself or others'.
Abstract Glossary of terms and key words AIDS/HIV: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome IDU: Injecting drug use for this essay heroin injectors DTTO: Drug Treatment and Testing Orders Brought in under the Crime and Disorder act 1998, which replaced schedule 1 (A) Probation act as inserted by the Criminal Justice act 1991 BBV: Blood born viruses such as hepatitis This critique will attempt to argue for and against Buning in 1993. 'If a person is not willing to give up his or her drug use then we should help them in causing less harm to himself or others'. Because this statement is ambiguous and is applicable to all drugs, the critique will focus on IDU heroin users and the concept of harm reduction. Because of its complexity will be split into four pillars. The first will deliver an overview of the history of harm reduction. Then the paper will apply philosophical frameworks to the idea of choice, and free will in considering harm reduction using John Stewart Mills and Jeremy Bentham. In analysing harm reduction as an evidenced based intervention the paper will consider two prison studies in Europe, researched by Nelles (2000). In support of abstinence in terms of crime control and not health the, paper will focus on Philip Bean and the Criminal Justice System, and will attempt to demonstrate harm reductions limitations. In 1977, the concept of harm reduction