Legal Issues and Evidence Reporting - Literature review Example

Name: xxxxxxxxx Tutor: xxxxxxxxx Title: Legal Issues and Evidence Reporting Institution: xxxxxxxxx Date due: xxxxxxxxx Risks and benefits of codification Codification is a procedure by which legislative actions and its amendments are brought together under one new act. This new act then is passed through thorough legislation processes which replace the acts that are being codified. This act has benefits and risks that come with its actions. Benefits Equity Among the arguments, equity is one of the favors that come with the codification of the English law. As all cases are preceded, people are given the same hearing, in that they are equally treated. According to Foster (2004), similar legal principles are followed to all criminal offenders despite of their power, wealth status or position; this could not be an issue in some countries where an individual would be given exceptions depending on their position, wealth or power. Such systems of applying precedents that have been put in place already bring equity and fairness in its actions. Expedient The decisions that are made are normally based on past judgments, following this process, is more convenient and easy. Foster (2004) further puts it that people will know what to expect in that an element of predictability is present. The procedure is easy and is more practical because fixed and lengthy rules are not present but instead an already solved real situation is present. Efficient Judgment is based on a given basic framework that is already passed, hence the process of judiciary becomes much fast to pass. There is a given efficiency in the actions of the judiciary in contrary to what the process would be if it was compared with a system that does not work on principles that are not precedent based. Bad decision perpetuation There exists a shortcoming that once there is a found decision and if there is no alteration and that decision is once again followed, there will be a perpetuation of a bad decision. Systems that have a common law are all about adhering to precedents so that alterations take longer periods to happen. However, the bad decision will still be held in the mean time. Risks Difficulties in case of absence of precedents Making of judgments is based on precedents; hence its absence can bring the system to a standstill. Bringing the system will hamper the strength and efficiency of jurisdiction of the cases brought before the state. The need for records There is the need for the precedents to be followed by the courts and that detailed and lengthy case records have to be kept. Accessing can become difficult if uniform indexing is not adhered to or followed well. Diminished Responsibility and Its Plea Effect on Stefan Kiszko and Tony Martin Cases Diminished responsibility is a probable excuse defense where by the defendants argue on behalf of the offenders that even though they committed a crime they should not be fully claimed for committing the crime but they were mentally impaired or diminished. It is a defense that is partial in some charges where the crime was committed when the offender’s mind state was not normal. Boland (2008) writes that incase there is an evidence of reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime as a result of a defect, which could be mental, then the court fails to convict the case under first degree murder, though not meant to be an acquittal. In tony Martin’s case, his appeal was pleaded on the grounds that he did not shoot to kill, even though it was rejected by the court in October 2001. However, three senior judges provided a plea that martin had suffered from paranoid personality disorder which would be directed specifically to anyone who intruded his farm. Smith (2007) argues that the court of appeal accepted this plea later on the basis of diminished responsibility and was reduced to manslaughter which carried a sentence of five years for killing the 16 year old Barras and 3 years for wounding the other burglar who was shot in the leg. The sentences ran concurrently. Though his sentence was reduced by diminished responsibility Martin shot to defend himself from the burglars who had stormed his home. In the case of Stefan he was wrongfully charged with sexual abuse and murder of a minor which saw him sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the true murderer of the 11 year old girl was found and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1976, July 21 which saw Stefan walk a free man after spending 16 years in jail. Stefan was a 23 year old incapable of defilement act even though he was convicted of the act. Three teenage girls caused his arrest; the girls claimed that the young man exposed himself to them; a short period before Lesley, the defiled and murdered girl, disappeared. His case was pleaded for diminished responsibility and reduced to manslaughter even though he had never met Lesley. Even though the two cases were reduced by diminished responsibility, Martin’s verdict was greatly reduced to five and three years of custody which ran concurrently. He did not serve all the years; he served just three years after which he was released. On the side of Stefan, his plea reduced his sentence to manslaughter for which he was sentenced to life though the real murderer was found and Stefan released after 16 years. The United Kingdom breach of the European convention’s human rights The ban on prisoners voting in United Kingdom According to Thomas (2011), writes that the banning of prisoners from voting is a breach of a person’s right to freedom of voting. Denying the prisoners of their right to vote does not serve any purpose of deterrence or reform. This ban sees that from the moment you are convicted you become a non- person. You do not have an opinion on how the society will develop. Prisoners are made outlaw and they don’t have a room for expressing any opinion. This is equivalent to civic termination. Individuals who serve a sentence of any given period go on to give financial obligations to the society behind bars. Their earnings, capital gains and savings continue to pay tax during their custody period. The fact that they are alive civically by paying financial obligations proves that there could be no point for their human rights being denied. They ought to be treated similarly with basic rights such as voting. Thomas (2011) goes ahead to write that by this decision minority groups are adversely affected. The blacks who make up 2% of the United Kingdom’s population, are greatly disproportioned, the black will be more likely banned from voting than the white prisoners. If the prisoners would vote, it would highly promote a sense of civic responsibility, rehabilitation and resettlement among them. This notion of barring the prisoners from voting marginalizes them further yet they are already on the society’s margins. This action has raised many debates and could as well weaken the criminal justice system if some codes are ignored. There are suggestions that there will be no quick solution to this debate whether United Kingdom will lift the ban or not. Some suggested even withdrawing from the ECHR which others said was not the best solution. The government looks like it’s prepared to handle the debate over prisoners being given the rights to vote. There should be a way to respect the rules of legislation. According to Gary (2007), if Britain thinks of withdrawing from the European council it would actually come with consequences which would push the country to political turmoil’s between those who support the motion and those who are against the motion. The Case of R (on Application of Cash) v County Of Northampton Shire Coroner The Purpose of the Hearing before the Queen’s Bench The case was to be heard to determine the use of force which was to determine whether it’s satisfactory and convincing. The criminal standards regarding the circumstances that surrounded the incidence was to be determined if the deceased died unlawfully. The coroner had not left a verdict for jurisdiction after an unlawful killing of a person while being restrained by the police. The European law on standard of proof needs the authorities to give an explanation that is satisfying and convincing. The major conflicts in the eye witness evidence and how they can be resolved Gilberts (2007) notes that the deceased suffered a prolonged history of overdoses of drugs and self-injury, the police who arrested him are believed to have caused his death though the jury left a verdict that the death was accidental. May be the police officers did not intent to kill the man; they only wanted to take away the razor blade he cut himself with. The police officers dragged him to the ground and handcuffed him, one of them seized his left hand and another pushed his legs’ back which made the deceased topple on the ground backwards, and he unfortunately collapsed and died before making it to the hospital. It can be resolved if the medical history of the diseased is reviewed to determine his ill health. This will explain the kind of force that the police officers used on the deceased which worsened his health condition leading to his death. The Effect of ‘’Unfortunate’’ Words of PC Lowe and what the Jury will make on them The words spoken by PC Lowe aggravated the need for the case to open a second verdict. That showed that Mr. Cash’s case had been faulted. The jury would have to determine if these words implied an insensitive indifference to the case on the part of the police. The efforts of the police officers to cover up the case by complying to give consistent report of the case based on lies also deepened more questions of doubt by the jury. The jury would make more investigations of the issue to unravel the tracks of the police in the unlawful killing of Mr. Cash. The extent to which the police caused the death of Mr. Cash The pathologists conducted a post mortem on Mr. Cash and found out that the deceased had suffered a terminal oxygen deficit; he discovered that his nose had turned on one side with mild reddening of the nose bridge. Gilberts (2007) adds that it was possible if he was held face down in the mud, the mud was found to be consistent with the mud on the deceased face. The police aggravated his death when they pressed him in the mud and that had an effect on his respiratory system that was already intoxicated by drugs which eventually caused the cardiac arrhythmia that killed him. Death by dangerous driving Dangerous driving falls under road traffic act 1991 in section 1. It states that an individual who causes another person’s death by driving dangerously on road or other place is guilty of an offence. Retting (2006) points out that in order for the police to prove incidence of death caused by dangerous driving they should first prove beyond reasonable doubt various aspects that surrounded the accident and they should ascertain that the accused is the cause of the accident. The points of prove are; The police must prove that the driving was dangerous to any noble and competent diver. Ascertain that the driven car was the one that caused the death of the other person. The car that caused the accident was not road worthy The accused car came in contact with the person involved in the crash The driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs The driver did not adhere to road signs or he overtake at illegal points Providers of Evidence for points to prove and the need for expert reports witnesses The police officers, witnesses and the safety cameras are the major providers of evidence for dangerous driving cases. Retting (2006), also points out that the experts are needed in such cases to back up what is said by witnesses. Pathologists will give evidence about what they have observed on dead bodies. For instance, forensic works would be run on an accused car who allegedly denies being guilty of hit and run case despite the fact that some people witnessed the incidence. The tribunal therefore assesses the case in question depending on the reliability on the reliability of the information provided by the expert. They are needed because psychological studies have proved eye witnesses to be unreliable to some degree. Pathologists therefore will come in to ascertain the reliability of the evidence information provided for the case. The experts have an ability to express an opinion in any given case in that they provide an interpretation or meaning to the observations presented by the eye witness. Bibliography Boland, G. (2008). Diminished Responsibility as a Defense In English Law. Journal of English Criminal Law 14 (5) 11-19 Gary, S. (2009) The English Legal System. London: University Press. Gilberts, B. (2007) Coroner Inquest Jury Directions. New Law Journal. 4 (7) 14-23 Foster, S. (2004) Human Rights and Civil Liberties. London: Sage Retting, A. (2006) Effects of Red Light Cameras on Violations and Crashes. International Literature Review. 4(5) 23-2 Smith, C. (2007) Miscarriages of Justice Cases. Criminal Case Review Commission. 6 (4) 12-24 Thomas, L. (2011). The Prisoners Right to Vote. A journal of international Human Rights.12 (5) 9-19 Read More