Major Cases in Legal Method - Essay Example

?PART A: DPP v Tick [1999 What were the material facts in the case? The case DPP vs. Tick, 2 persons were convicted under the Road Traffic Act 1988 for driving above the prescribed limit of alcohol in the breath whereas the other was for not providing a reasonable excuse for providing a specimen of the breathe for alcohol testing. Though there was no dispute with the exact time at which the intoximeter was being used, the computer time mentioned in the printout of the Intoximeter reading demonstrated that there was an error of about 1 hour 13 minutes. The Divisional Court took into consideration this error and provided a decision against the DPP. Under Section 5(1) of the RTA 1988 it would be an offence to drive a motor vehicle on a road after consuming alcohol and producing a breathe test containing 35 mcg of alcohol and above. Under Section 5(1), the Secretary of State has permitted the Lion Intoximeter 3000 to be used as evidence against driving under the influence of alcohol. Under Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, any evidence that is provided by the Computer would not be accepted as evidence unless there is no reasonable ground that the statement was inaccurate due to improper use or functioning, and that the computer was operated properly. Ms. Tick was driving erratically on 21 May 1993 and was taken to the Sun Hill Police Station and provided a breathe test using the Lion device. The time the test was done was about 00:13 am but was given as 11:00 pm on the computer printout. Both the samples given by Ms. Tick exceeded 78 mcg of alcohol, above the permitted limit of 35 mcg, and Ms. Tick was charged under Section 5(1). The inaccuracy in time was noted and Srgt Cryer was called to testify in court. It was found that the reading or functioning of the Intoximeter was not affected by the functioning of the clock and both were independent. Dr. Know gave evidence and said that the clock did not have any effect on the results of the breathe analyzer. Lord Hoffmann said that examined the facts of the case under section 69(1) of the Police and Criminal evidence Act 1984 which concerns with the proper functioning and operation of a computer device. Here the question was whether the malfunction was relevant or irrelevant. After taking into consideration by Dr. Know and Srgt Cryer, there was nothing that could displace the printout evidence. Since the clock and the breathe analysis mechanisms lay in the same box, it could be said that since there was an error with the time, there could be an error with alcohol analysis, and this was even the intention of the legislation. However, the evidences that were available against Ms. Tick were admissible to convict her. 2. Explain, in your own words, the legal issue(s) in the case. Here the legal question being asked was whether the evidence presented by the Lion Intoximeter breathe analysis was permissible under section 69(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It is important to take into consideration the other evidences that were available including that of Srgt Cryer, the constable and Dr Know regarding Ms. Tick use of alcohol above the permissible limit whilst driving and also the error committed by the machine. Here the question was being asked regarding the admissibility and validity of a computer statement as evidence. Under section 69 a computer device must be functioning properly and if there is any evidence that the device was not functioning properly, it cannot be taken as evidence in criminal cases. If a computer is malfunctioning, the same should not be relevant and should not affect the generation of the evidence. From evidences presented, it was clearly shown that the functioning of the clock was independent of the results of the breathe analysis obtained. However, since the clock and the alcohol analysis components were in the same box, there were some doubts. However, Judge Hoffmann took into consideration that the information of time supplied by the clock had not effect on the generation and processing of the results. Hence there was no evidence that the device functioned inaccurately and Judge Hoffmann strongly based his decision on the construction of Section 69(1). 3. Which technique(s) of statutory interpretation, presumptions and/or ‘rules of language’ did Lord Hoffmann employ in the case? Give reasons for your answer. Judge Hoffmann took a purposive approach in arriving at a conclusion of this case as he looked at the purpose of Section 69(1) and the intention of the legislation in taking in admission evidences given by a computer device. Purposive approach refers to the concept wherein the court would interpret the legislations based on the purpose in implementing such legislations by the legislative body. Following the case Pepper vs. Hart (1993) AC 593, courts have been advised to take a purposive approach in interpreting the legislations when the traditional approaches so employed have casted doubts on the application and interpretation of such legislations. First the Hon Judge chooses a literal approach and tried to interpret the rule based on the same. However, the wordings of Section 69(1) did not cover this situation and the extent of inaccuracy that was permitted within the law could not be identified. Hence he chose to find the intention of the legislation using the purposive approach. He found that if the machine was not functioning properly or was not operated properly, then the computer evidence was not admissible. The evidence was not admissible if the malfunctioning was relevant. From the best of knowledge from experts it was found that the malfunctioning of the clock was immaterial and irrelevant to the reading obtained. Hence these were admissible under section 69(1). 4. Explain, in your own words, the ratio decidendi of DPP v Tick [1999]. The ratio decidendi for the decision by DPP vs. Tick was based on the admissibility of the computer evidence presented under Section 69(1) and the expert advice given by Srgt Cryer and Dr Know that the evidence presented but the computer and the inaccuracy of the time was not affecting the reading. Here though the time mentioned by the printout was wrong, it in no way affected the generation and processing of the results of the breathe analysis. Though Judge Hoffmann took into consideration that since the device and the clock were in the same box, and any malfunction of one component was likely to affect the functioning of another component, the decision regarding the validity of the computer generated evidence was taken into consideration mainly because of the expert advice provided. Srgt Cryer had also given a statement testifying under Para 8 of Schedule 3, stating that to the best of his knowledge Section 69(1) had been complied with. Part B: Jane’s Case Jane is charged by the CPS with driving while unfit through drink or drugs, contrary to s. 4 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988 (a summary offence). With reference to authority, explain the process the CPS will have gone through to decide on whether to charge Jane and explain the legal procedure to conclude Jane’s case after charge. When the crime is committed by Jane, it must be first reported to the police who will investigate the case further, identify any suspects, interrogate the suspects and charge the suspects for the drug-related and the traffic-relate offences. Assuming that Jane is an adult and holds are valid driving license she would be interrogated and charged. She would be given a summons order and would have to return at a later date to deal with the case in an out-of-court manner rather than face prosecution. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) aids in settlement of such drug-related and traffic-related crimes in an out of court manner and often it is the police which can take a call on this. By applying the Code for Crown Prosecutors to the facts of the case the CPS would determine if the offender should be prosecuted or not. From the police once the case is received at the CPS, the case would be carefully reviewed and would make sure to go-ahead with the prosecution. The CPS would take a call on whether they should go-ahead with the prosecution with criminal charges and the type of charges that would be imposed. In appropriate circumstances, alternatives to prosecution are also considered, and one of the important factors to be considered is the public interest. Wherever necessary the police would be called. Small crimes are taken to the Magistrate court, whereas more serious crimes are taken to the Crown Court after the charges are imposed. In a Summary Offence for driving under the influence of drugs, since the offence is a minor one, the defendant cannot have a trial by jury. A decision would be made by the Magistrate Court to set Jane penalise Jane with fine, imprisonment, discharge or community service or may be granted bail. Jane has the right to accept the sentence or appeal to the higher Crown Court. When Jane’s car spun off the road, she hit a cyclist on the other side of the road, killing him. She was charged with causing death by careless driving under s. 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, an indictable only offence. Explain how, if at all, the legal procedure to get Jane’s case to trial would differ from a s. 4 Road Traffic Act 1988 offence. What is the procedure during the trial to hear evidence from all the witnesses? In such a circumstance, the Magistrate Court would only briefly hear the case mainly to determine if bail, reporting, restrictions, etc would be provided. The case has to be dealt with by the Crown Court. However, Jane still has the option of placing a plea before the Magistrate Court. A fine of Pounds 5000 or imprisonment up to 6 months can be imposed by the Magistrate Court for some of the offenses that are dealt by the Magistrate Court. Most of the indictable-only offences such as driving offenses resulting in death would be dealt by the Crown Court. Here the offence committed by Jane is death of another person by careless or reckless driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. In the Road Safety Act 2006, Section 20 deals with this type of offence. Under Section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, she can get a jail term ranging from 1 to 14 years, receive an unlimited fine, or both and would face disqualification from driving for a period of 2 years minimum. Under very rare circumstances the individual may receive other penalties such as providing community service. Section 4 deals driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Such an offence would be handled by the Magistrate court after the individual is arrested by the constable and produced before the Magistrate Court. Causing death by dangerous driving is an offence under Section 1 for which the maximum sentence is 14 years. If the CPS decided to charge Jane with dangerous driving under s. 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (an either way offence), explain, with full reference to authority, what factors would assist the Magistrates’ Court in making their decision on the correct trial venue. Offences under Section 2A deal with driving dangerously and would be handled by the CPS as a summary offence and brought forward to the Magistrate Court. Under Section 2A a person is said to be driving dangerously if he or she fails below the expected mark of what a competent driver is expected to do, and is driving dangerously. Some of the offences related to section 2A are handled by the Crown Court. The maximum sentence for offences under this section is 2 years on indictment. The driver would also be disqualified from driving for a period of 12 months, following which retesting would be mandatory. The Magistrate court would handle offences under Section 2A, but the person can seek justice in the Crown Court with the right to trial. Besides, if the Magistrate court thinks that the offence with section 2 A is very serious, then he can suggest that it be shifted to the Crown Court so that the punishment may be even steeper. Besides, the defendant can also take up appeals from the Magistrate Court in the Crown Court. In the Crown Court, the jury members that are selected would be chosen by random. The Crown Court as well as the Magistrate court would take into consideration the facts of the case and also the circumstances of the offender. Jane was told by the hospital that she would need to rest, and hence be off work, for six months as a result of her injuries. She makes a claim for her personal injuries from the farmer (Mr Tom Jones) who owned the sheep she collided with. With full reference to authority, explain how she could finance her legal costs in respect of this claim and the financial consequences should she be unsuccessful at trial. How would your answer differ, if at all, if Jane were to be successful at trial? IF Jane has not received compensation from the insurance company as she was intoxicated when she was driving, she may make a claim from the owner of the uncontrollable animal. Under the general tort rules, Jane has to demonstrate that the sheep owner has failed in his general duty to control the animal to avoid causing harm to others. Here the owner is expected to behave in a particular manner, but has failed to do his duty. The other route that Jane can choose is the Animals Act 1971 and is mentioned under Section 2(2) of the Act. Under Section 2(2), the keeper of the animal which does not belong to a dangerous species is usually held liable for the damage unless the injuries are not severe, or from characteristics of the animal that are known or common. If the animal had certain uncommon characteristics and if the owner knew of these uncommon and dangerous characteristics then the owner would be held liable. If Jane was successful at the case and if she was not proven guilty under section 4, then she could file for compensation under Section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971, and since she suffered grievous injuries, the owner would be strictly liable for owners of non-dangerous animals who have behaved strangely and have not been controlled by the owner. Strict liability would arise if the animal has certain dangerous characteristics which deviate from that possessed by any domesticated animal or if that species of domesticated animal is inherently dangerous and no precaution was taken by the owner. Exclusively most of the damages are given for personal injury claims arising from loss of control of domesticated animals. Further under Section 8 of the Animals Act 1971, the owner has the duty to prevent damage from animal straying on to the highway. It would not be an offence if the animal has strayed out wherein it is not customary to have a fence and there are local authority rules in the regard. Secondly, it would not apply in areas where the animal has the right to way. Mr Jones does not accept he was to blame for this accident and wishes to dispute the claim. What will he have to do now that Jane has commenced proceedings? There are many ways in which Mr. Jones has to dispute the case. Firstly he has to demonstrate that the place itself was meant to be an animal crossing and that Jane had not taken sufficiently precaution of the animal crossing nor had slowed down at the animal crossing. Secondly, Mr Jones would have to show that Jane was not in sufficiently control of the vehicle at that time, and had been driving the vehicle dangerously under the influence of alcohol or drugs at that particular time. Thirdly, the owner can demonstrate that the animal was left loose due to no fault of his and the act was caused by a third party releasing the animal into the roads without the information of the owner. For example, due to an act of vandalism, the animal is released into the public road, and the owner had no information of the same. Fourthly, if the owner can demonstrate that in those particular areas the farm animal had the right to way, then Jane would be held liable for infringing upon the animals right to way. However, in general, there is greater emphasis on the farm owner to ensure that his animals are not a hazard to the public roads. Jane is claiming ?55,000 in damages. Mr Jones feels that this is excessive, but to avoid having to go to trial, he is willing to pay her ?25,000 and makes such an offer to her by letter stating that this offer is to be in full and final settlement of her claim. Jane does not agree. If she refuses the offer and the case proceeds to trial, are there any consequences for Jane? Note: you are not required to consider the issue of liability. Jane is placing a case against Mr. Jones for being negligent with his animals and not taking sufficient care to ensure that his animals do not stray out. The compensation is mainly for personal damage claims and Jones would be liable for meeting the same. For any person to make such a claim it is important that the person does not make a fault whilst driving or has not ignored any signal that alerts the drivers of animals crossing in that particular area. The claim is Jane is making is under the Animals Act 1971 for damages suffered and she would receive compensation as Jones’s animals have strayed out. The Animals Act 1971 is independent of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Under the Road Traffic Act, 1988, a dog has to be lead by the side of the road. However, in this case the animal was a sheep and hence the specifications under Road Traffic Act would not apply. Since the claims under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (For drunken driving) are independent of the claims mentioned under Animal Act 1971, Jane’s claim for damages may not have any consequences, as both these claims are independent. However, if Jane was found liable for dangerous driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, she cannot make a claim for general tort or negligence on the part of the owner as in this case she has been found to be negligent. Total World Count Part B: ~1700 words Bibliography Nottingham Trent University 2011. Legal Method [Accessed Online], [Retrieved on: 2012, March 15]. Read More