Law of Criminal Evidence - Essay Example

Law of Criminal Evidence Answer to Question i) The basic cloak of innocence is rendered to the defendant until he is proved guilty, by the Court, and this norm has been the bulwark of the tenets of UK criminal proceedings. The onus of proving that defendant is guilty has to be evidentially substantiated by the prosecution and alleged non-innocence is only established upon the passing of the verdict and the establishment of guilt beyond 'reasonable doubt' (Lifchus 1997). Judicial decisions are based on cold logic and cogent thinking besides legal dexterity. There may be many relevant facts to a case which may not be prima-facie available, and yet may be prime material for the establishment of guilt or innocence of the defendant. It is logically connected to the evidence, or, conversely, lack of it .It does not involve proof to an absolute certainty; it is not clinching evidence; nor is it an fictitious or minor doubt; moreover, proof is required that the accused is guilty, and the jury also that finds the defendant to be guilty too. In R v Letenock (1917) 12 Cr. App. R. 221 the defendant claimed that he erroneously believed that the victim was about to attack him. The Court directed the jury that his inebriated state was immaterial unless his state of inebriation was so high, so as to render him oblivious of his true senses. The Court of Criminal Appeal overruled his sentence for murder and, instead, brought in a verdict of manslaughter. "However, a drunken mistake concerning provocation can still afford a defense."(Dingwall 2007. P. 137). This case may be viewed as a reversal of the facts in above R v Letenock (1917) case when the defendant claims that he was not under the influence of alcohol when he committed the offence. The fact whether he was drunk while the accident occurred, or not, is not so material in this case as the truth that he has killed a man. If what he says is true, he should be charged on a higher complicity of murder, since he claims he was in his full senses when the accident took place, as compared to manslaughter, carrying a lower sentence, if he had knocked Daljit, under the influence of alcohol. Thus, in this case the Courts shall have to consider the conduct and behaviour of the defendant when the offence took place. Criminal jurisprudence and human behaviour is a complex subject and it is only after a complete investigation of the case, that a verdict could be arrived by the Courts. It is only with the assistance of well developed and engaging process of data collection and processing that the difficulties and challenges posed by crime and misdeeds data could be substantiated and, through it, building-up of a case for positive alcohol-related criminal proceedings could be enforced. Legal dimensions: Criminal misdeeds under the influence of liquor have a statutory definition, entailing individual behavior and licensing laws. The offences on the statute book are unambiguously related to the consumption of alcohol (a series of other offences cover the area of licensing): Offences where alcohol consumption by the defendant is intrinsically related to the offence, e.g. drink driving, drunk and disorderly, aggravated drunkenness, death by careless driving, while under the inebriated influence of alcohol. "Drink driving offences alone are judged against a fixed, objective standard based on a prescribed alcohol concentration in the body. However, in law, 'alcohol-related crime' can also be defined in conjunction with a professional opinion that the offender was under the influence of alcohol at the time they committed the offence. Police officers apply this subjective standard in relation to many 'statutory' alcohol-related offences, but also do so in any case where the condition of the alleged perpetrator is deemed relevant to the case." (Tierney & Hobbs 2003). Answer to Question1 (ii) 1) Provocation: It could be interpreted as being an act undertaken on the spur of the moment which was induced by the victim's actions or deeds. In an act of provocation, it is necessary to establish that the defendant had acted in direct self defence and would have met with serious health consequences, had the action not been taken at that moment. An act stemming out of temporary loss of self control, ignited by the actions of the victim is known as provocation. It needs to be proved beyond doubt that the actions taken by the defendant under provocation would have been done by any person of ordinary prudence under such circumstances. "It is clear that in English law a man is justified in using force against an assailant in defence of himself, provided the force is proportionate to the reasonable apprehension of danger, even if the death of the assailant results. It is also undisputed that gross provocation may reduce murder to manslaughter. As the Prosecutor pointed out, the provocation must be so great as to deprive a reasonable man of his self-control (Rex v. Lesbini [1914] 3 K.B. 1116)." (Trial of Yamamoto Chusaburo. 2007. P. 80). 2) Diminished responsibility: This condition is when the mental state of the defendant was sufficiently suffering from impaired or abnormality of mind that he/she was not aware of the implications of action undertaken. However, the burden of proof that there was severely lowering of mental faculties which is normally possessed by an ordinary person of sound mind. This mental state could have been induced by inherent causes or through disease, injury, etc. However, there is need to prove that diminished responsibility of mental faculties were the cause of the death, as was laid down in the case, R v Shickle [2005] EWCA Crim 1881, in which the Court of Appeal acknowledged that even if alcohol and / or drugs had contributed to the appellant's state it would not be fatal to the appellant's case. (Baird 2005). In this case the appeal that death was caused, under ostensibly diminished responsibility was rejected. 3) Insanity: The presence of mental imbalances could be used as a plea for a wide range of psychotic conditions including schizophrenia, dementia and crimes caused due to extreme paranoid conditions which may prevaricate the need for the defendant to undergo trial for crimes. But it is necessary to prove that the defendant is insane also during the course of trial and not only at the time of the crime. Genuine Psychiatric reports would serve as a useful basis for indicating that the defendant, as a matter of fact, did have a serious mental illness, disease, or defect which seriously impaired his judgment and clouded his decision-making faculties while committing the crime. While the aspect of determining the extent and intensity of mental insanity that has resulted in the crime is a matter of medical jurisprudence, it is necessary to prove that the crime directly resulted due to manifest insane state of mind of its perpetrator. In the leading case Regina v.Byrne 1960,2 QB 396,403, it was proved opined by the jury that , "on this question medical evidence is no doubt of importance, but the jury is entitled to take into consideration all the evidence, including the acts or statements of the accused and his demeanour. They are not bound to accept the medical evidence if there is other material before them which, in their good judgment, conflicts with it and outweighs it." (Molan P. 148) Answer to Question 2 The Courts would view Sylvia's evidence as a personal perspective of the facts as known to her, and it would not amount to a considered opinion regarding the identity of the alleged offender. She may not draw any inferences from the directly observed fact since there are supervening factors like bad light, poor eyesight, etc. Sylvia may not be called upon to pass a specialized opinion required from an expert in the field, but her evidence need to be accepted as the only material witness available for this case. The effects of maintaining silence is laid down under Section 37 of the criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994. (Course of Justice: Evidence, procedures, etc). Under it, the effect of accused failure or refusal to account for presence in a particular point has been discussed. Under sub-section 2 of the above Section, Gurinder may fail to report or give an account for her presence at the particular point. In such cases, the Court may evaluate whether there is a case, on the defendant Gurinder's part to answer, and the Court may also draw such inferences as it may deem fit and necessary, from the failure of Gurinder to answer to charges leveled against her. Further under the law, a person may, under oath in a Court of law, refuse to answer any question posed to him/her, if, under the provisions available to her under any law or enactment, she is privileged not to answer the questions, or if, secondly, the Court, under its discretionary powers may allow her from not answering the questions. Therefore, in this case, Gurinder is empowered not to answer the questions put to her, but would have to respect the Court's discretionary powers and judgment, on how the jury would interpret her silence and the impact her silence would have on the further proceedings and verdict of this case. This is matter of jurisprudential discretion and judicious decision making after considering all aspects of the case. Bibliography BAIRD, Norman (2005). The facts and trial. The legal practitioner. [online]. Newswire. Last accessed 24 November 2007 at: http://www.lawinabox.net/lbnewswireshickle.htm Course of Justice: Evidence, procedures, etc. Part III. Effect of accused's failure or refusal to account for presence at a particular place. [online]. Office of Public Sector Information. Last accessed 24 November 2007 at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/ukpga_19940033_en_5 DINGWALL, Gavin (2007). Intoxicated Mistakes about the Need for Self-Defence. Conclusion. P 137. [online]. Last accessed 24 November 2007 at: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00628_1.xcookieSet=1 LIFCHUS, R. v. (1997). 3 S.C.R. Her Majesty The Queen v. William Lifchus 25404 (1997). [online]. Judgments of the Supreme Courts of Canada. 320. Last accessed 24 November 2007 at: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1997/1997rcs3-320/1997rcs3-320.html MOLAN, Mile. Cases & Materials on Criminal Law. Homicide: Abnormalities of the mind. Chapter 4. P. 148. Last accessed 24 November 2007 at: http://books.google.com/booksid=ZxuXSPlxM8gC&pg=RA2-PA148&lpg=RA2-PA148&dq=they+are+not+bound+to+accept+the+medical+evidence+if+there+is+other+material+before+them+which+in+their+good+judgment+conflicts+with+it+and+outweighs+it&source=web&ots=_ht_pUrQJu&sig=8Q6Zq0eaB05aRb6LxqiaBS5uyN0#PPR1,M TIERNEY, John & HOBBS, Dick (2003). Alcohol-related crime and disorder data. Guidance for local partnerships. P.6. Defining and measuring alcohol-related crime and disorder. [online]. Last accessed 24 November 2007 at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr0803.pdf Trial of Yamamoto Chusaburo. (2007). British Military Court. Kuala Lumpur. 30th January - 1st February 1946. Out line of the proceedings. The nature of the crime alleged. P. 80. Last accessed 24 November 2007 at: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/chusaburo.htm Read More