Legal Acts in Criminal Case and Law Proceedings - Assignment Example

Legal Acts in Criminal Case and Law Proceedings SECTION A To what extent is confession evidence admissible under s 76 In criminal evidence, law states that any confessional statement made by a suspect before the police, and if it is not being given under any pressure is considered admissible under the section 76(1). Under this section, during the hearing process, court is required to interpret a confessional statement on basis of the circumstances it was made. It is a purely a statement where efforts are made to prove innocence and free from guilt. For e.g. “I was not there”, is not within the scope of 76(1). (Murphy, 2008, p. 345) Generally confession made in the police is considered as evidence before the court in a particular case and despite the fact that confession is technical hearsay. Hearsay is defined as a statement made by a declarant and it is made at the time of trial or hearing to assert that the confessional statement given above is true. The definition of Hearsay constitutes two parts. The first part defines that the statement is not made during the period of the trial process and secondly the statement is only made to assert the truth of the confessional statement made during the trial process. Reference Murphy, P. 2008. Murphy on Evidence. New York: Oxford University Press. 2. Explain the difference between s 76(2)(a) and s 76(2)(b) as grounds for excluding confession evidence? Court finds number of challenges when it has to confirm the confessional statement’s admissibility. Court deals with these challenges under the direction of section 76 of PACE. Under Section 76 (2) PACE, the court will have to refute any confessional statement which has been made under the oppression and under the circumstances which could make this statement unreliable in the law. The term oppression is defined as the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, and or the use or threat of violence. Both the Sections 76 (2) (a) and 76 (2)(b) are similar but difference only lies in the context under which confession is being made. Under Section 76 (2) (a), the judge cannot consider the confession if the prosecution cannot oppose the allegation that the confession is being made under oppression whereas Section 76 (2)(b) dictates that confession would be excluded if it is made under circumstances which according to the law is unreliable. It is the issue more of reliability under the Section 76 (2) (b), which implies that under this section the proof of any misconduct of police is not required to be shown. If the court asserts that the circumstances under which confession was made before the police was not conducive under the law, the statement would be rendered exclusive. For e.g. In R. v. Harvey [FN77] case, a confession was excluded only because of the fact that the woman giving the statement was not normal and was suffering from a psychopathic disorder. In this case, court found the fact that there is enough danger of a confession of false statement and had made the statement when she heard her lesbian lover too confessing. The court pinpointed the fact that at the time statement was made there could be certain link between what was “said or done” under Section 76 (a). In other words what has been said is somewhat follow the action committed and under section 76 (b) that any confession is out of the scope of what has been “said or done” and is said that “it must be external to the person making the confession and likely to have had some influence on him”. (Parliament.uk, Online) Reference Parliament.uk. Judgments - Hasan (Respondent) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly Regina v. Z (2003) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)). Retrieved on October 31, 2008 from W.W.W: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050317/hasan-3.htm 3. What is the effect of s 76(4)(a)? The Section 76 (4) (a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that the fruit of the Poisoned Tree Doctrine does not apply to evidence obtained as a result of the tainted confession. (Plowden & Kerrigan, 2008) It implies that if it is found that the evidence obtained is tainted then that evidence cannot be admissible in the court of law. The fruit of the poisonous tree is also a legal term, which states that if any evidence is obtained by the police using unfair means, that evidence would not be considered in the court. Its effect could be drastic as well as conducive to the court proceedings. In this case there is very chance for the proceedings to get hampered and in certain cases criminals can also be proved not guilty due to the evidence found because of the unfair means, which could amount to lack of evidence. It also states that “The confession is wholly or partly excluded in pursuance of this sections shall not affect the admissibility in evidence-of any facts discovered as a result of the confession or where the confession is relevant as showing that the accused speaks, writes or expresses himself in a particular way, of so much of the confession as is necessary to show that he does so….” (Fenwick, Phillipson, &. Fenwick, 2003, p. 1048) Reference Fenwick, H., Phillipson, G. & Fenwick, P. 2003. Text, Cases & Materials on Public Law & Human Rights. Portland, Oregon: Cavendish. Plowden, P. & Kerrigan, K. 2002. Advocacy and Human Rights: Using the Convention in Courts and Tribunals. London: Cavendish. 4. Under s 76 does the court have discretion to admit the confession even where it has been obtained in contravention of s 76(2)(a) or 76(2)(b)? In certain cases, yes the court has discretion to admit the confession where it has been obtained in contravention of s 76(2)(a) or 76(2)(b). 5 Explain to what extent a court may use secondary aids to construction that are intrinsic to a statute to assist in its interpretation Courts can take reference from the negotiating documents as their aid in construction to come up with the purpose of the legislation. In certain cases like Netherlands v commission, the courts use of the preparatory material was an aid of the construction of secondary legislation. They also can take reference of the working documents to interpret the intention that lay behind but in the case of the absence of any working documents then the literal interpretations can also be given. To understand the case properly, it is necessary for the court to look at the origin of the case and for this purpose they need to full study and comprehend all preparatory documents. The notes of the preparatory meetings, which are not published, are not permitted but secondary legislation can be referred to build the complete picture. (James, 1996, p. 181) Reference Gifford, D.J. & Salter, J. 1996. How to Understand an Act of Parliament. London: Cavendish Publishing Ltd. SECTION B Ability to read and understand a case. Read R v Paris and Others (1993) 97 Cr. App. R. 99 (Appendix 1, pages 6-16) and answer the following questions 1. In your own words, what were the material facts of this case? It is a murder case of a prostitute. Before her murder, she was living with two his co-accused. Unfortunately in the case, no forensic evidence was found against any of the defendants and the case was purely dependent on the evidences made by the two suspected witnesses: Murderer’s own admissions and admission he made to the two visitors while his stay in prison. When the case was produced before the court, judge made the ruling that the part of the confession recorded in the tape is admissible and that three murderers are guilty without doubt while the two other co-accused were acquitted. All the three Paris, Miller and Abdullahi were convicted of the murder charge. When appeal was made in front of the appeals of court, the contention was made that the confession of the Miller cannot be considered because it was obtained by oppression and therefore was inadmissible. The case for the Crown of Paris was also dependent on the evidences of Vilday and Psaila. But their evidence did not conform to the other witnesses who were claiming to be at or near 7, James Street on the night when the murder took place, neither there was any scientific evidence that could prove Paris as the murderer. But his case corroborated with the evidence of a fellow prisoner, Albert Massey who was serving 14 years imprisonment for armed robbery. When cross-examination took place, he confessed that he gave prejudice evidence at his own trial and also confessed that he was a professional criminal. This was evidence enough to prove that Paris case should be quashed for conviction. The case of Abdullahi too depended partly on the evidence of Vilday and Psaila. Here too there was no scientific evidence against him, nor did he make any admissions. It was found that evidences against Abdullahi was also based on prejudiced and even the statement of Miller was prejudiced against him therefore Court of Appeal too quashed his conviction. 2. Who is the judge delivering the judgment in the law report provided? The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor delivered the judgment in the law report provided. 3. Explain the status and jurisdiction of the court hearing the case? Court of Appeals can modify the sentence or any orders given by the Crown Court and quash the convictions. In 1966, this court was set up and has two divisions, Civil and Criminal. There are 35 Lords Justices of Appeal to decide whether a case can be reconsidered or not. (Abika.com, Online) If a convicted person thinks that he did not get due justice in the Crown Court or has been falsely implicated in the case or the decision of the judge is unfair or is wrongfully convicted, then case can be taken to Criminal Division of Court of Appeal, where the case is again looked into upon by senior judges. Reference Abika.com. United Kingdom, England, Wales, Scotland, Wales & North Ireland Criminal & Civil Court Record Searches. Retrieved on October 30, 2008 from W.W.W: http://www.abika.com/Reports/UK_Criminal_or_Civil_Court_Records.htm 4 What were the legal issues that arose in this case? The court has to follow the section section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 : The act states that “If in any proceedings where the prosecution propose to give in evidence a confession made by an accused person, it is represented to the court that the confession was or may have been obtained— ( a ) by oppression of the person who made it; or ( b ) in consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might have been made by him in consequence thereof, the court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained as aforesaid.” The court needs to see that all the police officers during their process of interrogation are following the necessary Codes of Practice. But in the cases when appeal was made against the death sentence and after considerable amount of hearings and looking at the various aspects of the case, court found that evidences and confessions on the above said acts are unreliable and unjustifiable. Court found that there were only recorded conversations of the accused and Miller confession was made under oppression according to the above law. The case of the Paris was also dependent on the part evidence of Vilday and Psaila and was corroborated by the evidence of a fellow prisoner, Albert Massey who was serving 14 years imprisonment for armed robbery. All these evidences and confessional statements according to the various sections of the act 76 amounts to the testimony that these evidences were made under the circumstances that were unjustified. 5. How was the case decided? Explain the judge’s reasoning. The case was decided considering the evidences of Miller, evidences of Vilday and Psaila, Millers recorded interviews, his admissions to Mrs. Sidorak and Miss Taylor, who visited him in prison. Many of these interviews were considered based on the oppressed and forced confession and therefore unjustified. Evidences given by Vilday and Psaila gave were also not circumstantial and conform to the other evidences. In the same way evidences in case of Paris and Abdullahi including evidence of has been considered prejudicial to their case therefore it was decided that their conviction should be quashed. Before the cases went for appeal Miller, Paris and Abdullahi were also convicted and sentenced to death. Judge made the statement of Miller as admissible on account of the lack of substantial evidences but later when the appeal was made, the same statement was considered unreliable. Judge made the decision to quash the convictions on basis of the act 76. As per the law, his judgment was reasonable but on moral grounds though proved guilty yet accused persons had to be released. 6. Explain the term QC and the role of the Appeal Court Judge in this case. QC is Quashed Convictions. Quashed Convictions is a term used in the cases when some convictions are reversed only because when the Court of Appeal is not satisfied with certain facts during proceedings of the trial even if he is found guilty or guilty plea is made. It is also used in the case when the court is in the doubt whether the accused person has at-all committed the offence. Even where there is a clear evidence of the guilt due to the errors in trial or pre trial processes, the convictions are quashed. The appeal court judge allowed the appeals of all the three applicants on 10th December 1992. The appeal court judge followed the law proceedings what was expected of them. There are three judges to hear the cases of appeal. The Criminal division has a duty to hear the appeal from the Crown Court. These three judges consist of Lord Justice of Appeal, two High Court Judges and one nominated Senior Circuit Judge. In front of them, there was the case of three accused that were sentenced to death in the murder case. They appealed against the judgement. For the judges, there were only recorded confessional statements of appellant, with no other forensic or scientific evidence. In case of Miller, his confession was made under oppression. In fact, there was evidence on the voir dire from Dr. Gudjonsson, on behalf of Miller who tried to prove that that he was on the borderline of mental handicap with an IQ of 75, a mental age of 11 and a reading age of eight. The learned judge then said that, “although he was invited to listen to part of tape 7, it was played only up to page 17 of the transcript. The bullying and shouting was from page 20 onwards. Why the most important part was not played to the learned judge has not been explained to us. Had he heard the rest of it, as we did, we do not believe he would have ruled as he did”. (Case) Therefore the judge maintained that they were made to admit in a wrong way and if the evidences of Mrs. Sidorak and Miss Taylor are also taken into account then he cannot support a conviction in this case. And going realistically, Elfer accepted that this could be so and for these reasons, the appeal of Miller is granted. Applications were also made to the Judge that Miller case should be separated from the rest of the accused as it could have prejudicial effect on the other accused. In both the interviews, Miller has put charges on Paris and Abdullahi but the Judge rejected the application, only because of the fact that if the case is severed then there could be inconsistency in the proceedings as there would be then two lengthy trials with witnesses having to repeat their evidences and there could be lot of prejudices. In this case Judge decision was quite appropriate. Judge also gave the jury clear directions on the evidences and what evidences could not be admissible in the case. Therefore Judge did his job quite appropriately. He even gave advice to jury to take the Miller case in the last to avoid any risk in the interview process as against others where their evidence was deemed inadmissible. It was also found that the admission in evidence of Millers interviews, in our judgment, has gone prejudicial to Pariss case and this was the reason to quash his conviction. The same was true with the Abdullahi. SECTION C Ability to identify relevant statutory provisions and apply them to a specific scenario. Read the provisions from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and answer the question set. According to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, if the prosecutor can produce the proof that the confession has been made under the oppression of the policy or forced by the police, the court has the jurisdiction to exclude the confession. In the above case, the confession made by Kirsky to DC Sharp can be excluded in the trial proceedings before the court because in DC Sharp was shouting and screaming at her during the interrogation process and Kirtsy got very upset. Court sees to it that police has to make Kirtsy confess to her crime but the method he adopted was not conducive to the case. Under Section 76 (2) PACE, the court will have to refute any confessional statement, which has been made under the oppression and under the circumstances which could make this statement unreliable in the law. In the above case, inspite of the fact that Kirtsy confessed to the crime but she was made to confess to it under oppression. Secondly case of Martin can also be excluded as Martin was a heroin edict and any statement when produced in court due to lack of evidence can be considered as a false statement. In this case too, DC Bright made Martin confess to the crime by the strategy of cohesion and inducement. DC Bright conducted the interview slowly and slowly to increase the pressure and when Martin got agitated and distressed, he was released on bail at the condition that he would confess to the crime. He was lured and coxed to make confession, which is again against the aforesaid act. Read More