The Criminal Process - Coursework Example

The Criminal Process The Criminal Process Introduction The U.K. rules of criminal procedure refer to the procedural principles, which govern how national criminal prosecutions are carried in English magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court, as well as the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (GOV.U.K. n.d, p. 1). The restatement of the criminal procedure rules were enforced on 7th October, 2013. Some regulations were amended and enforced by the criminal procedure rules on 24th February, 2014, as well as by the Amendment No 2 of the Criminal Procedure. These procedures are promulgated by the U.K. Supreme Court, obligated to its constitutional authority under the Judicature Acts (GOV.U.K. n.d, p. 1). The Supreme Court transmits a copy of its regulations to the parliament before 1st May of the year in which they plan to put it into effect, and the fresh rules can then start taking effect after 1st December of the same year. The parliament, as well, has the constitutional authority to decline the Courts suggested regulations or amendments, to amend them themselves, or to enact amendments or rules itself (GOV.U.K. n.d, p. 1). However, it has hardly ever rejected the Courts suggested amendments, even if it has often passed its own rules. The procedures that the Supreme Court assumes and transmits are formerly drafted by a selected Advisory Committee, which comprises of nearly 10 judges, representatives of the U.K. Department of Justice, legal scholars and finally practicing lawyers (GOV.U.K. n.d, p. 1). The explanatory rules of the Advisory Committee are taken through the implementation process together with the last adopted rules and them gazetted, and are often applied, on their interpretation, as an authority (GOV.U.K. n.d, p. 1). This paper will discuss the composition and jurisdiction of courts that might hear Arthur’s case, including issue that might affect the choice of venue. It will also explain the various sentences available to the courts along with the different aims of sentencing and other factors which would be taken into account in determining sentence in Arthurs case. Question 1: Composition of the Criminal Courts The United Kingdom system comprises of House of Lords, Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Courts Martial, crown court, High Court of Justice, magistrates court, youth courts and finally adult courts (Judiciary.gov.UK. n.d, p. 1). Arthur’s cases can be heard in any of these courts, but the first courts to hear such a case are the crown courts (GOV.U.K. n.d, p. 1). These courts deal with indictable criminal cases, which Magistrates’ Courts have been transferred to them, comprising of hearing of severe criminal cases (for instance, robbery, rape and murder), cases brought forward for either a sentencing or an appeals (GOV.U.K. n.d, p. 1). Cases under the crown court are heard by a judge and the ruling made by a jury (varying number of members). Rulings of these courts might be appealed to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (Judiciary.gov.UK. n.d, p. 1). Arthur’s case will be will be heard by a judged and a jury of maybe 11 members. This is the standard number of members that every jury under the crown court comprises. Question 2: Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts The crown court has sole jurisdiction with regard to trial on indictment for crimes wherever carried out. If the accused argues that they are not guilty, then hearing on indictment takes place in front of a judge and his jury (around 11 members) (CPS n.d, p. 1). The crown court hears appeals by individuals convicted overly in the magistrates’ courts. The chances of Arthur’s case winning in the magistrates’ court are minimal; therefore, taking it to the crown court would be ideal. The crown court also sentences individuals committed for sentence following their conviction in the lower magistrates’ courts (CPS n.d, p. 1). Finally, the crown court has a restricted civil jurisdiction that permits it to listen particularly to licensing appeals from the lower magistrates’ courts. The court listening to Arthur’s case has the above stated jurisdictions, which are different from the magistrates’ courts, which had its own jurisdictions. These jurisdictions change depending on whether the case will reach the highest court, the House of Lords (CPS n.d, p. 1). Question 3: Issues Relating to the Choice of Venue for Trial Some of the issues that are brought about when it comes to venue include age, and type of offence. Cases of offenders below the age of 18 are heard in the youth court and cases of offenders above 18 years are heard in the adult court. If Arthur’s case was a summary case it would be heard in the magistrates’ courts (Your Rights n.d, p. 1). Summary cases comprise of common assault, dangerous behaviour and almost all motoring crimes. Offenders might not be sent to jail at all, or might carry no longer than six months of jail term (Your Rights n.d, p. 1). The venue for indictable crimes is in the crown court. Arthur’s case is also an indictable crime, which suits best to be heard in the crown court (Your Rights n.d, p. 1). Finally, in either-way offences are cases in between are many offences, for instance assaults leading to injury, theft and other offences of burglary and dishonesty, which might be heard in either the crown court or the magistrates court. Question 4: Sentences Available to the Courts There are various types of sentences, which the criminal court to give Arthur. These include custodial sentences for adults, discretionary life sentences, mandatory life sentences, home detention curfew, minimum sentences, extended sentences and suspended prison sentences, among others (Millie, Tombs & Hough 2007, p. 244). Maybe to discuss three general sentences that Arthur might face include home detention, life sentences and extended sentences. A life sentences is where one is imprisoned for life and never leaves the prison till death. Home detention, on the other hand, is a form of detention where the offender is detained at his or her home and cannot leave the premise not unless granted permission by the court. Finally, the extended sentences come into play if the offender is above 21 years old (Millie, Tombs & Hough 2007, p. 244). This mandates that the sentence of the offender is slightly prolonged if they are over 21 years old. For every sentence, the court has discretion not to oblige the least term if it deems it would be unfair having regard to the specific situations of the offender or the offence(s). Question 5: Factors Influencing the Choice of Sentence In settling on the sentence, the court will mull over a couple of factors: the type of crime and how severe it is, the plea of guilty timing, the defendants personality and antecedents, including their criminal record and their personal circumstances like their financial status in case a fine is imposed (Jacobson & Hough n.d, p. 56). Also, Arthur’s background report, which the judge is given by the probation department, can influence the strength or length of the sentence. If the report shows that Arthur is a productive person who simply made a mistake, then the sentence may be lighter than if it shows that Arthur is a career offender with no actual work history (Jacobson & Hough n.d, p. 57). Question 6: Aims, Purpose and Objectives of Sentencing The main aim of criminal sentencing is undeniably to punish the offender and reduce crime. The other purpose is to grant the reformation and rehabilitation of offenders and also making the offended feel like someone is paying for the offence. Contemporary sentence echoes a combination of many or all the above elements (Doble & Klein 2008, p. 53). If Arthur is actually found guilty, the judge will look back at the offence and impose a considerable retribution sentence and/or a utilitarian sentence. Criminal sentencing has a threefold aim. It was meant to be disciplinary, it was planned and measured to prevent others, and it was planned to be a safeguard to the United Kingdom (Hough, Roberts & Jacobson 2009, p. 32). Arthur might also be sentenced under deterrent sentences. Such sentences are meat to deter others from crime by causing fear in them. Potential offenders will basically think of the sentence given to other and think twice of doing the crime (Hough, Roberts & Jacobson 2009, p. 32). Question 7: Criticisms of the Operation of the Criminal Courts The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has, since its formation, in 1995, provoked a public crisis of lack of confidence in the whole criminal justice system, which was prompted by high-profile cases such as the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, Maguire Seven, and so on, wherein Irish citizens were faultily convicted for terrorism conducted by the IRA (Ashworth & Hough 2006, p. 778). The CCRC’s inquiry substantiated long-term criticisms that Home Secretaries were not referring cases to the Court of Appeal (criminal division) in spite of the strong proof of innocence (Ashworth & Hough 2006, p. 779). This failure was because of political influences, as well as an entrenched unwillingness of Home Secretaries to confront the Courts (Doob & Roberts 2003, p. 89). Question 8: Recent Developments in Sentencing Policies Some of the recent developments in sentencing policies in the U.K. include Adjusting Sentences, Responding to Probation and Parole Violations, Improving Community Supervision, Attention to Release and Reentry and Addressing Offender Needs (Hough & Roberts 2012, p. 11). Criminal court legislatures are reconsidering who is imprisoned and for what period, with a spotlight on preserving expensive prison space for the most treacherous wrongdoers. Recent years have witnessed a steady rise in significant changes to sentencing policy for criminal behaviour, comprising of enrolling offenders to community treatment and supervision, adjusting criminal penalty thresholds, as well as easing mandatory minimum sentences (Hough & Roberts 2012, p. 11). Finally, contemporary legislation has centered on prison release regulations and offering criminals with services, skills and supervision to assist them to be successful after release. References Ashworth, A & Hough, M 2006, Sentencing and the climate of opinion, Criminal Law Review vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 776-787. Doble, J & Klein, J 2008, Punishing criminals: the publics view, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, London. Doob, A & Roberts, J V 2003, Public punitiveness and public knowledge of the facts: some Canadian surveys, in N Walker and M Hough (eds) Public attitudes to sentencing, surveys from five countries, Gower Press, Aldershot. GOV.U.K. n.d, Criminal courts, viewed 12th May, 2014, at https://www.gov.uk/courts/crown-court Hough, M & Roberts, J V 2012, Sentencing trends in Britain: public knowledge and public opinion, Punishment and Society vol. 1, no. 1. pp. 11-26. Hough, M, Roberts, J V & Jacobson, J 2009, Attitudes to principles of sentencing, viewed 12th May, http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/10369/Attitudes%20to%20principles%20of%20sentencing.pdf Jacobson, J & Hough, M n.d, Mitigation: the role of personal factors in sentencing, viewed 12th May, 2014, http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/mitigation%20-%20the%20role%20of%20personal%20factors%20in%20sentencing.pdf Judiciary.gov.UK. n.d, Structure of the courts system, viewed 12th May, 2014, at http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/introduction-to-justice-system/court-structure/ Millie, A, Tombs, J & Hough, M 2007, Borderline sentencing: a comparison of sentencers’ decision making in England and Wales, and Scotland Criminology & Criminal Justice vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 243–267. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) n.d, Jurisdiction, viewed 12th May, 2014, at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/jurisdiction/ Turner, J M 2008, OCR Law for AS, Hodder Arnold, London. Your Rights n.d, Venue, viewed 12th May, 2014, at http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-defendants/venue.html Read More