Criminal Justice Environment - Case Study Example

Name: xxxxxxxxx Course: xxxxxxxxx Title: Criminal Justice Environment Institution: xxxxxxxxx Date: xxxxxxxxx @2009 Table of Content Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..3 Case Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………5 Criminal justice and public order Act 1994……………………………………………………7 Civil and criminal aspects …………………………………………………………………… 8 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………. 9 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………….10 Criminal Justice Environment Introduction The Global Production (GP) limited is a multinational company based in the Far East. The company allegedly built a factory that displaced hundreds of residents in the Island. The construction of the factory also brought about environmental damages to the ocean thus destroying the fishing industry which acts as the main source of income to the islanders. Moreover, the company is accused for imposing meager wages to the islanders and hiring children. Consequently, the operations of the company came under scrutiny. During the formal opening of the GP Company headquarters at the industrial park in the outskirts of Ever pool, protestors rose against the company among the protestors were Seymour and Ivor. Seymour and his colleague Ivor were present at base of the company with the intention of publicizing and protesting against the treatment that the GP Company was subjecting the indigenous people of the Far East. Seymour and Ivor sneaked under the company’s car park barrier so as to display their protest banners. Consequently, the Ever pool Police were contacted by the CEO of the Company so that they can restore order. On arrival at the company’s headquarters, A PC Skinner found Seymour and his colleague Ivor waving their banner in the company’s car park. Skinner asked Seymour and his group to immediately vacate the company’s premises. Seymour and his group refused to comply with the directions of the police. Allegedly, one of the security team from the GP Company pushed Seymour over and threatened him. Following their non-compliance, Seymour and Ivor were arrested and taken to the Ever pool Police station where they were charged. This paper seeks to provide an incisive and comprehensive report on the civil and criminal aspects revolving around the case between Seymour and Ivor versus the GP Company. Foremost, this report will critically investigate the various legal issues emerging from this case. It will investigate the fundamental legal factors revolving around this case in reference to corresponding court cases. Moreover, this report will seek to illustrate both civil and legal aspects of this case. Case Analysis Evidently, the case Seymour and Ivor versus the GP Company revolves around both criminal and civil aspects of law. In reference to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 there exist a number of provisions that stipulate on how the police force should handle collective trespass. In regard to the provisions in this Act the police have the mandate to deviate the protesting groups from the base that they are allegedly causing nuisance. According to this Act the police have the power of seizing equipments and demand that the protesting groups should vacate from particular premise.Non compliance to the directions given by the police force can lead to arrest and thereafter outright prosecution (Home Office 1994). In reference to the case between Seymour and Ivor versus the GP Company, it is apparent that Seymour and group had invaded premises of the GP in a bid to make known their grievances against the company. It is presumed that their demonstrations were a source of nuisance to the company. On the occasion that the police were called upon to restore order, Seymour and Ivor did not comply with their directions until their sudden arrest. Based on the stipulations of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 there is legal ground for Seymour and Ivor to be charged for defying the directions of the police (Association of Chief Police Officers 1996). Nevertheless, under the same Act there are provisions that stipulate the extent and degree in which the police are given the mandate to deviate the protesting groups from certain bases or premises. Furthermore, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 stipulates the extent in which the police are given the mandate to seize equipments and demand that the protesting groups should vacate from a particular premise. Given the fact that it is a civic right for people to hold peaceful demonstrations in a bid to air their grievances, Seymour and Ivor could evade criminal charges. Moreover, they could evade criminal charges since they were exercising their civic rights by holding peaceful demonstrations (Brubaker 1995). The response of the police in regard to environmental protests is clearly portrayed in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. In this case Seymour and Ivor’s undertakings can be termed as collective trespass since they were holding their demonstrations in the company’s car park. The nature of their arrest partly reflects the conflict that lies between civic and criminal aspects of undertaking legal demonstration. The mandate to arrest protesting groups for aggravated trespass is considered as a positive enforcement since such protests are considered as a breach of peace and order in a particular setting. Furthermore, such protests can be regarded as inappropriate as the motive behind such protest is put into question or scrutiny (Liberty Organization 1995). Applications of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 There are a number of court cases in the United Kingdom that are in some way equivalent to the case of Seymour and Ivor versus the Global production company. These cases sought the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994. In reference to these court cases collective trespass is committed when there are more than one people on the trespassed land. Secondly, these people must have a common purpose for being in the alleged land (Liberty Organization 1995). Thirdly, there is need to prove that practical steps were taken to cause this group to vacate from the land. In addition, these group of people need to have effected threatening behavior toward the owners or occupiers of the land. Under the public order Act of 1994 61(4) the police are mandated to give directions to the group to vacate the land in such instances (Home Office 1992). It is apparent that Seymour and group committed group trespass since practical steps were taken to vacate them from the GP premises. Furthermore, their demonstrations were threatening to the company’s incoming guests and regular occupants. Drawing on Home Office (1993), the police dealings with 1500 gypsies residing in Wales and England involved the single application of the provision in the Criminal and Justice public order Act of 1994. The large number of arrests vented and partly reflects the nature of the police response in regard to the public order Act of 1994 (Card & Ward 1994). The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 presents some problematic clauses in its interpretation and application particularly section 80 of the public order Act. There are some clauses and words that can evoke different legislation interpretation due to their ambiguity. For instance, expressions like “threatening acts” or “damage” are ambiguous and as a result they can be interpreted differently. However through the use of internal and external aids such as the application of past court cases in establishing the ruling of this case can greatly aid in actualizing fair judgment. Civil and criminal aspects Critical analysis of the presented court case clearly portrays an overlap between criminal and civil law. According to the United Kingdom collective trespass and defamation of police revolves around criminal and civic aspects of the law. In reference to the United Kingdom law collective trespass and the defamation of police directions is considered as a criminal act(Standler 1998).Furthermore, this case can be considered as criminal since involves the State versus Seymour and Ivor. Given the fact that the police pressed charges against Ivor and Seymour for defying their directions, the court is bound to consider this as a criminal case. On the other hand, civil law deals with disputes among individuals and organizations. Given the fact that the GP Company pressed charges against Ivor and Seymour against Ivor and Seymour for collective trespass the court is bound to consider this as a civil case (Standler 1998). Criminal law seeks to prosecute defendants by investigating crimes and holding them accountable. Conversely, civil law seeks to address situations whereby an individual has been harmed in a bid to remedy such a situation. In criminal law the burden of proof lies on the states docket. The state needs to prove that Seymour and Ivor are guilty for defamation. The defendants in this case Seymour and Ivor are assumed as innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. As far as civil litigation is concerned the burden of proof solely lies on the plaintiff in this case, the GP Company. Nevertheless there exist a number of technical situation whereby the burden proof is bound to shift to the defendant. In situations whereby the preponderance of the presented evidence favors the plaintiff and there is 50 % probability that the plaintiff is a victim of injury (Zweigert & Kötz 1998). There are potential possibilities of tort claims in this case. This is mainly due to the fact that Seymour was subjected to physical assault by one of the GP security officer. Nevertheless, this will be depend on whether the plaintiff in this case Seymour will be able to prove that the GP security officer was engaged in a tortuous conduct. Alternatively, the Global Production Company could file tort claims against Seymour and group for disrupting normal business operations at the company’s headquarters (Lunney & Oliphant 2003). Conclusion It is apparent that the case of Seymour and Ivor versus the GP Company draws on both civil and criminal aspects of law. This case touches on collective trespass since Seymour and group had a common purpose of being in the premises of the GP Company. Moreover, practical measures were taken to vacate them from the premises. Consequently, the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 are applicable in this case. According to the provisions of this Act the police the police have the mandate to deviate the protesting groups from the base that they are allegedly causing nuisance. Non compliance to the directions given by the police force can lead to arrest and thereafter outright prosecution. There are also potential possibilities of tort claims in this case (Zweigert & Kötz 1998). Bibliography Association of Chief Police Off i c e r s, 1996, Guidance Document: Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, HMSO, London. Brubaker, E, 1995, Property rights in the defense of nature, Earthscan Publication, Canada. Card, R. & Ward, R, 1994, The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Jordan’s Press, Bristol. Home Office, 1992, Guidance on the Policing of Hunts: Circular 11/92, HMSO, London. Home Office, 1994, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Circular 45/94, HMSO, London. Liberty Organization, 1995, Criminalizing Diversity Criminalizing Dissent: a Report on the Use of the Public Order Provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Liberty Press, London. Liberty Organization, 1995, Defend Diversity Defend Dissent: What's Wrong with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Liberty Press, London. Lunney, M & Oliphant, K, 2003, Tort Law - Texts, Cases, 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press, UK. Standler, R, 1998, Civil and Criminal Law, URL (consulted 21 June 1998) : Zweigert, P & Kötz, 1998, An Introduction to Comparative Law, 3rd Ed, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Read More