Download file to see previous pages...
In this regard, different case laws are implied in the provided case with the aim of having effective evidences in accordance with the law.
By reviewing the case study, it has been observed that there are two individuals named Albert and Bart, who were involved in the incident of a burglary in a bookstore. It has been expected that the burglary has taken place on 15th December 2013 at 10 pm. A witness named Mr. Bird gave the statement regarding this incident of robbery. The incident has taken place in a bookshop where the thieves have stolen 500 law books. The witness has also provided a description of one of the burglar. By this statement of the witness, police has been able to recognise a suspect who is expected to be a prime guilty of this robbery incident in the bookshop.
After arresting the first suspect, police has started interrogating him by marinating the law and regulation. The first suspect Albert has been arrested from the nearest clinic where he has been having treatment of his wound caused during the incident or robbery. During the interrogation, DC Tracy has put the effort to confess the guilt from Albert, but he refused to do the same. In this context, the suspect has been urged for receiving the solicitor, but DC Tracy did not provide him the minimum chances to receive the facilities of a lawyer. After sometime, Albert confessed his involvement in this burglary incident and mentioned the name of the involvement of another person. Albert also agreed to disclose all the confidential evidence of his prior group in terms of getting the concession in his punishment from the court. However, DC Tracy has denied his request and become able to confess guilt, but suggested that his cooperation will be taken into account in the court at the time of sentencing. As per the theft act (Northern Ireland) 1969, the guilty of burglary needed to be
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
This has created a situation where one of the oldest principles of the English laws, that an accused individuals is considered innocent until proven guilty, has come to be flaunted at the expense of making swift decisions.1 The credibility of many of the court decisions have therefore come to be questioned because the fact remains that it is the duty of the prosecution to ensure that it works towards finding the accused individual either guilty or innocent.
I have also compared similar approaches taken by other jurisdictions in the area of reform and compared those to British law.
The first query here would be what is evidence Evidence is the term that pertains to the material or facts submitted to a legal tribunal for the resolution of disputed questions of fact and these rules were originally developed in England for use in jury trials.Since the English Legal system is indeed the envy of the world these rules have now permeated in different forms to legal systems around the world.The development of these rules can trace its development back to the 16th century when the earliest juries could not even be said to be neutral triers of fact based
That would, of course, "usurp the province of the jury" and threaten the Rule of Law by resolving the dispute according to criteria other than those embedded in the instructions. This basic requirement, more a first principle than a rule of evidence, is of much deeper significance than any of the specific exclusionary rules that are usually thought to constitute evidence law.
r statement which is inconsistent with his testimony in Court, “proof may be given that he did indeed make it” and the Prosecution could use this argument to justify admitting his oral statements to Duane as evidence1. In this case, the testimony of WPC Kite is going to be
en removed2 and as stated by Mirfield, “suspect witnesses will not go away just because the corroboration warnings have gone.”3 For instance, it was stated in that decision that a judge is required to issue a special warning to the jury when “the witness has been shown to
The dictionary definition was laid out in the case of R v Fulling where it was defined as “the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, harsh or wrongful manner, unjust or cruel treatment of subjects, inferiors,….the imposition of unreasonable or unjust
It is essential to note that the accused’s guilt is for the prosecution to prove and remains there throughout the trial as in Woolmington v DPP2.
It is usually very controversial when a court decides to place a