Viva Examination - Essay Example

Viva Examination Table of Contents Scenario One – R v Jones 3 Scenario Two - R v Jones 5 Scenario Three – R v Smith 6 Scenario Four - R v Smith [2015] 8 References 11 Scenario One – R v Jones [2015] In this particular scenario, an attempt has been made to prepare for a contested bail hearing on behalf of Mr. Nicolas Jones. It is worth mentioning that the situation of not becoming successful in getting the bail of Mr. Jones after persuading the CPS solicitor and providing proof of evidences eventually triggered the need for preparing an effective contested bail hearing. In relation to the case, the need for preparing contested bail hearing mainly emerged at the time when Mr. Jones had been arrested on the suspicion of wounding with intent on 6th April and subsequently been released on a bail to return again on 10th April. In response, while acting as a solicitor, an advice was provided to Mr. Jones to give a no comment interview on 10th April. However, Mr. Jones follows the stated guidelines and does the same but was subsequently refused of bail by the responsible custody officer. This was mainly based on certain grounds, which include that Mr. Jones would interfere with the witnesses and may return to the Void for trying and finding his accuser. Based on the information provided relating to scenario one, it can be found that Mr. Jones was adamant claiming that he is innocent as well as extremely anxious towards getting bail. In accordance with the aforesaid scenario, it will be vital to mention that a contested bail hearing is ascertained under such a scenario, wherein the Crown prosecutor tends to oppose the release of an accused person and likewise given the prospect to interrogate the sureties that testify on behalf of the accuser (Hannibal & Mountford, 2014). The above stated context is found to be similar with that of the provided scenario relating to the case of R v Jones (2015) wherein the custody officer refused to provide the bail based on certain valid grounds under the dimension of criminal law. Thus, by considering the failure of persuading the CPS solicitor towards agreeing to provide bail to Mr. Jones, an attempt has been made to prepare a contested bail hearing. In this similar context, while acting as a solicitor on behalf of Mr. Jones, it must be mentioned that the preparation of a contested bail hearing would be made in such a way so that the custody officer as well as the CPS solicitor would agree to provide bail to the accused party i.e. Mr. Jones. By taking into concern the various attributes of criminal law and criminal justice arrangement, a contested bail hearing will be made initially by ascertaining the charges that are faced by the accused party i.e. Mr. Jones and evaluating his personal circumstances. It is worth mentioning that apart from ascertaining the levied charges, deliberate efforts must be made in arranging someone to perform the role of a surety (de Than & Heaton, 2013). Apart from the above discussed aspects, being a solicitor, it is also suggested that while preparing an effective as well as a favourable contested bail hearing, utmost focus is also required to levy on the aspect of negotiating. This particular aspect denotes agreeing on the respective terms along with conditions of the bail to the maximum possible extent. More importantly, in the context of preparing for a contested bail hearing, it must be ensured that advocacy is duly maintained on behalf of Mr. Jones in the form of appearing into the court of justice and conducting prayer about releasing as well as against imprisonment until the matter gets resolved on a compete basis. In such situation, the court of justice will be mainly liable for making quick determination about whether the accused party i.e. Mr. Jones in relation to the case of R v Jones (2015) would be released from the jail or not (Loveless, 2014). Scenario Two - R v Jones [2015] This particular scenario is deemed to be quite different from the previous scenario, wherein relevant and valuable advices have been provided on behalf of the accused party i.e. Mr. Jones while acting as a solicitor. However, in the second scenario, efforts have been made towards providing judgment acting as CPS solicitor on behalf of the Crown in opposition to Mr. Jones relating to the case of R v Jones (2015). The evidences that have been presented eventually regard Mr. Jones to be the accused party who was alleged in “glassing’ a man at a nightclub. In this regard, such evidences included the conduct of an interview wherein the accused party i.e. Jones denies himself on several occasions about the verdict and obtaining certain useful testimonies from the interviewing officers. After checking the PNC level, as per the information provided in scenario two, it can be apparently observed that Mr. Jones had been previously engaged with violent offences. Thus, in this particular situation, the solicitor on behalf of Mr. Jones endeavoured to obtain police bail but failed to gain the same based on certain grounds that were already mentioned in scenario one. By considering the fact that Mr. Jones had already been charged with s.18 wounding with intent, being appointed as a CPS solicitor, the burden eventually lays into establishing the fact that why the accused party like Mr. Jones should be granted bail after presenting evidences in opposition to the accused party. While performing the role of a CPS solicitor, it could be inferred that the Crown or the court may not accept the contested bail hearing, which will be prepared on behalf of Mr. Jones while persuading towards agreeing the terms as well as the conditions of the bail. This might be owing to the reasons that the court may wish to know about why the accused party i.e. Mr. Jones would be released again when the accused has not complied with all the conditions mentioned in a bail initially (Herring, 2012). From the perspective of a CPS solicitor on behalf of the Crown and in opposition to the case of Mr. Jones, it could be ascertained that the contested bail hearing may not get accepted, resulting in strict adherence towards the terms as well as the conditions of the bail. This might be based on the grounds of presenting various proofs of evidences by the respective defendant towards the court and investigating the statements made by the officers regarding Mr. Jones to be charged with ‘s.18 wounding with intent.’ Apart from the above discussed aspects, there also exist certain other potential grounds by the consideration of which, the contested bail hearing is prepared by the solicitor of the accused party i.e. Mr. Jones could be rejected. In this similar concern, one of such grounds includes gaining evidences from the conduct of an interview with Jones, wherein the accused party disagrees with the fact of being convicted in engaging into glassing a person at a nightclub. The other ground could be ascertained as the presence of various evidences that depict Mr. Jones to get involved into making violent practices in earlier years. It is worth mentioning that in order to make appropriate judgement against the case of R v Jones (2015), the Crown or the court may be indulged into seeking out the faults of the accused party with the intention of undermining his ability towards acting as a surety. However, it is vital to consider that the Crown or the court may not become successful in rejecting the contested bail hearing prepared on behalf of Mr. Jones due to certain conditions attached with the same. These conditions could be duly measured in the form of residing at a specific place or location and abstaining or being barred from attending a particular situation. Scenario Three – R v Smith [2015] In this particular scenario relating to the case of R v Smith (2015), an attempt has been made towards preparing or making a plea in mitigation of support of the client James Smith. This situation or the need of preparing such a plea in mitigation on behalf of the accused party has emerged owing to the reason of considering Mr. Smith to found guilty in burglary. For this purpose, the accused party i.e. Mr. Smith was identified to face the condition of a custodial sentence. According to the provided information relevant to scenario three of the case of R v Smith (2015), it can be found that since the conviction of Mr. Smith, the court thus ordered to prepare a sentence report along with the charge sheet based on which, the accused party could be proved as guilty in the context of performing burglary. Thus, utmost focus has been levied on preparing a plea in mitigation on behalf of the client i.e. Mr. Smith while acting as a solicitor to the accused party. From a general perspective, a plea in mitigation fundamentally denotes providing credit to a convicted individual in the context of determining the sentence of the same. One of the major aims of preparing a plea in mitigation relating to any case is to obtain least punishment for the client in every circumstance and remaining consistent with varied perspectives of justice. Apart from this, another objective of preparing a plea in mitigation is to make persuasion and assisting the court towards identifying the most suitable sentence form for the client or the convicted party (Warner, 2002). Similar to the case of R v Smith (2015), while acting as a solicitor to the convicted party i.e. James Smith, an attempt has been made towards preparing a plea in mitigation based on humanitarian grounds. There lay certain potential reasons for which the decision of preparing an effective plea in mitigation has been taken into concern on behalf of the client. In this similar concern, one of such reasons is that if Mr. Smith is given a custodial sentence and then released because of remaining engaged into practicing burglary, his job will be lost and his family members will suffer to the extreme level. Though Mr. Smith possessed certain critical issues associated with mental health, he will not be able to continue his ongoing treatment deliberately especially at the Lyme Royal Hospital (National Probation Service, 2015). Thus, based on these grounds, while acting as a solicitor to the client James Smith, preparing a plea in mitigation on his behalf has certainly become a necessity. It is projected that the preparation of plea in mitigation would certainly allow giving explanation about the circumstances of the offences in front of the court, which might result into lessening the penalty of the client. It will be vital to mention that the above discussed preparation of plea in mitigation could be either in the form of spoken or written statement as well as through a letter (Legal Aid Act, 2013). On a further note, the above stated explanation about the circumstances would mainly cover various significant aspects including the age of the guilty party along with the domestic arrangements, working or financial position and previous histories of behaviours among others. Conversely, there also lay certain potential grounds based on which, the plea in mitigation prepared for the client i.e. Mr. Smith could also be ignored. In this regard, one of such grounds could be ascertained as the presence of strong evidences about the involvement of Mr. Smith in the conduct of burglary (Legal Aid Act, 2013). Scenario Four - R v Smith [2015] This particular scenario mainly dealt with making a valid response towards the conduct of Mr. Smith’s in pleading not guilty of burglary on behalf of the Crown in relation to the case of R v Smith [2015]. While acting on behalf of the Crown and make necessary judgement about the plea made by Smith of not being guilty, several circumstances as well as attributes have been taken into concern. One of such circumstances or attributes is that Mr. Smith is deemed to be a known offender with possessing a history of performing similar offences and hold a lengthy record of conducting other, often related offences. Apart from this, the other circumstance or the attribute could be ascertained as that the involved party Mr. Smith did not committed a burglary for the first time and the case concerning R v Smith (2015) attracted interests of certain local press. By considering the above discussed circumstances, it can be inferred that Smith’s plea of not being guilty to burglary may get rejected and likewise convicted in the Magistrates Court. In accordance with the regulations deciphered under criminal law, it could be found that the Crown or the court holds full right to reject the plea dealings irrespective of any situation or circumstance. It is worth mentioning that for evaluating the plea made by Smith of not being guilty to burglary, the Crown in relation to the matter of R v Smith is ought to know about all terms of the plea entailing future conditions or any unusual aspect relating to the same. Apart from this, with the intention of making necessary judgments about evaluating the plea, which is intending to be conducted by Mr. Smith, the Crown would also require to consider certain imperative factors of judicial discretion. These factors mainly entail underlying facts along with suppositions of the case, interests of the accused party i.e. Mr. Smith in this case and the seriousness of the plea made by Mr. Smith (Taylor, 2012). With regards to the above stated context, it can be claimed that the Crown may be able to accept and at the same time reject the terms as well as the conditions of the plea agreement while making effective decisions towards a proposed plea bargain. Similarly, in relation to the case of R v Smith (2015), the Crown can accept the plea made by Mr. Smith based on certain terms of the agreement. On the other hand, the Crown could also reject the same by considering the fact that the accused party was convicted to custodial sentence (Taylor, 2012). Based on the aforesaid context, it could be inferred that in certain jurisdictions, if defendant as well as prosecution agrees towards sentencing and the Crown thus accepts the negotiated plea, the court is ought to accept the entire plea agreement, which also encompasses agree-upon sentence amid the prime ones. However, this sort of situation is deemed to be quite different in other jurisdictions wherein the above scenario does not get persistent while making effective decisions concerning plea agreement. On behalf of Crown in relation to the matter or the case of R v Smith, it could be inferred that the court must pay utmost attention or observe carefully the terms along with the conditions of the plea agreement prior to making effective decisions about accepting or rejecting the same. It is suggested that based on humanitarian ground, the Crown in the matter of R v Smith may not reject the plea made by the accused party i.e. Mr. Smith with due consideration made towards his family. However, the Crown may accept the plea agreement with a strong belief that the accused party i.e. Mr. Smith would not indulge in conducting burglary in next occurrence. References De Than, C. & Heaton, R., 2013. Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. Hannibal, M. & Mountford, L., 2014. Criminal Litigation Handbook 2014-2015. Oxford University Press. Herring, J., 2012. Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press. Legal Aid Act, 2013. Appearance before the Magistrate. Publications. [Online] Available at: http://www.legalaidact.org.au/pdf/publications_pleaofguilty.pdf [Accessed April 29, 2015]. Loveless, J., 2014. Complete Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press. National Probation Service, 2015. Offence Analysis. Pre-Sentence Report. Taylor, P., 2012. Taylor on Criminal Appeals. Oxford University Press. Warner, K., 2002. Sentencing in Tasmania. Federation Press. Read More