The UK Criminal Law - Report Example

Court Visit Report BY [Name of the organization] [Author’s name] [Date of fulfilment] Introduction As discussed by Gross, Hyman (2005) the understanding of a criminal case is not that easy as it has got lots of twists and turn. For practical experience and investigation over the criminal cases, I opted to visit a case between Mr. Robinson and Ms. Janet Stephenson. It was a case at Preston Magistrates court 19/11/2008 case number 4, court 2 first floor. This was simple criminal case and the observation over the whole issue proved to be of great support in the understanding of practical cases. Elements As per the criminal law proceeding of UK the criminal law in general gets prohibits under certain undesirable acts. The clear verdict is that the proof of a crime must be well supported by proof of some particular act. According to the relevant need as has been stated by ‘A Comprehensible Criminal Trial for Young People’, these requirements are termed as an actus reus or in layman language, a guilty act. As for some offences that are related to the modern regulatory offenses; there is a mandatory need for strict liability offenses. For George P. Fletcher (2000), there is always a regular speculation over the severity of any specific consequence of criminal conviction under the legal authorisation. The judiciary of UK considers that the judges who are at common law must scrutinise over the proof of the particular incident that is intended to be illegal and brutal. This is something that is again termed as mens rea or as on common known as guilty mind. As stated by Farmer, Lindsay (2000); in case of all kinds of crime the participation of actus reus and mens rea are seems to remain obvious. It has been well practiced that the judges can decide over a case on the basis of these elements.1 Court Room Atmosphere The atmosphere of Preston Magistrates court 2, first floor; was very impressive. It has got the particular chair for the Judge in the front and two witness boxes, placed opposite to each other. There is also the dignified sitting arrangement for the panel of jury and they were so placed that every proceedings gets crystal clear to them. Rest of the room was arranged with regular benches for the witnesses, friends, family members and all those people who want to witness the cases. There special sitting arrangements in the middle for the clerks who keep a regular record of each of the points and verdicts, related to the case. All these people were professionally graduated and are into the field for quite a long time. Their experiences and their presentations were all done in a very systematic way. The atmosphere of the court room was made more dignified by the black aprons worn by every prosecutor, judge and the jury member. The whole setting was such that there remains no chance of taking anything lightly. The judge in particular wears a wig and that is the considered to be the mark of dignity for the authoritative power of making a judgement. STRUCTURE OF THE COURT ROOM IN UK The diagram below can well illustrate the structure of the courtroom I visited. This is a very common structure with typical provision for every necessary accommodation. Figure 1 Court Room Source - www.courts.state.md.us/mocktrial/room-setup.pdf Jury selection The process of Jury Selection is a very important process. Especially for any criminal case the selections are done on the basis of experience and expertise. The procedure has got the process of swearing by the jury. The selection process has got either the participation of the lawyers or the specialized trial judges. As we made an observation over the process there was pure follow up of every particularized means of questionings and answering among the selected few. Opening statements The trial that was supposed to be undertaken in the court was related to a case between Mr. Robinson and Ms. Janet Stephenson. It was case between two parties who were known to each other for quite a long time. The first party that is Mr. Robinson was accused of insulting and beating the second party that is Ms. Janet Stephenson. The incident took place on the 30th of Oct. 2008. The whole insulting and the beating incident took place in the residence of Ms. Janet Stephenson. Mr. Robinson came to her house at about 10 pm and after some rude conversation started insulting Ms. Janet Stephenson. Soon he started slapping her and hitting her all over. He was so brutal in his act that Ms. Janet Stephenson was very seriously injured. She got no way to escape. The attacks and the abuses were so loud that the neighbours got into the house to stop the whole incident. Ms. Janet Stephenson somehow was rescued, but she had some serious injuries in her eyes. She got black marks round her eyes and the cheeks were all swollen. Not only that Ms. Janet Stephenson also broke her right arm and was very seriously bleeding all through her head and hand. This was a case that was continuing for a week. As a matter of fact both the parties were initially good friends and the accused always use to borrow money from Ms. Janet Stephenson. As time passed the demands were increasing and eventually Ms. Janet Stephenson started refusing giving any more money to the accused. The whole incident was all around this particular fact of Ms. Janet Stephenson refusing to give any further money to Mr. Robinson. As the trial began all these things were made very clear and the prosecutions were all set with their own verdicts. The initiations were all related to the declarations made by both the parties. As for Mr. Robinson, Ms. Janet Stephenson is a nice lady and she always try to help others, but for last few weeks she is trying to avoid him for no reason. The accused further stated that Ms. Janet Stephenson seems to have some new friends in her circle and as such she was avoiding him. As for the borrowing of the money, it was always returned in due time and that too he asks for it whenever he really needs it. The trials began and the whole process of cross questioning and interactions were elaborated. The jury members along with the lawyers were making the balance in the case. There were regular demands for the witnesses and evidences for the clearance of every particular statement. Calling witnesses as for the witnesses the friends and the neighbours of both the parties were presented in the court. As for the friends of Ms. Janet Stephenson, each of them agreed with what has been said by Ms. Janet Stephenson. However the scene was little different in case of Mr. Robinson, most of his fiends did not supported him much and agreed to the fact that he often get aggressive when he doesn’t get enough money. The neighbour of Ms. Janet Stephenson supported her a lot and stated that she in genuinely a gentle lady and is very soft hearted. She often helps her neighbours in every possible way and participates in every neighbourhood function. Ms. Janet Stephenson seemed to have a good reputation among her friends and her neighbours. On the other hand Mr. Robinson was found to have bad official and social records. He often had fights in the clubs and even his friends were not much in his favour. This made the case weaker and the whole table was turned in favour of Ms. Janet Stephenson. Examination of witnesses All the witnesses that were presented in the court were all presented under legal verification. The neighbours and the friends were all authenticated on the basis of their driver’s licence and Social Security number. As for the accusations against Mr. Robinson, every particular inch was well verified by the local police station and even his friends were all well authenticated before being presented in the court. The Judgment The case was very clear. It was a direct misconduct and misbehaviour of a man over a woman. The jury made very clear scrutinization and there was legal and authenticated investigations were done. The jury was well convinced by the declarations as has been made by the witnesses and they also made a good analysis over the verdicts of both the parties. The lawyers made best of their attempts in defending their clients. At last it was Ms. Janet Stephenson who was considered to be on the right side. The jury made a firm decision and as per the court rule of 2 years in community programme and Mr. Robinson was declared to pay an amount of 500 pounds to Ms. Janet Stephenson. As the amount for the assault is little more than what Mr. Robinson can afford the payments were said to be paid in instalment. Now he has to pay an amount of 200 pound at the end of November 2008, and then 150 pounds each month thereafter. References A Comprehensible Criminal Trial for Young People, Office of the Children’s Ombudsman in Sweden, Translated extract from “Förklara vad som händer” (2007) Courtroom Setup in the Classroom, n.d. www.courts.state.md.us/mocktrial/room-setup.pdf [retrieved on 20th Nov. 2008] Criminal Trial - The Steps In A Criminal Trial, n.d., http://law.jrank.org/pages/2206/Trial-Criminal-steps-in-criminal-trial.html [retrieved on 20th Nov. 2008] Farmer, Lindsay, "Reconstructing the English Codification Debate: The Criminal Law Commissioners, 1833-45". Law and History Review 18(2), (2000). http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/18.2/farmer.html. [retrieved on 20th Nov. 2008] Fletcher, George P., Rethinking Criminal Law. Oxford University Press. (2000). Gross, Hyman, A Theory of Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press. (2005) Read More