Get Cheap Custom Essay Help-It transpires that Carl is a disqualified driver. He is arrested by the two officers for driving whilst disqualified under section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He is eventually charged that evening at the police station and bailed to court. Explain in your own words, with reference to relevant primary authority, the full court process in this scenario now that Carl is charged.
Consider the following scenario(s)
Andy, Bert and Carl are three friends who have known each other from school. They live in a popular seaside resort. They are all adults in their mid- twenties, and all have previous convictions for violence and various burglary and theft offences. They are all in Carl’s car one evening when they are stopped by two police officers in their patrol car. There is recent intelligence about the occupants of Carl’s car being involved in criminal offences. The stop and search by the two officers is entirely legal and justified. The police do a check on the Police National computer on the three occupants of the car. Bert refused to get out of the car and so is handcuffed and forcibly removed by PC Johal. Bert struggles violently when being removed from the car and is verbally abusive and, as a result, PC Johal sustains injury to his face, neck and groin.
As a result of the police stop and search the following scenario(s) unfold.
Question 1
It transpires that Carl is a disqualified driver. He is arrested by the two officers for driving whilst disqualified under section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. He is eventually charged that evening at the police station and bailed to court. Explain in your own words, with reference to relevant primary authority, the full court process in this scenario now that Carl is charged.
Note:
- Driving whilst disqualified is a summary offence
- It is not necessary to consider bail implications or pre-sentence reports when answering this question.
Whilst the three police officers are busy arresting Carl and Bert, it gives Andy the chance to run away from the car. He knows there is a warrant out for his arrest for failing to pay court fines from a previous conviction. He goes on the ‘run’ and is afraid to go home in case the police are waiting for him. He has nowhere to live and so breaks into a caravan on a caravan site by forcing the door with a screwdriver. The caravan is temporarily unoccupied over the winter months. He stays in the caravan for several days helping himself to some of the beverages in the fridge and the food in the cupboards that belong to the caravan owner. A person visiting a nearby caravan sees that the door has been forced open and, knowing that the caravan should be unoccupied, informs the police. Early the next morning the police arrive at the caravan park to investigate but Andy sees the police car. Realising that the police are here to arrest him, he ‘legs’ it through an adjoining fence into an adjacent builders’ yard. The fence, which is the responsibility of two builders, Smith and Jones, had not been maintained properly. Whilst running through the yard, Andy trips and falls onto some wooden planks. Unfortunately, the planks have nails protruding through the wood. Andy injures himself badly on the nails with one of them piercing his right hand causing severe pain. He does, however, manage to evade the police.
The police discover that the caravan has been illegally entered and food and drink stolen. The owner of the caravan subsequently makes a written statement to the police confirming the burglary of the caravan and the theft of food and drink. The police crime scene visitor recovers fingerprints from some of the empty beer cans in the caravan and also takes samples of Andy’s blood in the builders’ yard. The forensic evidence at the scene matches Andy’s fingerprints with his DNA. There is CCTV evidence from the camp site but the identification, although fitting Andy’s description, is a not clear enough to be conclusive. Two weeks later Andy is arrested by the police on suspicion of burglary and theft at the caravan. He denies the offence and makes ‘no comment’ during the police interview. The Crown prosecution lawyer however decides to charge and prosecute Andy with the offence of burglary and theft under Section 9 (1) (b) of the Theft Act 1968.
(b) Taking account of the specific features of this scenario only, explain fully in your own words, with reference to the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the factors the CPS would have had to have considered before commencing a prosecution under this legislation against Andy.
Note
- Do not consider ‘inferences’ under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
- Questions (a) and (b) are not equally weighted
Question 2
Explain in your own words the procedure through the Magistrates’ Court that will unfold if Andy wishes to plead “not guilty” to the offence. Make sure you fully explore the procedure in your answer including the Magistrates’ responsibilities, and the options open to the court, the prosecution and the defence throughout this process. You must support your answer by reference to relevant primary sources of law. In answering this question, you should also consider the application of the facts, and consider where this case may actually be dealt with.
Note. Do NOT in your answer concern yourself with any of the following when answering this question;
- Bail;
- Pre- sentence reports;
- The specific burglary and theft guidelines laid down by the Sentencing
Question 3
Bert is subsequently convicted at the Crown Court of a racially aggravated assault under Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s.29. This is an either way offence. During the trial his defence barrister claimed that PC Johal had sustained his injuries as a result of falling against the patrol car moments after his struggle with Bert. Bert also denied racially abusing PC Johal. This was strongly denied by the prosecution. Six weeks after his conviction Bert’s defence barrister receives a letter from Mr Smith, one of the jurors, expressing deep concern about the case. In the letter Mr Smith states that two members of the jury were anxious to conclude the case as soon as possible as they had family and work commitments they needed to attend to. Mr Smith claims that neither juror was prepared to consider the evidence properly. Mr Smith also claims that the two jurors were of the opinion that Bert ‘looked like a racist’ and were keen to convict him whatever the other jurors thought. The defence barrister also discovers that the jury foreman was a recently retired Police Officer. He worked in the same operational unit as PC Patel, although did not know him personally.
With reference to the case law you have studied in this area consider the legal issue(s) Bert’s barrister will have to consider before submitting an appeal.
Note. You are not required to discuss the appeals process when answering this question.
Question 4
Andy is left badly scarred by the fall on the nails and the use of his right hand is now partially restricted. He wants to sue Smith and Jones for damages in the civil courts in the region of £27,000.
(a) In which court should his claim be commenced? Support your answer with reference to relevant primary authority.
(b) With reference to primary authority explain how Andy can finance his planned action against Smith and Jones, and the legal cost implications should he be unsuccessful at trial. How would your answer differ, if at all, if Andy were to be successful at trial?
Note: Questions (a) and (b) are not equally weighted.
NOT MORE THAN 2,000 AT ALL
