Discuss about the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom.
Joe was denied a bail in the District Court and he wants me to apply for a bail in the High Court where there is an objection to the application of the bail from the prosecutor unless four conditions are met. I am going to advise Joe on these conditions in relation to his application, and whether to continue with it or not.
To begin with, evidence will be given out on Joe’s 26 previous convictions to the High Court. According to the Bail Act 1997 section two; the court may refuse an application for bail if the person making the application is charged with a serious offense. An example is given in subsection (e) where it specifies the previous convictions of the person, and section six subsections one suggest that the person should be of good manners. When these cases will be submitted, it could be very difficult to convince the court to accept the bail due to the many numbers of times Joe has committed crimes. However, a defense could be established that all the crimes committed before are not related to the robbery crime currently committed. This solution will still be a weak opposing case.
The prosecutor also has a Garda inspector who will testify that Joe has been trying to obtain a new passport with the view of fleeing away from the state. If this is proven to be true, Joe would be going against section six of Bail Act, 1997. That section states that, for a bail to be given, they will appear at the end of their period. This would mean he was planning not to appear in court at the end of the period. This scenario could be objected by questioning the credibility of the inspector, and the information presented by highlighting the fact that Joe has been appearing in all the proceedings. This then means he had no bad intentions.
Thirdly, the prosecutor wants to argue that Joe is a career criminal, who is bound to commit further offenses if he is released on bail. Looking at the previous records of Joe, the court could easily agree with this argument. According to section thirteen of the non-fatal Act, (that talks on endangerment), Joe could be denied the application for bail in that if released, it could be argued that he would be a threat to the society. However, this is just theory in defense though Joe cannot be released to experiment this scenario.
Lastly, the prosecutor is claiming that Joe threatened the witness by telling the arresting guard that he knows where the family of the witness lives. This is a serious threat and an offense in itself according to section five of the non-fatal Act. This section warns against threatening a person with the intent of the other person believing it will be carried out. This is also supported by Criminal Justice 2001 that warns against use of force in blackmailing the other person for own benefit.
Firstly, according to section five of the non-fatal offenses to the person act of 1997 on a threat to kill or cause serious harm, Mario could have committed a crime of threatening to cause serious harm to Derek. This section states that any person who threatens another person by means of intending the other person to believe his threats will be carried out by killing or causing of harm to the other person is guilty and will be charged with a fine not more than 1500 euros or an imprisonment of one year or both. In this case, Mario threatened Derek and he did it in rage when he was overcome with anger and fury which means, it was out of frustration, and the feeling of losing Beth. Even though there is a clear evidence that Mario had threatened Beth which could be proven in court by the text message clearly stating how he would “smash his face”, Mario could, at least, defend himself by implicating that his action of sending the message to Derek was his immediate reaction to the break up as a way of trying to express his frustration since he has an uncontrollable depressive illness and an impulse which he cannot control. Well, this defense may not be the best unless he could prove that it was not intentional rather a rushed and unintended response which could be impossible to control because of his illness.
Secondly, Mario would have committed the crime of assaulting Derek in accordance with section two of non-fatal offenses to the person act of 1997 on assault. This section states that a person who assaults the other person recklessly or intentionally without lawful excuse shall be guilty whether by directly or indirectly, applying force to cause an effect on another person or causing another to believe he is likely to do cause this harm. In Mario’s case, when at the bar, a fight started between Mario and Derek in Dawson Street, and this fight ended up with Derek as the casualty sustaining a black eye, a split lip and a bump on the head after being knocked unconscious by Mario. Mario can defend himself by proving that Derek was the one who initiated the fight and he had no intention of fighting with Derek. The only problem is that this happened after Mario sent the message threatening Derek which means Derek could claim it was a follow up to his message.
Lastly, Mario would have committed the crime of unlawful use of the computer in accordance with section nine of criminal justice (Theft & Fraud Offenses Act 2001) on unlawful use of a computer. This section states that a person, whether within or outside the state, operates or causes to operate with a computer in a manner of causing another’s loss, is to be charged guilty and charged a fine not exceeding ten years. Mario used his gadget in recording a sexually explicit video of Beth without her knowledge, and he spread it on a social networking site. He then proceeded to email the video to Beth’s closest friends and family.
Firstly, the advisor could prosecute Peter for rape. This lawsuit will be filed according to criminal act section four on rape. This section states that sexual assault may include penetration of the penis to the anus or mouth or penetration of any object held or manipulated by another person to the vagina. This section will apply in this case since while Mary was sleeping during the night, Peter had sexual intercourse with her against her will. This is seen in the fact that we are told that Mary asked him to stop but he refused. This would not be allegations, but proof with the confirmation of Peter who claimed that he assumed she would be okay with it. Nonetheless, the question that Peter could also be asked is that, if he assumed she was okay with it, “why did he continue even after being stopped by Mary?” This case could be a success with the confession of Peter.
Secondly, the prosecutor could report Peter for engaging in sex with a lady who is sixteen years old below the year of consent age according to Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 1993 section three. Peter admitted that they have been engaging in this act for a good number of times. The only problem would be that Peter did not know that Mary was below the age of consent. In justifying his engagement, he was on the knowledge that Mary was old enough. This case could not proceed if Mary confesses to falsifying her age to Peter since it would be Mary’s fault. However, as a prosecutor, Peter could be questioned on why he did not need to determine the age of the Mary by truly confirming from wherever sources possible
Lastly, Peter can be prosecuted to be guilty of drugging the lady so that he could be able to engage in sex with her. According to criminal justice (Theft &Fraud Offenses Act 2001) on obtaining services by deception in section seven, subsection one. It states that a person who is dishonestly intending to make a benefit for themselves causes loss to another by deception. Obtaining services from another is guilty and is liable for a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both. In this case, the prosecutor could accuse Peter of using the party as a leverage to engage in sex with Mary after perhaps giving her a drug. Also, it could be that Peter did not want to be noticed because he waited for Mary to sleep so that he could indulge in sexual activity. Therefore, when reported by Mary, he then had an excuse by saying that he knew that Mary would be okay with it. Overall, this case would be very difficult for the prosecutor to win since there is only one strong case which is rape. However, the present law does not define all angles and aspects of a rape case. Also, understanding that they have heard sex several times before this night.
Jethro and Virginia have committed several crimes. To begin with, they have committed theft by stealing a car. They were also about to break in and steal from a building in Blessington in a house where there are Vermeer and paints by Franz Hal. Applicable laws include part two, section four of Criminal Justice Act 2001 supported by section five of Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976. A person is guilty of theft if they take a property without the owner’s consent. In this scenario, they have been caught with a stolen car as evidence meaning, they cannot get away with it.
Secondly, they have committed murder of a police officer understanding that they were associates. Criminal Justice Act of 1964 section three that talks about a special provision in relation to murder and attempts applies. A murder a Garda Siochana acting during his duty is an offense which could result in life imprisonment. Murder is against the human rights hence a criminal offense (Odello, 2010).
Jethro and Virginia have also committed an offense of resisting an arrest in which Virginia killed a police officer. While running away with the car, Jethro also shoots a police officer leaving him seriously injured. This action is against the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act of 1994 section eight subsection two. This section states that one who fails to comply with a member of Garda Siochana without lawful authority or a reason is guilty and shall be convicted for a fine not exceeding 500 euros or a term not exceeding 6 months or both.
Lastly, in accordance with Criminal Damage Act 1995 section two which states that a person who damages any property belonging to another person recklessly whether he is intending or not intending to damage any property or intending by the damage to endanger the life of another is guilty. During the chase, Virginia was apprehended after hitting the car of a person while over-speeding on Blessing Road. Though I am not informed of the health condition, I can conclude that it is damaging to public property.
With all these offenses, it could be almost impossible to get out of this crime though I can come up with one defense. I would start by looking into the criminal background of Jethro and Virginia to know whether or not they have engaged in any criminal activities before or any criminal records. If there are none, then I could ask them why they needed the money and then argue on the basis that this was their first time due to a reason so that they don’t get a life imprisonment ruling. In killing the police officers, it could be argued that being the first time in an encounter with the police, they both were surprised and frightened to see the police hence their reaction. With this consideration, they may be taken to a prison for quite some time though not life imprisonment or they could go to the juvenile if they are not of the age to go to prison since they have right to fair trial(Brems, 2005).
References
Bail Act, 1997
Brems, E. (2005). Conflicting Human Rights: An Exploration in the Context of the Right to a Fair Trial in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Human Rights Quarterly, 27(1), 294-326.
Criminal Damage Act, 1991
Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994
Criminal Justice (Theft & Fraud Offenses Act 2001
Criminal Justice Act, 1990
Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976
Criminal Law (Sexual Offenses) Act, 1993
Criminal Law Rape Acts 1981-1990
Non-Fatal Offenses to the Persons Act 1997
Odello, M. (2010). Tackling criminal acts in peacekeeping operations: The accountability of peacekeepers. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 15(2), 347-391. C
Offenses against the state Act 1998
Wald, P. M. (2002). Dealing with Witnesses in War Crime Trials: Lessons from the Yugoslav Tribunal. Yale Hum. Rts. & Dev. LJ, 5, 217.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download