Criminal Litigation Study Report Case Study

Criminal Litigation Study Report

Introduction: Criminal Litigation Study Report

Visit Native Assignment Help to see UK-based assignment writers who provide AI-free case studies of our trustworthy assignments. Look no further for your university paper help because our experienced writers will leave you with nothing short of perfect tasks that not only meet but also surpass the highest academic requirements, ensuring your victory in academics.

Criminal litigation is concerned with the process of trying to defend a criminal by following specific court laws. Criminal litigators can be classified as the practices of criminal prosecutors and criminal defence lawyers. Criminal prosecutors present cases of the government against a criminal defendant, concerning "criminal defence attorneys". This study is based on a case study and criminal litigation of "Samuel Solomon" for advising a significant defensive law for rescuing them. This study aims to analyse statements of "Samuel Solomon" the government to deliver legal advice for defending. This study is going to discuss the activities of police officers and legal advisors as well as their duty to identify lacking based on amended legislation of UK for defending a criminal. This study emphasises advising "Laws-R-Us" for defending and rescuing "Samuel Solomon" from this criminal litigation.

written analysis of Samuel’s statement, identifying any possible breaches of the law by the police

Samuel Solomon attended a fancy dress party at his cousin's house. The location was not too far and he reached the Sharon Foreman house by walking. Samuel wore a custom of superman and reached the part at around 8 pm. He washed some glasses in the kitchen sink in the evening and mistakenly cut his right hand. After that, Samuel enjoyed the party and drank some beer and whiskey and at about 1 am Samuel left the party. While letting his cousin's house, his cousin returned a hammer that Samuel lent her some days ago. He was not in control as he drank too much and played some noisy and stupid behaviour and smashed with a car that was parked at the roadside. After that, Samuel noticed a broken window and leaned towards the window and slipped a hammer into the car and twisted his ankle. A policeman and policewoman came to the place and saw Samuel and trolled with him. After that, police arrested Samuel and locked him in custody. Samuel tried to elaborate on the situation but the police trolled with him. Samuel asked for a lawyer and the lawyer came in late and described the actual incident and his injury. However, the lawyer busied on the phone and not noticed anything about the discussion. After a week Samuel got bail and the lawyer, Ms Drake asked to pay him money and offered him a knock of 10% in case of paying cash. The next day, the police informed Samuel that the case was removed as the car owner told them about the history of the broken windows. The car owner told to the police that the car window was already broken earlier that day. After analysis, of the entire situation, the fault of both the police and the lawyer was present as the police did not value Samuel's injury and the lawyer did not pay attention to Samuel's case and demanded payment for his case. In addition, both the police and the lawyer trolled Samuel in that situation despite listening to Samuel's world and focusing on Samuel's ankle injury. 

"The criminal damage act 1971 (CDA 1971)" includes primary offences sources regarding property damage. Offences can vary with the seriousness of damages as destruction due to fire can damage a large property and can deliver risks to people. Section 1(1) stated that a person can be considered as guilty if he/she engages in lawful excuse destruction, destruction to any property, the intention of damaging property and recklessly to damage any property[1]. Including the circumstances in which evidence was delivered, the evidence would have an adverse effect on the justice of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit. Although "Section 76 of PACE" produces the exclusion of confessions in a broad term for allowing its application in a complete variety of situations explaining the scope of the background information of the accident that was caused[2]. Samuel was drunk and he was not in a position to stand out as he moved his ankle. At the police station, he was taken to the custody suite without doing any inspection about the matter and there could be a possible chance for breaching the law by the police side.

However, if the police desire to detain an individual without expense for more than 36 hours, then it is important they must take them to a magistrates' court to get a warrant but they had arrested him in the case of Sharon in which he did not have any type of link and "Section 7" of the act implemented here by Samuel's side. Commonly this must be accomplished before the 36 hours have passed but may be delayed until the court next sits if, for example, it is the middle of the night without any strong proof they arrested just by seeing the hammer in his hand and does not hear anything in his support. A magistrate's warrant may authorize your detention for up to another 36 hours (Refer to study materials). Moreover, this is not long enough the police can take an individual in the middle night in front of the magistrate one more time, and get an extension to the warrant. Both the officers make jokes about his costume as well and they do not allow him to make a phone call as well as he was in deep pain. "The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)" is concerned with the duties and powers and "Section 67(9) of PACE" places other than police officers have regard to codes of practice in which they need to make sure interviews with suspects places a duty on persons[3]. Therefore, it is important to provide all types of the additional evidence so that they in the opportunity to respond to the case of Samuel by skiing representations in writing. It sometimes happens that the police do not care about an overview of the scenario as they think they have the power to accelerate the case which they want to do and the same they have done with Samuel on the same day in the custody of breaking a mirror of the car.

In addition, chapter 48 of CDA 1971 included that a person can be considered guilty if the person engages in unlawful excuse in threatening another person. This act also included possessing any activity that engaged in the intention to damage any property. The punishment for engaging in any type of property damage activity can be considered imprisonment for some years and can extend the punishment to five years[4]. This can also include a fine as per property damage quantity. 

The CPS is a governance branch that charges criminal law cases. The officer will discuss their analysis with them after that they may decide whether the case should go to court or not. They design and attend cases in court. They strive to establish that you are guilty. Although, police officers have various ranks depending on how much experience they have. One may come across "police constables, sergeants, inspectors or superintendents at the police station". There are regulations about when the police should reconsider if you nevertheless need to be kept at the police station. After accusing any case by their side and arresting anyone the first assessment must be no later than 6 hours after you were first held at the police station. The second contemplation must be no later than 9 hours after the preferable review. After the second review, they should review it every 9 hours. They may check it faster than this and after that "Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)" and relying on the court jury or magistrate may wonder in court without telling the police. "Section 135 of the mental health act" explains mental illness and before arresting anyone it would be necessary to check whether they were suffering from any serious health issue at that moment or not. The police also could keep at "a place of safety" and need care and thereafter they could investigate cases after getting interviewed they may think about the next step[5]. However, in this case, they did not thoroughly examine the case and were arrested without a warrant they can be punished under this mentioned section and have the right to access legal advice as well. 

In this way, the police did not ask about their health condition of Samuel and it was important at that moment for offering any support to the healthcare facilities he want for curing the injured, especially as he was arrested by their side at night. After that, the healthcare professionals would decide whether an individual is well enough or not for the police to keep him at a station. The custody sergeant could also be responsible for the safety of everyone and they will make sure of the police station as a place of suspects safety "Bail Act 1976" sets out a number of instances for obstructing the court of justice to get sufficient information for the purpose of taking valid decisions. Bail is mainly associated with two forms of basic principles associated with the prospect of major reform and freedom of the citizen compared with written material to the response of the accused[6]. It familiarises important reforms in some enclosures and remains corrective in other areas as well. "Commission on bail is available as a benchmark for a new generation of campaigners to pursue bail reform in future years". In addition, the "Pace code of practice D" needs to cover the identification of incidents and misunderstandings as a part of a case and the power to employ several means of identification with suspect rights one can solve the case easily. The police team did not offer any meal as well to Samuel and they did not ask about his age, name or address at that moment as well in finding the police interview intimidating.

Section 4 of the bail act 1976 included about granting bail and this included that a person can grant bail without having any condition before accusing in court and engaging in enquiry or reporting conviction. "Bail in criminal proceedings" includes accusing and convicting in an offence, A person can grant bail if the person is under arrest or face an arrest warrant[7]. Bail grantable can be considered in the UK if the offence is committed in England and Wales and if the offence falls under the law of England and Wales. 

Steps of search of police

A police officer needs to take reasonable steps while a police officer is intending to search a person or a vehicle in which a person is present. The police officer needs to consider some reasonable steps if the police officer is not in uniform. The police officer needs to elaborate on the fact of the search purpose, providing information about the person's details and police details, the objects of the search and the officer's background to perform the search. In this case, policemen needed to provide information about their search criteria and needed to info the person about search objectives[8]. The scenario included a policeman coming to the place and trolling with Samuel and arresting Samuel without noticing his injury or paying value to his words. 

Stop and Search

General power to stop and search

Under s.1 of Pace 1984 includes the general authority of police to stop and search a person prior to arresting the person in a public place. This power is considers in terms of police officers having valid grounds for doubting a person about stealing something. As per S1 Pace 1984, reasonable suspicion can occur if the police officer carries any actual doubt about a person being in control[9]. Reasonable grounds consider determination about the facts for a set of parameters such as time, position and suspect's behaviour. This considers not determine the personal factors of the suspect such as race, religion, ethnic background and appearance. Therefore, as per the case, the police officer did not have enough actual doubt about the case and did not have any valid objection regarding the broken window of that car. However, the police found Samuel in a drunken condition and this raised a valid reason to interrogate them. Despite proper interrogating, the police officer engaged in trolling with Samuel and arrested him without showing any objectives of offence. 

Unlawful search

As per section 78 of the PACE act in the UK, in the occurrence of an unlawful stop and search on a suspect, and then the suspect can challenge the officer due to missing any valid reasons to arrest[10]. This includes arrest activity that police can consider in the duty period and this activity needs to follow lawful stop and search. Samuel's case shows that the police pulled Samuel after considered to arrest Samuel. Samuel also unzipped the bag and showed the contents inside the bag to the officer to reduce doubt of the police. However, a police officer arrested Samuel and kept Samuel in custody for a week. In addition, a police officer can arrest a person if an officer conveys legal facts behind arresting a person. 

Power of arrest

Police can arrest a person if a person breaches any law or peace, threaten a person, damage any property or harm any person. Police also can arrest a person through having an arrest warrant and arrest without having a warrant order under PACE. In addition, schedule 2 of PACE includes preserving the authority of arrest and through this, police can arrest a person. Section 24 (1)-(3) of PACE 1984 included power of arrest without having any arrest warrant. Section 24 (1) (a) of PACE 1984 considers arresting a person that commits or intends of committing any offences. Therefore, this case had not any valid arrest warrant and the police did not have any proof of breaking the window of that car. This can recommend that the police had not any authority to arrest the person on an immediate basis or without interrogating the person. 

Vulnerable suspects basically are those who are under 18, and mentally disordered; this could be an appropriate interest in addition to a legal advisor. There may be several potential breaches of the law by police officers regarding the treatment of Samuel who complains of serious pain. These are some identification of the breaches that can be undertaken against the police team for not hearing his viewpoint and being forced to accept the case that he has not done. Failure to provide medical attention: If the accused is experiencing serious pain and requests medical attention, the police have a duty to ensure that the person receives appropriate medical care. Failure to do so could be considered a violation of the person's rights. Use of excessive force: If the police use excessive force in response to an accused person's complaints of pain, this could be a breach of the person's rights and a violation of law enforcement's use of force policies (Refer to study materials). Failure to protect the person's rights: The police have a duty to protect the rights of all individuals, including those who are accused of crimes. If the accused is in pain and the police fail to take appropriate action, this could be considered a violation of the person's rights. Law under discrimination can be assigned against the police and treat the accused differently based on their race, gender, religion, or another protected characteristic, this could be a breach of law and a violation of anti-discrimination laws.

Comment on the behaviour of the duty lawyer, Ms Drake

 During the enquiry time of the police officer to "Samuel Solomon" about each aspect of this incident, "Samuel Solomon" asked for a legal advisor or duty lower. In this situation, Ms Drake plays a role as a legal advisor of ”Samuel Solomon" to participate in enquiry time and analyse issues and actual matters of this incident. Extension of conversation has to be permitted for them Section 58 of "The Criminal Evidence Act 1984" concerning rights of a legal advisor and the solicitor that can be recorded in delay permitted based on the instruction of this section[12]. PACE Code C, para 6.4 is based on the "right to see a legal representative" by an arrested person concerned with police officers and they have no authority to an interesting legal advisor and arrested person during enquiry and interview between solicitor and arrested person. Police officers have only the right to suggest “free legal advice" for an arrested person with the name of a solicitor. "Defence Solicitor Call Centre" helps to connect with solicitors for “free legal advice". "Crime Defence Service Direct” helps to provide telephonic advice through conducting interviews and identifying issues of an arrested person based on amended legislation and law of the court in UK[13]. The first responsibility of the duty lawyer or legal advisor is enquiring about arresting officers, alleged offence, analysing whether the " police station voluntarily" or not, Time of arrest person arrest and its necessity, arrival Time of suspect in the police station, interview, request and responses for acquiring legal advice, risk aspects for custody of suspects (Refers to study materials). 

 Ms Drake stated to "Samuel Solomon" for explaining each matter of this incident for which "Samuel Solomon" was arrested. At this time, ”Samuel Solomon" was feeling ill due to his injuries and he was unable to give a coherent account and description of the events that happen at previous evening due to being unconscious and drunk the previous evening. Ms Drake the duty lower of "Samuel Solomon" appeared very distracted from watching "Samuel Solomon" in a Superman costume (Refers to study materials). Moreover, Ms Drake started to make stupid jokes about "Samuel Solomon" to show his superman costume rather than concentrating on the actual matter to find the ultimate solution for rescuing "Samuel Solomon". "Samuel Solomon" was requesting this duty lawyer for conducting an enquiry session a few times letters because of being unwell as well as sharing his issues regarding his ankle injuries. However, this duty lawyer ignored issues of his client's name "Samuel Solomon" and started the interview. Based on "PACE Code C paras 8, 9 and 12" suspects have the right to accusing clinical attention, heated, access to toilets cleaned and ventilated cells, and Breaks during interviews but here police and legal advisor have to provide proper services and treatments to suspects.

During interviews, police officers have to examine "Mentally vulnerable suspects", and "Mentally disordered suspects" before judgements. Based on "PACE 1984", suspects have the right to being silent during interviews with police officers[14]. However, the interface can be affected due to failure for putting forward defence facts based on interviews at a charge that is associated with the amended law of "s34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994". Failure of suspects to explain objects and presence in front of Police officers can be considered based on the amended law of ”s36 CJPOA". Failure of providing evidence at trial is associated with "s35 CJPOA" concerning the right of suspects being science. According to "PACE 1984”, the case can be transferred to an accounting jury due to inadequate and effective performance of defence legal advice concerning negligence. Section 11 of PACE considering the " Criminal Evidence Act 1984", suspects records of spiritual healing, and the medical record has to provide to probation officers and social workers but here legal officers have avoided those aspects. s24(5) PACE of " Criminal Evidence Act 1984" is concerned with protecting and helping suspects from physical injuries with adequate clinical service but there have to follow this instruction properly[15]. During the interview, she did not concentrate on words and actual matters concerning issues of "Samuel Solomon" because of being busy overseeing other people.

The police want "Samuel Solomon" for representing "Sharon Foreman" with a penguin costume in the costume party of the previous night (Refers to study materials). "Sharon Foreman" was arrested for hitting the door of her neighbour with a hammer. Seeing the whole situation in the police station, Ms Drake seemed to assume that the whole thing of this case can be recognised as a hilarious incident than have not any ethical side to represent strategically in front of the court. Based on the "right to intimation", police cannot torture an arresting a person without any right evidence and police delay to find the right evening. Section 56 of "The Criminal Evidence Act 1984" stated that in this case, police have to send suspects to custody of the welfare section. Arresting without any right evidence and touching them leads to criminal offences created by police. This time limit is associated with 36 hours from the time of the arrest. Within 36 hours from the time of arrest, making any harm to an arrested person without any significant evidence indicates the occurrence of unlawful activities based on law and order of UK legislation[16]. Section 58 of "The Criminal Evidence Act 1984" is associated with the right of a legal advisor. This amended act refers to before sending an arrested person for custody having to hire a legal advisor for enquiry into actual matters of incidents (Refers to study materials). Police are unable to enquire about the arrested persons about actual matters without any legal advisor. "Samuel Solomon" was asking Ms Drake for further action related to responses in the enquiry and explanation regarding the actual matter of this incident in front of police, Ms Drake denied answering questions of police during the enquiry. 

After interviewing with Ms Drake, the police send "Samuel Solomon" to another room and tortured him to confess guilty in this case but Ms Drake did not take any action for helping them as a defence lawyer. Ms Drake was dining to replace any answer to protecting “Samuel Solomon". After this confession season, Ms Drake was dealing with "Samuel Solomon" regarding payments and stated that she gives 10% discounts in payment. Concerning those aspects, it can be stated that Ms Drake was acting in many unlawful and unprofessional activities as a defence lawyer that is against the law of UK concerning rammed legislation of criminal litigation. At the end of this criminal ligation regarding the case studies of "Samuel Solomon”, it has been identified that this car has broken from an earlier accident that has not been conducted by "Samuel Solomon" and "Sharon Foreman". Therefore, this case signifies unlawful activities and torched as well as harassment for "Samuel Solomon" and "Sharon Foreman" (Refers to study materials). Section 58 of "The Criminal Evidence Act 1984" suggest for an arrested person can be consulted a "solicitor privately" at any time during held in custody on premises shall or police station that is one of the identical rights of the arrested person.

Police and custody authorities have to keep a record of consulting a "solicitor privately" with a timetable for custody records. Moreover, the arrested person must be permitted for consulting with their solicitor as soon as possible for communication about practicable except[17]. Concerning those aspects and aligning with the amended law of UK it can be stated that, the defendant's lawyer has to be specifying poor treatments of policies, inadequate facilities and nonclinical service during injury and unlawfully confessing suspected crime without proper involvement of a legal advisor are associated with unlawful activities on suspects. Moreover, suspects have to accuse a legal advisor or representative through the "Defence Solicitor Call Centre" with the help of a police officer is free of cost. Unethical and unlawful activities of the legal advisor namely Ms Drake are significant reasons for the delay in rescuing as well as asking for payment with a deal regarding a 10% discount is another offensive activity based on court law.

Conclusion

In a conclusion, it can be stated that when there are grounds to suspect police officers took necessary steps before arresting anyone otherwise would be admissible in prosecution and needs some basic evidence in prosecution. As a Laws-R-Us behavior of the police and Ms Drake considered, based on the actions under some laws and sections were delivered for charging legal actions. "Criminal Evidence Act 1984" also included a supervising solicitor for taking legal actions against comments on the behavior of the duty lawyer. As "Grounds for suspicion" vague at the time of asking questions based on that Pace Code of Practice D accepted as well. 

Reference list

Books

Ozin, P. and Norton, H., 2019. PACE: A practical guide to the police and criminal evidence act 1984. Oxford University Press.

Journals

Amankwaa, A.O. and McCartney, C., 2019. The effectiveness of the UK national DNA database. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 1, pp.45-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.03.004

Augestad Knudsen, R., 2021. Between vulnerability and risk? Mental health in UK counter-terrorism. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 13(1), pp.43-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19434472.2019.1703782

Gulati, G., Cusack, A., Kelly, B.D., Kilcommins, S. and Dunne, C.P., 2020. Experiences of people with intellectual disabilities encountering law enforcement officials as the suspects of crime–A narrative systematic review. International journal of law and psychiatry, 71, p.101609. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101609

Taylor, M.F., 2022. The politics of bail reform: the New South Wales Bail Act, 1976-2013 (Doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University). https://figshare.mq.edu.au/ndownloader/files/34535948

[1] Cps.gov.uk, 2023. Criminal Damage | The Crown Prosecution Service Available at: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage#:~:text=The%20Criminal%20Damage%20Act%201971,offences%20involving%20damage%20to%20property. [Accessed on: 09/02/2023]

[2] Hse.gov.uk, 2023. Admissibility of confessions Available at: https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/witness-admissibility.htm#footref9 [Accessed on: 06/02/2023]

[3] Hse.gov.uk, 2023. Interviewing suspects Available at: https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/witness-questioning.htm [Accessed on: 06/02/2023]

[4] Legislation.gov.uk, 2023. Criminal Damage Act 1971 - Legislation.gov.uk Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48 [Accessed on: 09/02/2023]

[5] Rethink.org, 2023. Section 135 of the Mental Health Act Available at: https://www.rethink.org/advice-and-information/rights-restrictions/mental-health-laws/section-135-of-the-mental-health-act-police-taking-you-to-a-place-of-safety-from-a-private-place/ [Accessed on: 06/02/2023]

[6] Legislation.gov.uk, 2023. Bail Act 1976 - Legislation.gov.uk Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63 [Accessed on: 09/02/2023]

[7] Legislation.gov.uk, 2023. Bail Act 1976 - Legislation.gov.uk Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63 [Accessed on: 09/02/2023]

[8] Legislation.gov.uk, 2023. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Legislation.gov.uk Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents [Accessed on: 09/02/2023]

[9] Legislation.gov.uk, 2023. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Legislation.gov.uk Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents [Accessed on: 09/02/2023]

[10] Legislation.gov.uk, 2023. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Legislation.gov.uk Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents [Accessed on: 09/02/2023]

[11] Legislation.gov.uk, 2023. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Legislation.gov.uk Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents [Accessed on: 09/02/2023]

[12] Ozin, P. and Norton, H., 2019. PACE: A practical guide to the police and criminal evidence act 1984. Oxford University Press.

[13] Amankwaa, A.O. and McCartney, C., 2019. The effectiveness of the UK national DNA database. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 1, pp.45-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.03.004

[14] Augestad Knudsen, R., 2021. Between vulnerability and risk? Mental health in UK counter-terrorism. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 13(1), pp.43-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19434472.2019.1703782

[15] Gulati, G., Cusack, A., Kelly, B.D., Kilcommins, S. and Dunne, C.P., 2020. Experiences of people with intellectual disabilities encountering law enforcement officials as the suspects of crime–A narrative systematic review. International journal of law and psychiatry, 71, p.101609. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101609

[16] Sra.org.uk (2022), SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs, Available from: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code-conduct-solicitors/. Accessed on: 06.02.2023

[17] Sra.org.uk (2022), Welcome to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Available from: https://www.sra.org.uk/ Accessed on: 06.02.2023