Introduction To Criminal Law
Criminal law is system of law that is concerned with punishment related with offenders. It is considered as the body of law which is associated with crime. It proscribes the conduct that is perceived as threatening, harmful or otherwise which endangers the property, health, safety and moral welfare of the individual (Bronitt and McSherry, 2010). Several criminal law are being developed by statute that is towards saying that laws are being enacted by legislature. The present report is case based. The study includes the privileges that can be provided against the self incrimination.
If your dream is to get top grades, get a rewarding assignment service from us.Brilliant Assignment Services
Toll Free: +61 363 612 email@example.com
Advising Bill as to whether he can claim the privilege against self incrimination in response to question asked
In the present case privilege can be given to Bill towards self incrimination. This is in terms that Bill can keep silent and refuse to answer. In this the evidence which the court possess would be considered as the only means through which the decisions by the court will be provided. The privilege against the self incrimination is considered basic as well as substantive common law right. It is not just the rule related with evidence. It demonstrates the longer standing antipathy of the common law towards mandatory interrogations with respect to criminal conduct [R v McKenna, R v Benischke]. The particular case is related with assault on five week old baby. The privilege is one aspect of the right towards silence (Stephen, 2014). The rights towards the silence is one that is protecting the right towards not to be made to testify against oneself. The privilege against the self incrimination is narrow and this is protecting the right that are not to be made towards incrimination oneself. A statute may need a person who can answer the question which results in breaching the silence (Privilege: Other Privileges, 2017). However if the person is allowed to refuse towards giving incriminating answers results in preserving the privilege against the self incrimination. It has been provided by High court that a person can make refusal towards answering any question or make production of any document or thing in order to do so they might tend to bring him into peril as well as possibility towards being convicted as a criminal (Cryer, Friman, Robinson and Wilmshurst, 2007). The privilege is being applied in civil and criminal cases for excluding certain evidence but this applies as protection wherever information is compulsory attained by the investigators or by the administrative agencies that are imposing the penalties. It protects the one who might incriminate him and cannot be evoked towards shielding other from incriminating. It is not extending the information which can be collected in an independent manner. The privilege associated with incrimination can be referred to as the concept that includes three distinct privileges. This is comprised of privilege against the criminal matter, a privilege against self exposure towards civil or administrator penalty as well as privilege against the self exposure towards forfeiting the existing right (Danner and Martinez, 2005.). A greater number of rationale have been offered for the privilege but this is required to protect the freedom and dignity.
Self-incrimination is an act to expose the criminal to the charge of crime, to involve a guilty in a criminal prosecution. It can be occur both directly and indirectly, directly that is in way of interrogation where to information of the self-incrimination is disclosed. Indirectly is when the subject matter of the self-incrimination is disclosed by the person voluntarily where there is no pressure imposed by the other person. The guilty may or may not speck when the question is being asked through which the criminal is exposed, he can refuse to answer and no punishment is given to him. Privilege of self-incrimination is the right given to the vicious to protect himself against the expose of being guilty asking such question which proved to be guilty.
One of the privileges enjoyed by a person not to answer any question which is affecting their dignity as the current privilege is launched in order to maintain their self-esteem. Privileges are provided by the Australian government to protect the interest of an individual as this advantage will help in keeping their self respect. Main motive of legal authority is to ascertain crime and not to harm an individual (Cryer, 2010). Intentional incrimination is abolished as per the Australian government as these acts come into existence in order to emphasise on the crime committed by a person instead of affecting a person's mentally. Harming a person mentally is regarded as crime under the legal terminology as various people are restricted in law. Lunatic person are regarded as disqualified person according to the section 10 of the contract act as they can't' get decision in the lunacy. Just like, in the criminal act intention of a person matters a lot which differentiates their act among unintentional and intentional act. According to the section 13 of contract act 1872, act of a person that doesn't harm an individual are taken as mistake and not a crime. In criminal law, intentional mistakes done by an individual to affect another party is punished under the law (Bantekas and Nash, 2009).
In the current discussion, greater emphasis lies on determining the actual condition of Bill in relation to the self incrimination rights according to which they will be protected against all the personal questions asked by the ACC examiner. The scrutinizer can only ask question related to the current matter that is to harm a child that covers under the sexual abuse act as the intentional of bill is not good which amounts to punishment under the criminal law but prior to interrogation conducted by a legal officer Bill is required to know about its self incrimination rights in order to defend itself against the wrong questions asked by the examiner.
Advise Bill as to whether AB’s answers to police questions, that AB believed Bill was a “pedo,” and part of an international “pedo ring,” may be edited from his recorded evidence
In the present case scenario several evidence have been gathered by the police and authorized community. Further AB has provided answers to various questions as he is the victim of the issue. It can be advised to the Bill that he cannot edit the recorded evidence as the court possess the evidence of the same. In this regard if he makes efforts also then he can be held responsible for his actions (Clopton, 2011). This has been determined that AB has believed that Bill was a “pedo,” and part of an international “pedo ring,” this statement is stated before the police also several videos have been found from the computer of Bill. Thus this states that all those videos have been downloaded and devised by Bill only. Thus he cannot claim in terms that it is not his. This is because all the videos belongs to him only. Therefore it is being advised to him that he cannot remove or edit the evidence that are proving that he is in greater fault. This demonstrates that AB has filed complaint against him which makes Bill liable for the actions that being committed by him. Being at renowned position in the church he cannot ask for editing of the videos that are acquired against him. Once the recorded evidence are being given to the police they cannot be edited.
Advise Ernie as to whether he can object to giving particular answers, or evidence generally, before the ACC examiner, and in the County Court trial
In the present case Bill and Ernie are couple having same sex. It has been determined that there is no role played by Ernie in the actions that are being committed by Bill. Thus there is no liability of Ernie towards the actions that are being performed by Bill. It has been examined that Ernie is no responsible to answer any thing and also he can object in country court trial or before the ACC examiner. It is being identified that the evidence that were being found does not present any role of Ernie nor he knows the manner in which computer can be operated. Thus in this case it being examined that Ernie can object as he is not known about the actions that are being committed by Bill. Thus both Ernie and Bill are couple but actions of Bill are not known and also there is no evidence related with Ernie which does not make him criminal in the present case.
It can be concluded from the present study that the privilege against the self incrimination is considered basic as well as substantive common law right. This is being inferred that it is not just the rule related with evidence. Further it demonstrates the longer standing antipathy of the common law towards mandatory interrogations with respect to criminal conduct. In the present case Bill possess privilege but his would be punished on the basis of evidence that are possessed by the court.
- Bantekas, I. and Nash, S., 2009. International criminal law. Routledge.
- Bronitt, S. and McSherry, B., 2010. Principles of criminal law. Thomson Reuters.
- Clopton, Z. D., 2011. Bowman Lives: The Extraterritorial Application of US Criminal Law After Morrison v. National Australia Bank.
- Cryer, R., 2010. An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. Cambridge University Press.
- Cryer, R., Friman, H., Robinson, D. and Wilmshurst, E., 2007. An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. Cambridge University Press.
- Danner, A.M. and Martinez, J.S., 2005. Guilty associations: Joint criminal enterprise, command responsibility, and the development of international criminal law. California Law Review. pp.75-169.
- Stephen, J. F., 2014. A history of the criminal law of England (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.