Problem question

Problem question

Instructions:

Text Book:

Durston G.: Evidence: Text and Materials (2nd ed Oxford 2011)
Munday R.: Evidence (6th ed Oxford 2011)
Alternatives:

Roberts and Zuckerman: Criminal Evidence (2nd ed Oxford 2010) – more principle
Dennis I: The Law of Evidence (4th ed Sweet and Maxwell 2010) – more legal
Tapper C. (ed.): Cross on Evidence (12th ed. Oxford 2010) – bible for evidence lawyers (but very complex)
McEwan J.: Evidence and the Adversarial Process (2nd ed 1998 Hart)
Anderson T. and Twining W.: Analysis of Evidence (Weidenfeld 2nd ed 2005)
—
Referencing Requirements:
. identify potential items of evidence
. put those items into the order that they would appear at trial
. discuss the potential inferences to be drawn from such evidence and how these relate to facts in issue.
. address any legal questions that may arise about the use of such evidence, such as admissibility. You are expected to cite any statutory or case authority and to discuss that authority in the necessary depth

1. William and Constance are charged with conspiracy to possess articles for a purpose connected with an act of terrorism contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 57 reads:

(1) A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
The father of William and Constance has been convicted of the murder of a neighbour in a small town in Wiltshire, a conviction which they fervently believe was a miscarriage of justice. A detective inspector in charge of the original investigation, Jack Whicher, received information from an informant that William and Constance were planning a campaign of violence to publicise their father’s conviction. Whicher, acting without any authorisation, travels to London and enters the flat where William and Constance live. He conceals a microphone in the living room. Whicher tapes a telephone conversation between a person he believes to be Constance and an unknown caller in which Constance says, ‘We can’t wait any longer. Dad’s health is getting worse. It’s imperative we act decisively and we act now. Both of us agree.’ Whicher is told by his informant that William and Constance rent a lock-up garage in a different part of London.

Whicher obtains a search warrant and searches the garage where he discovers several sacks of ammonium nitrate. This is a commonly used garden fertiliser but which can be used to make an explosive if mixed with diesel oil. William and Constance are arrested and interviewed. They both explain that they are taking the fertiliser to their house in Wiltshire as it is cheaper to buy fertiliser in London.

After caution, Constance is interviewed. She denies that she took part in the telephone conversation and suggests that it
must be another person living in the flat. Whicher calls in Savill, a phoneticist, who compares the telephone conversation
with recordings

Constance’s voice. Savill’s conclusion is that Constance’s voice and the voice on recordings were one and the same person. Savill has developed a system of comparing voices by meticulous listening to recordings of the suspect and the recordings of the event itself. His article on the technique in the journal, International and Comparative Phonetics, was criticised by other phoneticists for its overly subjective approach and its lack of methodological rigour. The technique has not become generally accepted in the field of phonetics.

William has a morbid fear of enclosed spaces and reacts badly to detention in a police cell. Whicher explained to William that the police have the power to detain him for several weeks under the terrorism legislation. William signed a confession statement admitting that Constance and he had obtained the fertiliser to make an explosive device and that they intended to explode it in front of Swindon Crown Court, albeit with sufficient warning. He later denies that any of this confession is true but that Whicher had suggested it to him.

Constance has no previous convictions and several local people are willing to act as character witnesses for her. William, however, has had several problems with the police. He has been cautioned for drunkenness and for shoplifting when he was a juvenile. In his 20s, he was twice convicted of offences of violence and served a short prison sentence. He is also a member of Animals R’us, an animal rights pressure group which has taken direct action against laboratories involved in using animals for testing cosmetics. There is no evidence that William has been involved in these protests.

Discuss the evidential issues that may arise in this case, bearing in mind the rubric at the start of the paper.

 

 

ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

 

You can place an order similar to this with us. You are assured of an authentic custom paper delivered within the given deadline besides our 24/7 customer support all through.

 

[order_calculator]