Evidence Law: Matters relating to Mr. Harry Collingwood and Mr. Fred Vaughan - Essay Example

Evidence Law Matters relating to Mr. Harry Collingwood and Mr. Fred Vaughan In this case, the matters of major significance are forced confessions received from the alleged offenders, Harry and Fred, and also the incriminating evidences found in their possession. Section 76 (2) (b) of the Police and Evidence Act 1984 says that the confession gained should not have been extracted from the defendant as a result of anything said or done. The judge is obliged to exclude a confession if the prosecution cannot refute an allegation that it was obtained under oppression. (Law Quarterly review. 1991). In other words, it is necessary that the confession obtained, should be voluntary given by defendant, and not obtained through use of physical or mental coercions, or duress. In such cases, it is deemed that the confessions ceases to be reliable, and, as a result, may not tenable in a Court of Law. In such cases, what needs to be assessed is not what transported after the confessions was obtained, but what anteceded the confession, or in other words, the role of actions that led to the signing of the confessions by the defendants. "To justify the arrest, there had to be evidence that would lead a reasonable person to suspect that the arrestee had committed the offence." (What is a citizen's arrests 2007). In the interpretation of Section 76 (2) of the Act, it has been determined that where the prosecution wished to admit evidence in substantiation of their arguments, to establish complicity of the accused, the Courts, may disallow the said evidence to be used, if it has reasons to believe that this has been given under 'oppression' of the person, or by the occurrences of certain events or circumstances, which has rendered the evidence as unreliable. In such cases, it is for the prosecution to evidence that the evidences, true or otherwise was not obtained through "oppression' or other undesirable methods. (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Ch 60). 2007). It is further seen under Section 78, that the law also covers exclusion of 'unfair evidence' which states, that the Courts have discretionary powers to disallow evidence brought in by the prosecution as a basis of their argument, which, in the opinion of the Court, could have an "adverse effect" on the principles of fair trial for the accused. How However, this section needs to consider taking cognizance of the inclusion of evidence when rule of law specifically provides that it should be obeyed by the Court. (Statutes: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Ch 60): Part VIII - Evidence in Criminal proceeding: General Confession: In this case it is seen that proceedings were initiated against Mr. Harry Collingwood and Mr. Fred Vaughan after alleged possession of items that could because blasts were recovered from search of their premises. Although they maintained their innocence, they were denied services of lawyers, and were subjected to physical and mental degradation. A solicitor or appropriate adult must be permitted to consult a detainee's custody records as soon as practicable after their arrival at the station and at any other time which the person is detained. (Police and criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). 2007). After this, they were forced to sign confessional statements accepting their complicity in the bomb blasts in Central London station. The evidences that could be used against Harry and Fred are: 1. the presence of incriminatory evidences in their premises 2. Their confessional statements forcibly made by Detective Inspector Lewis. There are various statutes which deal with the matter of explosive substances found in the possessions of residents of UK. Under the Explosive Substances Act 1883, if any explosive substances are found in the possession of a person, unless he can prove that its use was for 'lawful purposes' he could be sentenced to penal servitude for not less than 14 years, or imprisonment for 2 years. (Explosive Substances Act: 1883. 2007). In this case, if the substances were genuinely in the possession of Harry and Fred for study, or other lawful purposes, they would be in a position to defend themselves. But they totally denied having any knowledge of these products. Further, it also needs to be proved, by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, that the substances found in their possession, were part of the components used in the explosives detonated during the Bomb Blasts in London Central. The laws concerning detention after charges are found in S 46 of PACE. According to it, the police would have to produce the accused before the Magistrate Court at the next sitting of the Court after arrest is carried out. (Arrest and Detention: Know your Rights. 2007). The judges did not believed the alibi given by Mr. Harry Collingwood that at the time of the bomb blasts; he was in China with his girl-friend, stating that her statement did not strongly suggest that he was innocent. Even Mr. Fred Vaughan's claim, that he was high on drugs and hence a mentally deranged patient did not serve enough to exonerate him of alleged wrong-doings. In the Court of Appeal, it would be necessary for them to strongly present their case through a good lawyer who could establish their professed innocence. It is felt that the summing of both District Judge Asquith and Mr. Justice Jeffreys did not view the case in its entire perspective since all aspects, including police interference were not addressed to while passing the judgment. Matters relating to Sir Joseph Priestly: The alleged offence committed by Sir Joseph relates to indecent exposure and this is covered under Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. (Other Offences). According to this Section, a person would be said to be chargeable of an offence if" (a) upon immediate conviction, he would have to serve for a jail term not exceeding 6 months or an amount of fine, not more than the legal maximum available under the law (b) In the event of conviction, he may receive a maximum jail term of maximum period of two years. (Other Offences). The above is the Common Law pertaining to indecent exposure. However in the case of Sir Joseph Priestly, there are three aspects with regard to his involvement in the case and they are: 1. He had provided leads to the police regarding the alleged involvement of Mr. Harry and Mr. Fred in terrorist activities, whether these lead was true or not. 2. A complaint had been registered against him with the police department for alleged misconduct with a women for obscene exposure 3. The police applied undue influence and duress in order to get information regarding Mr. Paul and Mr. Fred which could be said to be under oppression. "This will include saying anything that makes the suspect believe that confessing will lead to more favorable treatment, or anything that sounds like a promise for the future." (Admissibility of Confessions. 2007). The charge of indecent exposure for which Sir Priestley was charged has not been evidence, except the statement given by Ms. Amanda Roberts. Further the alleged acts occurred during the months of June 2006 but the complaints were only booked by the complainant on September 1, 2006. If the complaints had been booked during the month of June 2006, it would have been possible to retrieve closed circuit camera films as evidence of the offence. (Knight 2007). There is no material evidence substantiating the complainant's claim except her formal complaint. Thus, in the absence of clear evidence of complicity, it could be a case of wrongly identifying Sir Priestley instead of the actual culprit. The appeal would be built on the following grounds: There is no substantial evidence of Mr. Priestley's involvement except the complaint of the alleged victim. There are no witnesses who had seen the wrong-doing. Sir Priestley used to commute regularly from his home at Buckinghamshire to the campus of the University of Neasden in London. There was no need for him to subject himself to such an experience, considering his professional background and social standing. Hence, his appeal would be based on the interpretations of common law and on the fact, that such alleged exposure would have a significant impact on his social and professional standing, which, being a leading public figure, and its attendant risks, he would not be interested in pursuing. Although he has been charged of the offence, he has not been convicted, and therefore, it is necessary that he should take necessary steps for clearing the charges leveled against him. Bibliography Admissibility of Confessions. (2007). [online]. HSE. Last accessed 16 November 2007 at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/witness/admissibility.htm Arrest and Detention: Know your Rights. (2007). Detention after charges. [online]. The K -Zone. Last accessed 16 November 2007 at: http://www.kevinboone.com/arrest_detention.html Explosive Substances Act: 1883. (2007). Statutes. [online]. Swrb.co.uk. Last accessed 16 November 2007 at: http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1883Explosive_SubstancesAct.shtml KNIGHT, Sam (2007). Judge cleared of rush-hour flashing. [online]. Times Online. Last accessed 16 November 2007 at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1926574.ece Law Quarterly review. (1991). Trial protection: Should Confessions be corroborated. [online]. Last accessed 16 November 2007 at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/law/resources/corroborated_confessions.pdf. Other Offences. Exposure. Section (66). [online]. Office of the Public Sector Information Last accessed 16 November 2007 at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_5 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Ch 60). (2007). Statutes. Part VIII - Evidence in Criminal proceeding. General Confession. [online]. Swarb.co.uk. Last accessed 16 November 2007 at: http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1984PoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct.shtml Police and criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). (2005). Code of Procedure for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers. [online]. Last accessed 16 November 2007 at: http://www.icva.org.uk/site/downloads/PACE05/PACE_Chapter_C.pdf. What is a citizen's arrest (2007). Citizen's arrest in indictable offences. [online]. The K-Zone. Last accessed 16 November 2007 at: http://www.kevinboone.com/citizensarrest.html Read More