DOCSLIB.ORG

Ruling on No Case Submission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ruling on No Case Submission TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CR 00085 of 2006 Between THE STATE and VAUGHN IAN RYAN SMITH RAYMOND MOSES Applicants Before the Honourable Mr. Justice HOLDIP Ruling on No Case Submission Appearances: Mr. Jeron John Joseph for the State Mr. Evans Welch for Accused No. 01 Miss Amanda La Caille Mr. Mervyn Mitchell for Accused No. 02 DATED: May 19 th 2011 At the end of the Prosecution's case, both Counsel for the Accused made submissions of no-case, that the Court ought not to call upon the Accused persons to answer as it relates, first of all, to Accused No. 1, that the evidence that had been presented by the State had become manifestly unreliable as a result of the cross-examination which highlighted several inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of the principal witnesses to wit Corporal Wight, Sergeant Abraham and Inspector Thomas. With respect to Accused No. 2, it was a similar ground, but slightly different on the basis that the only evidence linking the Accused No. 2 to the offence as charged was the purported oral statement that had been made by Accused No. 2, and from the very beginning, Counsel for Accused No. 2 had been submitting that the oral utterance was insufficient to link the Accused to the offence of murder. In fact, the very basis of his submission was that it did not amount to an admission or to confession of guilt when one looked at the circumstances of the State's case as to how death would have occurred, and when one looks at the statement of Accused No. 1, that there are dire contradictions within those two circumstances. And when one puts the statement of Accused No. 2 next to those two particular sets of circumstances, there is no nexus whatsoever. And so, there is insufficiency of evidence which would allow, the Accused to be called upon to plead. Now, in deciding whether to dismiss an information at the close of the Prosecution's case, upon a submission of no case to answer, the test to be applied is whether there is evidence which, if accepted, would provide evidence of each element of the charge. Even if there is such evidence, it may be so lacking in weight and reliability that it is open to the Court as a matter of discretion to dismiss the information. The proper approach to take is discussed in the R v. Galbraith , 1981 , at page 1039, or I W.I.R 1039 at page 1060. The ratio in 2 All ER 1060 may be stated simply under two headings: (1) “If there is no evidence that a crime alleged has been committed by the Defendant, there is no difficulty. The Judge will stop the case. (2) The difficulty arises where there is some evidence, but it is of a tenuous character, for example, because of inherent weakness or vagueness, or because it is inconsistent with some other evidence. (2)(a)goes on to state, where the Judge concluded that the Prosecution's evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a Jury, properly directed, could not properly 2 convict on it, it is his duty, on a submission being made, to stop the case. (e)Where, however, the Prosecution's evidence is such that its strength or weakness depends on the view to be taken of a witness' reliability or other matters which are, generally speaking, within the Jury's province, and where on one possible view of the facts, there is evidence on which the Jury could properly conclude that the Defendant is guilty, then the Judge should allow the matter to be tried by the Jury. There will, of course, as always in this branch of the law, be borderline cases. They can safely be left to the discretion of the Judge”. This principle had been further applied in the case of Doney v. The Queen , 1990, 171 Commonwealth Law Reports at page 207, or '96 Australian Law Reports at page 539, where the High Court said, at page 214 to 215: "It follows that if there is evidence, even if tenuous or inherently weak or vague, which can be taken into account by the Jury in its deliberations, and that evidence is capable of supporting a verdict of guilty, the matter must be left to the Jury for its decision”. Or to put the matter in more usual terms, a verdict of not guilty may be directed only if there is a defect in the evidence, such that taken at its highest, it will not sustain a verdict of guilty. The State's case in this matter, as it relates to Accused No. 1, is founded on the oral utterance Accused No. 1 purportedly made on the 28th of November, 2002, followed in a short time thereafter, within the space of about an hour, by a written statement allegedly made by the Accused to Corporal Wight, and in his presence, and in the presence of Sergeant Abraham, as he then was, and now retired Inspector Thomas. So that is the strength of Prosecution's case. These witnesses were subjected, especially Corporal Wight, to intense cross-examination, 3 as was to be expected with respect to the manner in which the oral utterance and the written statement were, in fact, obtained. At the end of it, the Court has to look at the situation where the confessions are now before the Court. The simple rule of law is that the weight which is to be assigned to a confession alleged to have been made by an Accused person is for the Jury. It is for the Jury to consider, first the manner in which the statement was obtained and, two, all the circumstances connected with it being given. And that is why the cross-examination of the Witnesses was so intense by Counsel for Accused No. 1 and No. 2. In the case of the Queen v. Mc Aloon , 1959, 30 Canadian Reports at page 305, the following statement emerges from the Court of Appeal. And it is imply that: "The issue of voluntariness in relation to a statement made to a person in authority is for the trial Judge. The weight to be assigned to the statement, once admitted, is for the Jury." So that once again, the whole question of the cross-examination of the Witnesses, as with respect to the circumstances surrounding the taking of that statement and the manner in which it was obtained are matters which the Jury now has to give its consideration to. Because the voluntariness of that statement would have been for the Court to consider, and the Court, having considered and come to the finding of fact that it was voluntarily given, then that matter of the credibility of the Witnesses must be one that must be left to the Jury. The Court should not, in fact, be usurping that function and seeking to make a determination on the correctness and quality of the evidence which is before it. Now, the State's case is that Accused No. 1 is the principal offender, and as I have said, the State is relying on the oral statement made to Officers Abraham, Thomas and Wight, together with the written statement which follows. That written statement would have been recorded at 2:20 p.m. and ended at 3:15 p.m. on the 28th of November, 2002. 4 As it relates to the second Accused, the only evidence which connects the second Accused to the offence is the oral statement, again which he would have allegedly made to Officers Wight, Thomas and Abraham. And I will say it in its fullness so that it could be more clearly understood: " Boss, I gave Reddo from Quash Trace, Sangre Grande, $3,000 to buy a gun sometime earlier this year. I did not see or hear from him for a while. After he have kill meh wife on the 26th, it is, of July, 2002, a few days after that, Reddo called me on the phone and tell me that he want some money because he done kill she; and a week after that, he send a Indian man for some money and I give the man $400 and a letter to carry for Reddo ." As I've indicated, Counsel for Accused No. 2 denies that his client has made this statement, and goes on to indicate that the oral utterance was insufficient to sustain any link between Accused No. 2 and the offence of murder. The State's case from the opening remarks made by the learned State Prosecutor was that Accused No. 1 was the one who actually killed the deceased by chopping her. The case against No. 2 is that he procured No. 1 to kill the deceased and did so with the intention of bringing about her death; and that Accused No. 1, in fact, killed the deceased. In other words, Accused No. 2 is to be regarded as the aider and the abetter, as he was the one who procured Accused No. 1 to commit the offence of murder. The oral utterance is not to be taken in a vacuum, and the State's case is that Corporal Wight, having identified himself to Accused No. 2, indicated to him that he was a suspect, relative to the death of his wife, Ramdaye Ramdass Moses, which occurred on the night of the 26th of July, 2002, at North Eastern Settlement, Sangre Grande. The Accused was then cautioned and the normal Judges' Rule, Rule 2 caution was given to him, whereupon it is the allegation of Corporal Wight that this oral response was made.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 'NO CASE' SUBMISSION Unlawful Sexual Intercourse-13 Years Old - Is the Lesser Offence Included in the Greater - Prejudicial Vs
    COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS IN THE SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL DIVISION CRI/VBI/182/8/2018 BETWEEN THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS -V- DWAYNE BENJAMIN DECOSTA UNLAWFUL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A PERSON UNDER FOURTEEN YEARS OF AGE CONTRARY TO SECTION 10(1) (A) OF THE SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, CHAPTER 99 Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Cheryl Grant- Thompson Appearance: Ms. Jacqueline Burrows and Mr. Perry McHardy for the Prosecution - Director of Public Prosecutions Mr. Murrio Ducille for the Defence Hearing Dates: 11 & 17 September, 2019 RULING ON 'NO CASE' SUBMISSION Unlawful Sexual Intercourse-13 years old - is the lesser offence included in the greater - prejudicial vs. probative - R v Galbraith Headnote: Regina v Dwayne Benjamin DeCosta Indictment No. 182/8/2018 Supreme Court Grant-Thompson J Brief Facts: The Defendant Dwayne DeCosta was charged with the Unlawful Sexual Intercourse of A.B. (a juvenile), contrary to section 10(1)(a) Sexual Offences Act, Ch. 99. The virtual complainant was declared an adverse witness in the Trial. She said he did nothing sexual to her. A.B. said she threw water in her mother's bed on the morning of the incident. Her mother dropped her off to her dad. The dad was on a cruise. A neighbour took her to the East Street South Police Station on 14 July 2018. It was a Saturday. The defendant was at work. He accepts he took her outside the station. She said they went upstairs outside the building. She claims (adversely) that nothing happened in the vacant room upstairs. There was recent complaint - a female Sergeant who saw her return looking distressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Retrying the Acquitted in England, Part I: the Exception to the Rule Against Double Jeopardy for "New and Compelling Evidence"
    Retrying the Acquitted in England, Part I: The Exception to the Rule Against Double Jeopardy for "New and Compelling Evidence" DAVID S. RUDSTEIN* TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IN TRO DU C T ION .................................................................................................. 3 8 8 I1. THE CRIM INAL JUSTICE A CT 2003 ..................................................................... 392 I11. THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY PRINCIPLE .................................................................... 398 A . H istory ..................................................................................................... 3 9 8 B. Policies Underlying the Rule Prohibitinga Retrial Following an A cquittal ............................................................................ 403 1. Preservingthe Finalityof Judgments ............................................... 405 2. M inimizing PersonalStrain .............................................................. 408 3. Reducing the Risk of an Erroneous Conviction ................................. 411 4. Protectingthe Power of the Jury to Acquit Against the E vidence ......................................................................... 4 14 5. EncouragingEfficient Investigation and Prosecution ...................... 415 6. Conserving Scarce Prosecutorialand Judicial Resources................ 416 7. PreventingH arassment ..................................................................... 4 16 8. Maintainingthe Public's Respect and Confidence in the L egal System ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Consideration of Applications for Bail and No Case Submission in The
    Protocol I feel delighted and indeed, honoured to be invited as a resource person at this convocation of learned minds. My sincere thanks goes to the indefatigable, elegant and visionary Administrator of the National Judicial Institute, Hon. Justice R.P.I. Bozimo OFR, her management team and staff who have ensured that the standard of training offered by this Institute is maintained, in conformity with current trends in the legal profession and in the administration of justice in Nigeria. My thanks is also extended to my Chief Judge, Hon. Justice Iorhemen Hwande OFR who has graciously released me to function at this programme. Introduction The topic of my paper is ‘Consideration of Application for Bail and No Case Submission in the Magistrates’ Court.’ Without doubt, the topic has a ring of familiarity in the daily discharge of your magisterial duties at your various jurisdictions. Since it is a familiar topic, my job is made easier as I expect us to interact freely in discussing the topic and share your experiences in your various courts. As you can see, the topic addresses two different subjects in criminal law, namely: “Application for Bail” and “No Case Submission.” In this discourse I will address both subjects one after the other as they relate to practice and procedure in the Magistrates’ Court. The Meaning of “Bail” The word “Bail” according to Blacks Law Dictionary Eighth Edition is: “A security such as cash or bond, especially required by a court for the release of a prisoner who must appear at a future time.” (p. 150) The main purpose of bail therefore is to secure the presence of the accused person for his trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Catherine Oborne
    Catherine Oborne YEAR OF CALL: 2011 Catherine Oborne specialises in criminal defence, inquests and associated public law challenges. She defends in a wide range of criminal cases including serious violence, serious drug supply, public disorder, protest, sexual offences and fraud. She also appears in the Court of Appeal on appeals against conviction and sentence as well as advising on references to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. As a led junior, Catherine is regularly instructed in complex cases involving homicide, terrorism and offences against public justice. "Really bright, she works hard for the client and is a superb advocate." CHAMBERS UK, 2021 (CRIME) "A talented junior with boundless tenacity." LEGAL 500, 2021 (CRIME) “She works really hard and is a pleasure to deal with. She’s incredibly impressive, really dedicated and extremely bright.” CHAMBERS UK, 2020 "A powerhouse: clever, committed and a fighter who leaves no stone unturned." LEGAL 500, 2020 "A great young barrister with a bright future who works amazingly hard." LEGAL 500, 2019 If you would like to get in touch with Catherine please contact the clerking team: [email protected] | +44 (0)20 7993 7600 You can also contact Catherine directly: +44 (0)20 7 7993 7824 CRIMINAL DEFENCE Catherine defends in a wide range of high-profile criminal cases including: serious violence serious drug supply public disorder protest fraud As a led junior, she is regularly instructed in complex cases involving homicide, terrorism and offences against public justice. Recent significant cases have included complex legal issues involving anonymous witnesses, closed proceedings due to national security considerations, and witnesses from MI5 giving evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Teasers
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. I } i ~ \ 1 COURT TEASERS Practical Situations Arising in Magistrates· Courts BY MILES McCOLL, Solicitor Clerk to the Leigh Justices ~....m_;q_r------ SB~ 0-85992-155-7 1978 C.M. McColl Published by Barry Rose (Publishers) Ltd. Little London, Chichester West Sussex Printed by The Southern Post Ltd. London Road, Bognor Regis, Sussex Criminal Law Act 1977 All provisions, except s.47, of this Act which are referred to in the text were brought into force on or before July 17 1978. ,Any reference in the text to 'an indictable offence dealt with summarily' should be construed as the summary trial of an offence triable either-way. Any reference to 'indictable offence' means an offence which, if committed by an adult, is triable on indictment, whether it is exclusively so triable or triable either-way. Any reference to a 'summary offence' means an offence which, if committed by an adult, is triable only summarily. 'Offence triable either-way' means an offence which, if committed by an adult, is triable either on indictment or summarily. (C.L. A. , 1977, s.64). iii ~~~---------.---------~----- --------------~--~-- t f; t t PREFACE t·" ~! I Although most magistrates are, by virtue of their office, lay persons, they must at all times be aware of the kind of problems which occur in their courts, in order to do justice to their important judicial appointment. In this booklet I have tried to set out in question-and-answer form, examples of the types of situation which often give cause for concern in magistrates' courts solely because the words of the relevant statutes or the decisions of the appeal courts are not closely followed.
    [Show full text]
  • Code of Criminal Procedure Code of Criminal Procedure
    CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE With the participation of John Rason SPENCER QC Professor of Law, University of Cambridge Fellow of Selwyn College TITLE PRELIMINARY ARTICLE Article 1-P PRELIMINARY ARTICLE (Inserted by Law no. 2000-516 of 15 June 2000 Article 1 Official Journal of 16 June 2000) I. Criminal procedure should be fair and adversarial and preserve a balance between the rights of the parties. It should guarantee a separation between those authorities responsible for prosecuting and those responsible for judging. Persons who find themselves in a similar situation and prosecuted for the same offences should be judged according to the same rules. II. The judicial authority ensures that victims are informed and that their rights are respected throughout any criminal process. III. Every person suspected or prosecuted is presumed innocent as long as his guilt has not been established. Attacks on his presumption of innocence are proscribed, compensated and punished in the circumstances laid down by statute. He has the right to be informed of charges brought against him and to be legally defended. The coercive measures to which such a person may be subjected are taken by or under the effective control of judicial authority. They should be strictly limited to the needs of the process, proportionate to the gravity of the offence charged and not such as to infringe human dignity. The accusation to which such a person is subjected should be brought to final judgment within a reasonable time. Every convicted person has the right to have his conviction examined by a second tribunal.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourth Section the Facts
    FOURTH SECTION Application no. 25424/09 by Lorraine ALLEN against the United Kingdom lodged on 29 April 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Ms Lorraine Allen, is a British national who was born in 1969 and lives in Scarborough. She is represented before the Court by Mr M. Pemberton, a lawyer practising in Wigan. A. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1. The applicant’s conviction and appeal 3. On 7 September 2000 the applicant was convicted by a jury at Nottingham Crown Court of the manslaughter of her four-month old son, Patrick. She was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Evidence was given at her trial by expert medical witnesses who described how the injuries suffered by her son were consistent with shaking or an impact. The conviction was based on the accepted hypothesis concerning “shaken baby syndrome”, also knows as “non-accidental head injury” (“NAHI”), to the effect that the findings of a triad of intracranial injuries consisting of encephalopathy, subdural haemorrhages and retinal haemorrhages were either diagnostic of, or at least very strongly suggestive of, the use of 2 ALLEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM – STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS unlawful force. All three were present in the case of the death of the applicant’s son. 4. Following a review of cases in which expert medical evidence had been relied upon, the applicant applied for, and was granted, leave to appeal out of time. The appeal was based on a challenge to the accepted hypothesis concerning NAHI on the basis that new medical evidence suggested that the triad of injuries could be attributed to a cause other than NAHI.
    [Show full text]
  • Business in Context BUSS
    TRAN A803BF Hong Kong Legal System and Legal English Lecture 8 – How Law is Proceed 1 8.1 Criminal Trial 8.1.1 Introduction The usual procedures to trial are as follows: • Arrest The police arrests a suspect. • Laying of charges After investigation, the police may lay charge on the suspected. • The police shall bring the suspect to the court for trial. Then the suspected becomes an accused. The accused can choose to act in person or to engage a lawyer. 2 8.1 Criminal Trial • Criminal trials may take place in --Magistrates Court, --District Court or --Court of First Instance . The location of the trial is determined by the category of offence. However, all suspected, regardless of the category of offence, will initially come to the Magistrate Court. 3 8.1 Criminal Trial • 3 categories of offence: (a) Indictable only --The most serious crimes, e.g. murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, rape and drug trafficking involving large quantities of drugs, must be tried in the Court of First Instance before a judge and a jury. All these offences carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. 4 8.1 Criminal Trial --The trial of these cases may be preceded by a committal hearing in the Magistrates Court where the basic facts are tested. It is to determine whether the matter should proceed to the Court of First Instance for trial. --The committal seeks to establish whether the prosecution has sufficient evidence on which to base its charge(s )and that if the matter goes to trial that there is the likelihood that the offender will be convicted.
    [Show full text]
  • Prosecution Appeals of Court-Ordered Midtrial Acquittals: Permissible Under the Double Jeopardy Clause?
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 62 Issue 1 Fall 2012 Article 3 2012 Prosecution Appeals of Court-Ordered Midtrial Acquittals: Permissible Under the Double Jeopardy Clause? David S. Rudstein Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Part of the Common Law Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation David S. Rudstein, Prosecution Appeals of Court-Ordered Midtrial Acquittals: Permissible Under the Double Jeopardy Clause?, 62 Cath. U. L. Rev. 91 (2013). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol62/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Prosecution Appeals of Court-Ordered Midtrial Acquittals: Permissible Under the Double Jeopardy Clause? Cover Page Footnote Professor of Law and Co-Director, Program in Criminal Litigation, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology; B.S., University of Illinois, 1968; J.D., Northwestern University, 1971; L.L.M., University of Illinois, 1975. This article is available in Catholic University Law Review: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol62/iss1/3 PROSECUTION APPEALS OF COURT-ORDERED MIDTRIAL ACQUITTALS: PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE? David S. Rudstein+ I. THE ENGLISH MODEL ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Proceedings and Defence Rights in Scotland
    CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND DEFENCE RIGHTS IN SCOTLAND This leaflet covers: Information about Fair Trials Definitions of key legal terms Information about criminal proceedings and defence rights in Scotland Useful links This booklet was last updated in March 2015 1 About Fair Trials Fair Trials is a non-governmental organisation that works for the right to a fair trial according to internationally-recognised standards of justice. Our vision is a world where every person’s right to a fair trial is respected. We believe the right to a fair trial is an essential part of a just society. Each person accused of a crime should have their guilt or innocence determined by a fair and effective legal process. But the right to a fair trial is not just about protecting suspects and defendants; it also makes societies safer and stronger. Without fair trials, trust in justice and in government collapses. Despite the importance of fair trials being recognised by the international community, this basic human right is being abused day-in-day-out in countries across the globe. We’re working to put an end to these abuses, towards realising our vision of a world where every person’s right to a fair trial is respected. If you think an important question is not covered by this note, please let us know. We would appreciate it if you could also take a few moments to give us some feedback about this note. Your comments will help us to improve our services. “Fair Trials” includes Fair Trials International and Fair Trials Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Prosecutions: a Potential Anticorruption Tool in English Law
    LEGAL REMEDIES FOR GRAND CORRUPTION Private Prosecutions: A Potential Anticorruption Tool in English Law Tamlyn Edmonds & David Jugnarain May 2016 This paper is the fourth in a series examining the challenges and opportunities facing civil society groups that seek to develop innovative legal approaches to expose and punish grand corruption. The series has been developed from a day of discussions on the worldwide legal fight against high-level corruption organized by the Justice Initiative and Oxford University’s Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, held in June 2014. LEGAL REMEDIES FOR GRAND CORRUPTION Tamlyn Edmonds is a founding director at Edmonds Marshall McMahon (EMM), the first and only specialist private prosecution law firm in the UK. David Jugnarain is a barrister at EMM. Published by Open Society Foundations th 224 West 57 Street New York, New York, 10019 USA Contact: Ken Hurwitz Senior Legal Officer Anticorruption Open Society Justice Initiative [email protected] LEGAL REMEDIES FOR GRAND CORRUPTION I. What is a private prosecution? The concept of “private prosecution” is unfamiliar to many. It is, put simply, a criminal prosecution pursued by a private person or body and not by a statutory prosecuting authority. The right to pursue a private prosecution is a remnant of legal history, but it remains an important one in England & Wales, the jurisdiction discussed here. In the majority of jurisdictions around the world, the criminal justice system is seen to be a function of the state, which investigates and prosecutes alleged offenders on behalf of the public and for the benefit of the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Justice System: Aims and Processes
    Criminal Justice System: Aims and Processes Professor Kathleen Daly School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland AUSTRALIA ph +61 07 3735 5625 email: [email protected] Professor Rick Sarre School of Law University of South Australia Adelaide, South Australia ph +61 08 8302 0889 email: [email protected] Chapter prepared for Darren Palmer, Wlliem de Lint, and Derek Dalton (eds.) (2017), Crime and Justice: A Guide to Criminology, 5th edition. Sydney: Lawbook Co. The Figure on “Flow of cases through the criminal justice system” could not be reproduced in this version of the chapter. It can be obtained at the Australian Bureau of Statistics website. Please do not quote or cite without permission of the first author. © Kathleen Daly and Rick Sarre 23 October 2016 0 Chapter 15. Criminal justice system: Aims and processes Kathleen Daly, Griffith University Rick Sarre, University of South Australia Abstract Key words: discretion, crime control and due process models, funnelling pattern, police powers, prosecution, plea bargaining, three tiers of criminal courts, processual and dispositive decisions, sentencing theories, proportionality and crime prevention, retributive and utilitarian punishment, backward and forward orientation to punishment Introduction [15.10] This chapter considers the purposes, aims, and values of a criminal justice system and the controversy surrounding each of its terms: system, justice, and criminal. It describes the agencies that form the justice system and the passage of cases through it. Central to the criminal process is the exercise of discretion by police officers, prosecutors, defence lawyers, judicial officers, probation officers, and community and institutional correctional staff.
    [Show full text]