Criminal Law Take Home Exam (1 Viewer)

[scarecrow_of_oz]

i'm not using footnotes i don't think u have to with this one - i'm just

hey just remembering an earlier post of urs - did u say the custody officer didn't caution her appropriately?

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

hehe and that wordcount thing would have been a very pleasant surprise in my case - i so need the extra words! only 1600 so far

 

[MaryJane]

Ah yes, the custody officer. Yeah, in the evidence act s. 138 and 139 it talks about how the accused must be cautioned prior to every interview. Because Kylie was only cautioned once upon arrest and once by the custody officer before the first interview, it makes only the first interview admissible, but not the other two (in which she confessed). So the evidence act states that if this is not done its grounds for the evidence to be excluded.

 

[iwannarock]

hmmmmmmm.

i didnt talk about fraud. or dishonest acquisition. in the end i said kylie would be acquitted cuz the confession is inadmissable and there isn't enough evidence without it to get her for the drug charges. i kinda missed those other charges.

oh yeah and my procedural section is around that size aswell so don't worry. the procedural sorta crosses over with the evidentiary but. so the mistakes the police made (unlawful detention etc) affect the evidence part cuz the whole "evidence obtained improperly or against australian law" etc. so yeah some of my procedural stuff i carried on into evidentiary.

but yeah my weightings are screwed too.

i think i've done enough for the pass and thats all that matters

 

[MaryJane]

lol, I like your thinking!

So did you actually conclude that she would be acquittded? I'm always hesitant to say things like that, so I've said that its a strong case for Kylie re: her confession being inadmissible, but if that doesnt happen, she's pretty screwed in relation to the drug charges. I always kinda make it a possibility, and said it all depends upon the judges discretion (but he'd be pretty slack not to deem the confession inadmissible).

 

[iwannarock]

yeah i decided this time.......wat the hell......i'm gonna throw myself in the deep end and actually say she'd be acquitted. usually i use words like "probably" or "possibly" or "may" but nup.......not this time. marker won't be too happy with it though considering it looks like there's other charges that she could face but i cudnt fit those in. in the evidentiary section i talked about how it would be decided upon depending on the judge's discretion but.

drug charges all the way yay drugs!

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

I’m a bit concerned about the cautioning bit – if they caution her once under that doesn’t that cover all the interviews?

 

[iwannarock]

yeah i wasn't sure about that. i was reading about the whole caution law thing and i was thinking great i can use that.

but then in the hypothetical it says when they arrested her they said she didnt have to say anything. i just assumed that covered everything. maybe it doesnt who knows

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

woohoo!!!
yeah!
all done and handed in.
and with three minutes to spare! so much cruisier than normal!!
thank you both for ur marvelous company - hope u both get hds and shiny medals
until next time
xx

 

[MaryJane]

Nice work guys - we made it!

Dont you two ever leave BoS before the end of our degree or I'm screwed!

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

right back at u babe! u guys are my sanity!