BAIL ACT 1997 - CASE STUDY
Added on - 28 May 2020
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 8 pages
Running head: CASE STUDY1CASE STUDYNameInstitution
CASE STUDY2ANALYSIS:Question 1Joe was denied a bail in the District Court and he wants me to apply for a bail in the HighCourt where there is an objection to the application of the bail from the prosecutor unless fourconditions are met. I am going to advise Joe on these conditions in relation to his application,and whether to continue with it or not.To begin with, evidence will be given out on Joe’s 26 previous convictions to the HighCourt. According to the Bail Act 1997 section two; the court may refuse an application for bail ifthe person making the application is charged with a serious offense. An example is given insubsection (e) where it specifies the previous convictions of the person, and section sixsubsections one suggest that the person should be of good manners. When these cases will besubmitted, it could be very difficult to convince the court to accept the bail due to the manynumbers of times Joe has committed crimes. However, a defense could be established that all thecrimes committed before are not related to the robbery crime currently committed. This solutionwill still be a weak opposing case.The prosecutor also has a Garda inspector who will testify that Joe has been trying toobtain a new passport with the view of fleeing away from the state. If this is proven to be true,Joe would be going against section six of Bail Act, 1997. That section states that, for a bail to begiven, they will appear at the end of their period. This would mean he was planning not to appearin court at the end of the period. This scenario could be objected by questioning the credibility ofthe inspector, and the information presented by highlighting the fact that Joe has been appearingin all the proceedings. This then means he had no bad intentions.
CASE STUDY3Thirdly, the prosecutor wants to argue that Joe is a career criminal, who is bound tocommit further offenses if he is released on bail. Looking at the previous records of Joe, thecourt could easily agree with this argument. According to section thirteen of the non-fatal Act,(that talks on endangerment), Joe could be denied the application for bail in that if released, itcould be argued that he would be a threat to the society. However, this is just theory in defensethough Joe cannot be released to experiment this scenario.Lastly, the prosecutor is claiming that Joe threatened the witness by telling the arrestingguard that he knows where the family of the witness lives. This is a serious threat and an offensein itself according to section five of the non-fatal Act. This section warns against threatening aperson with the intent of the other person believing it will be carried out. This is also supportedby Criminal Justice 2001 that warns against use of force in blackmailing the other person forown benefit.Question 2Firstly, according to section five of the non-fatal offenses to the person act of 1997 on athreat to kill or cause serious harm, Mario could have committed a crime of threatening to causeserious harm to Derek. This section states that any person who threatens another person bymeans of intending the other person to believe his threats will be carried out by killing or causingof harm to the other person is guilty and will be charged with a fine not more than 1500 euros oran imprisonment of one year or both. In this case, Mario threatened Derek and he did it in ragewhen he was overcome with anger and fury which means, it was out of frustration, and thefeeling of losing Beth. Even though there is a clear evidence that Mario had threatened Bethwhich could be proven in court by the text message clearly stating how he would “smash hisface”, Mario could, at least, defend himself by implicating that his action of sending the message