Self-Incrimination & Criminal Responsibility
Added on 2020-06-06
7 Pages1955 Words45 Views
|
|
|
EVIDENCE LAW
TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1Question 1 Advising Bill as to whether he can claim the privilege against self incrimination inresponse to question asked..........................................................................................................1Question 2 Advise Bill as to whether AB’s answers to police questions, that AB believed Billwas a “pedo,” and part of an international “pedo ring,” may be edited from his recordedevidence ......................................................................................................................................2Question 3 Advise Ernie as to whether he can object to giving particular answers, or evidencegenerally, before the ACC examiner, and in the County Court trial...........................................3CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................3REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTIONCriminal law is system of law that is concerned with punishment related with offenders.It is considered as the body of law which is associated with crime. It proscribes the conduct thatis perceived as threatening, harmful or otherwise which endangers the property, health, safetyand moral welfare of the individual (Bronitt and McSherry, 2010). Several criminal law arebeing developed by statute that is towards saying that laws are being enacted by legislature. Thepresent report is case based. The study includes the privileges that can be provided against theself incrimination. Question 1 Advising Bill as to whether he can claim the privilege against self incrimination inresponse to question askedIn the present case privilege can be given to Bill towards self incrimination. This is interms that Bill can keep silent and refuse to answer. In this the evidence which the court possesswould be considered as the only means through which the decisions by the court will beprovided. The privilege against the self incrimination is considered basic as well as substantivecommon law right. It is not just the rule related with evidence. It demonstrates the longerstanding antipathy of the common law towards mandatory interrogations with respect to criminalconduct [R v McKenna, R v Benischke]. The particular case is related with assault on five weekold baby. The privilege is one aspect of the right towards silence (Stephen, 2014). The rightstowards the silence is one that is protecting the right towards not to be made to testify againstoneself. The privilege against the self incrimination is narrow and this is protecting the right thatare not to be made towards incrimination oneself. A statute may need a person who can answerthe question which results in breaching the silence (Privilege: Other Privileges, 2017). Howeverif the person is allowed to refuse towards giving incriminating answers results in preserving theprivilege against the self incrimination. It has been provided by High court that a person canmake refusal towards answering any question or make production of any document or thing inorder to do so they might tend to bring him into peril as well as possibility towards beingconvicted as a criminal (Cryer, Friman, Robinson and Wilmshurst, 2007). The privilege is beingapplied in civil and criminal cases for excluding certain evidence but this applies as protectionwherever information is compulsory attained by the investigators or by the administrativeagencies that are imposing the penalties. It protects the one who might incriminate him andcannot be evoked towards shielding other from incriminating. It is not extending the information1
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents