Criminal Law Case Study: Analysis of Offenses and Legal Implications

This case study delves into the analysis of several criminal law scenarios, providing detailed legal arguments and potential outcomes. The first scenario examines a bail application, considering the implications of previous convictions, potential flight risk, and threats to witnesses, referencing the Bail Act 1997 and non-fatal offenses. The second case explores the crimes of threatening, assault, and unlawful use of a computer, analyzing the legal ramifications of Mario's actions, including sending threatening messages, a bar fight, and distributing a sexually explicit video. The third case study focuses on Peter's actions, evaluating the potential charges of rape, engaging in sex with a minor, and drugging a lady, based on the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act and Criminal Justice Act. The final scenario assesses the crimes committed by Jethro and Virginia, including theft, murder of a police officer, resisting arrest, and criminal damage, applying relevant laws from the Criminal Justice Act and Criminal Damage Act. Each scenario offers a detailed analysis of the offenses, potential defenses, and legal implications, providing a comprehensive overview of criminal law principles.

Running head: CASE STUDY 1
CASE STUDY
Name
Institution

CASE STUDY 2
ANALYSIS:
Question 1
Joe was denied a bail in the District Court and he wants me to apply for a bail in the High
Court where there is an objection to the application of the bail from the prosecutor unless four
conditions 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 High
Court. According to the Bail Act 1997 section two; the court may refuse an application for bail if
the person making the application is charged with a serious offense. An example is given in
subsection (e) where it specifies the previous convictions of the person, and section six
subsections one suggest that the person should be of good manners. When these cases will be
submitted, it could be very difficult to convince the court to accept the bail due to the many
numbers of times Joe has committed crimes. However, a defense could be established that all the
crimes committed before are not related to the robbery crime currently committed. This solution
will still be a weak opposing case.
The prosecutor also has a Garda inspector who will testify that Joe has been trying to
obtain 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 be
given, they will appear at the end of their period. This would mean he was planning not to appear
in court at the end of the period. This scenario could be objected by questioning the credibility of
the inspector, and the information presented by highlighting the fact that Joe has been appearing
in all the proceedings. This then means he had no bad intentions.

CASE STUDY 3
Thirdly, the prosecutor wants to argue that Joe is a career criminal, who is bound to
commit further offenses if he is released on bail. Looking at the previous records of Joe, the
court 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, it
could be argued that he would be a threat to the society. However, this is just theory in defense
though Joe cannot be released to experiment this scenario.
Lastly, the prosecutor is claiming that Joe threatened the witness by telling the arresting
guard that he knows where the family of the witness lives. This is a serious threat and an offense
in itself according to section five of the non-fatal Act. This section warns against threatening a
person with the intent of the other person believing it will be carried out. This is also supported
by Criminal Justice 2001 that warns against use of force in blackmailing the other person for
own benefit.
Question 2
Firstly, according to section five of the non-fatal offenses to the person act of 1997 on a
threat to kill or cause serious harm, Mario could have committed a crime of threatening to cause
serious harm to Derek. This section states that any person who threatens another person by
means of intending the other person to believe his threats will be carried out by killing or causing
of harm to the other person is guilty and will be charged with a fine not more than 1500 euros or
an imprisonment of one year or both. In this case, Mario threatened Derek and he did it in rage
when he was overcome with anger and fury which means, it was out of frustration, and the
feeling of losing Beth. Even though there is a clear evidence that Mario had threatened Beth
which could be proven in court by the text message clearly stating how he would “smash his
face”, Mario could, at least, defend himself by implicating that his action of sending the message

CASE STUDY 4
to Derek was his immediate reaction to the break up as a way of trying to express his frustration
since he has an uncontrollable depressive illness and an impulse which he cannot control. Well,
this defense may not be the best unless he could prove that it was not intentional rather a rushed
and unintended response which could be impossible to control because of his illness.
Secondly, Mario would have committed the crime of assaulting Derek in accordance with
section two of non-fatal offenses to the person act of 1997 on assault. This section states that a
person who assaults the other person recklessly or intentionally without lawful excuse shall be
guilty whether by directly or indirectly, applying force to cause an effect on another person or
causing another to believe he is likely to do cause this harm. In Mario’s case, when at the bar, a
fight started between Mario and Derek in Dawson Street, and this fight ended up with Derek as
the casualty sustaining a black eye, a split lip and a bump on the head after being knocked
unconscious by Mario. Mario can defend himself by proving that Derek was the one who
initiated the fight and he had no intention of fighting with Derek. The only problem is that this
happened after Mario sent the message threatening Derek which means Derek could claim it was
a follow up to his message.
Lastly, Mario would have committed the crime of unlawful use of the computer in
accordance with section nine of criminal justice (Theft & Fraud Offenses Act 2001) on unlawful
use of a computer. This section states that a person, whether within or outside the state, operates
or causes to operate with a computer in a manner of causing another's loss, is to be charged
guilty and charged a fine not exceeding ten years. Mario used his gadget in recording a sexually
explicit video of Beth without her knowledge, and he spread it on a social networking site. He
then proceeded to email the video to Beth’s closest friends and family.

CASE STUDY 5
Question 3
Firstly, the advisor could prosecute Peter for rape. This lawsuit will be filed according to
criminal act section four on rape. This section states that sexual assault may include penetration
of the penis to the anus or mouth or penetration of any object held or manipulated by another
person to the vagina. This section will apply in this case since while Mary was sleeping during
the night, Peter had sexual intercourse with her against her will. This is seen in the fact that we
are told that Mary asked him to stop but he refused. This would not be allegations, but proof with
the confirmation of Peter who claimed that he assumed she would be okay with it. Nonetheless,
the question that Peter could also be asked is that, if he assumed she was okay with it, "why did
he continue even after being stopped by Mary?" This case could be a success with the confession
of Peter.
Secondly, the prosecutor could report Peter for engaging in sex with a lady who is sixteen
years old below the year of consent age according to Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 1993
section three. Peter admitted that they have been engaging in this act for a good number of
times. The only problem would be that Peter did not know that Mary was below the age of
consent. In justifying his engagement, he was on the knowledge that Mary was old enough. This
case could not proceed if Mary confesses to falsifying her age to Peter since it would be Mary’s
fault. However, as a prosecutor, Peter could be questioned on why he did not need to determine
the age of the Mary by truly confirming from wherever sources possible
Lastly, Peter can be prosecuted to be guilty of drugging the lady so that he could be able
to engage in sex with her. According to criminal justice (Theft &Fraud Offenses Act 2001) on
obtaining services by deception in section seven, subsection one. It states that a person who is
dishonestly intending to make a benefit for themselves causes loss to another by deception.

CASE STUDY 6
Obtaining services from another is guilty and is liable for a fine or imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years or both. In this case, the prosecutor could accuse Peter of using the party as
a leverage to engage in sex with Mary after perhaps giving her a drug. Also, it could be that Peter
did not want to be noticed because he waited for Mary to sleep so that he could indulge in sexual
activity. Therefore, when reported by Mary, he then had an excuse by saying that he knew that
Mary would be okay with it. Overall, this case would be very difficult for the prosecutor to win
since there is only one strong case which is rape. However, the present law does not define all
angles and aspects of a rape case. Also, understanding that they have heard sex several times
before this night.
Question 4
Jethro and Virginia have committed several crimes. To begin with, they have committed
theft by stealing a car. They were also about to break in and steal from a building in Blessington
in a house where there are Vermeer and paints by Franz Hal. Applicable laws include part two,
section four of Criminal Justice Act 2001 supported by section five of Criminal Law
(Jurisdiction) Act, 1976. A person is guilty of theft if they take a property without the owner’s
consent. In this scenario, they have been caught with a stolen car as evidence meaning, they
cannot get away with it.
Secondly, they have committed murder of a police officer understanding that they were
associates. Criminal Justice Act of 1964 section three that talks about a special provision in
relation to murder and attempts applies. A murder a Garda Siochana acting during his duty is an
offense which could result in life imprisonment. Murder is against the human rights hence a
criminal offense (Odello, 2010).

CASE STUDY 7
Jethro and Virginia have also committed an offense of resisting an arrest in which
Virginia killed a police officer. While running away with the car, Jethro also shoots a police
officer leaving him seriously injured. This action is against the Criminal Justice (Public Order)
Act of 1994 section eight subsection two. This section states that one who fails to comply with a
member of Garda Siochana without lawful authority or a reason is guilty and shall be convicted
for a fine not exceeding 500 euros or a term not exceeding 6 months or both.
Lastly, in accordance with Criminal Damage Act 1995 section two which states that a
person who damages any property belonging to another person recklessly whether he is
intending or not intending to damage any property or intending by the damage to endanger the
life of another is guilty. During the chase, Virginia was apprehended after hitting the car of a
person while over-speeding on Blessing Road. Though I am not informed of the health condition,
I can conclude that it is damaging to public property.
With all these offenses, it could be almost impossible to get out of this crime though I can
come up with one defense. I would start by looking into the criminal background of Jethro and
Virginia to know whether or not they have engaged in any criminal activities before or any
criminal records. If there are none, then I could ask them why they needed the money and then
argue on the basis that this was their first time due to a reason so that they don’t get a life
imprisonment ruling. In killing the police officers, it could be argued that being the first time in
an encounter with the police, they both were surprised and frightened to see the police hence
their reaction. With this consideration, they may be taken to a prison for quite some time though
not life imprisonment or they could go to the juvenile if they are not of the age to go to prison
since they have right to fair trial(Brems, 2005).

CASE STUDY 8
References
Bail Act, 1997
Brems, E. (2005). Conflicting Human Rights: An Exploration in the Context of the Right to a
Fair Trial in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms. Human Rights Quarterly, 27(1), 294-326.
Criminal Damage Act, 1991
Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994
Criminal Justice (Theft & Fraud Offenses Act 2001
Criminal Justice Act, 1990
Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976
Criminal Law (Sexual Offenses) Act, 1993
Criminal Law Rape Acts 1981-1990
Non-Fatal Offenses to the Persons Act 1997
Odello, M. (2010). Tackling criminal acts in peacekeeping operations: The accountability of
peacekeepers. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 15(2), 347-391. C
Offenses against the state Act 1998
Wald, P. M. (2002). Dealing with Witnesses in War Crime Trials: Lessons from the Yugoslav
Tribunal. Yale Hum. Rts. & Dev. LJ, 5, 217.