Cy V Recounters

Police officers including approximately six armed members of the “Special Emergency Response Team” forcibly entered the appellants’ (Bulsey & Anor) house. Bulsey was taken from his bed, placed on the floor, handcuffed and dragged out to the street and later charged with riotous assembly and destruction of a building. In subsequent committal proceedings, the respondent conceded it did not have a case against the first appellant. He was discharged. Bulsey (the first appellant) sued the respondent for damages for trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment). Anor (the second appellant) sued the respondent for damages for assault and false imprisonment. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ claims with costs, with judgments in favour of the respondent.

With the enactment of various legislation, the criminal justice system shows that they have the fairest intention for the offender, victims & society regarding post sentencing decisions. This objective, both successful and unsuccessful will be demonstrated through numerous case studies. Once an offender has been given their sentence, law is so, that if an offender feels unsafe in the presence of other prisoners, they have the right to be taken to protective custody. Offenders such as child or serious sex offenders, each risk is thought out so their rights are upheld for humane protection & so they can be taken into protective custody. An exception has been made with Eddie Obeid as he is detained in Silverwater prison in protective custody with the paedophiles and high risk sex offenders.

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

Please list the evidence submitted for each task. Indicate the page numbers where the evidence can be found or describe the nature of the evidence (e.g. video,

The latter case of DPP v Carr (2002) shows many similarities, providing that arrest should and can only be used as a method of last resort, and must not be used for minor offences where the defendant can be identified . In this particular matter, a highly intoxicated Mr Carr was of the belief that police were accusing him of throwing a number of rocks, when this was not the case. This confusion led Mr Carr’s to use offensive language, which provoked the police officer to caution the accused. Mr Carr was then soon after arrested for offensive language because of the continuation of this offence, and also for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duties. The main issue in this matter was whether or not the arrest was lawful, and if so, was it improper. It is important to note that this case was decided before the provisions of LEPRA was passed by the parliament and became valid law meaning the Court had to rely on common law principles to determine its outcome. The arrest for vulgar language in this case was held to be proper because the officer had reasonable suspicion (having witnessed him swearing and

The purpose of this report is to discuss the matter The Queen V Bayley, which took place on the 29th of September 2012. Adrian bailey (serial rapist) was found guilty on charges of murder and rape, this report will discuss in detail the court proceedings that lead up to the imprisonment of Adrian Bayley and also the events prior to the kidnapping of Jill Meagher. The purpose of this report is to discuss the purpose of law in our society and how it applies to people who commit crimes in our community. As well as the purpose of criminal law in our community.

Through the Law Enforcement Powers and Responsibilities Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA), police have certain powers to help them do their jobs and enforce the law. But these powers that police have been granted also have limits to help protect the rights of the victim, the suspect and the society “particularly when these powers affect the civil liberties of members in the community whom the police serve” as stated by the former Attorney-General Robert Debus.

Last of all, Cost of avoiding harm needs to be taken into account. The argument that a danger was too costly to eliminate is not a legitimate argument. However courts do recognise a balance between the risk and the cost of eliminating it. If the risk is remote and the precautions needed to be taken are very expensive, the defendants lack of action by not doing anything may be justified. The greater the risk is and the more likely it is, the consideration is given towards the cost of the eliminating measures which the defendants may have taken to safeguard. The decision in these circumstances relies on whether the courts decide that the defendants had acted reasonable in the given

The New South Wale’s police system have failed to meet the needs of its society due to the misuse and misconduct of its given powers. The police have a large amount of discretion

This assessment will focus on Section 1 of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Stop and Search powers). I will look at the use of stop and search before the Macpherson report and after the Macpherson report and compare how it has changed. The use of stop and search powers allow the police to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, and to prevent more serious crimes occurring generally in public places like a Football match. A police officer can ask what you are doing, why you’re in an area and/or where you’re going. They also have the power to stop and search you if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect you’re carrying; illegal drugs, a weapon, stolen

For three years, there has been through the courts and the streets a dreary procession of citizens with broken heads and bruised bodies against few of whom was violence needed to effect the arrest. In a majority of such cases, no complaint was made. If the victim complains, his charge is generally dismissed. The police are practically above the law (Moss, 343).

However, post-PACE there have still been injustices. In 1990, the ‘Cardiff Three’ were wrongly convicted of the murder of a prostitute. During police interviewing of the men, the police deployed barbaric interrogation techniques, petrifying the men into signing false confessions (Belloni and Hodgson, 2000. pg. 10). These confessions, used as evidence against the men in court, wrongly imprisoned them. However, two years later in 1992, the scandalous nature of the police investigation was exposed and the men were released (Campbell, 2013). The court’s decision to quash the sentence exposed the misconduct and institutional racism present in the police. The ‘Cardiff Three’ is an example of the police fabricating confessional evidence, through the torment and torture of the men. All three men were from BAME backgrounds and had consequently been framed for a crime they didn’t commit. Such incidents suggest a discriminatory and racist culture that still exists within the police and court institutions today, and hence, the task of the CJS in England and Wales providing justice for all is unachievable whilst racially discriminatory views within such agencies continue to exist. (number of BAME court

Safety is a fundamental right that we all deserve. Most of us rely on the government to provide this security. We pay for this through taxes, but the question that we must ask ourselves is are we getting what we are paying for? By paying our taxes to the government we are giving it the authority to choose the service we are getting back. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) is an Act of Parliament which instituted a legislative

Cases R v Park (1994) where procedures laid down in the PACE Act were not followed properly and evidence could not be submitted. Also R v Fenlley [1989] in which the defendant had not been informed properly of the reason for stop and search can lead to suspects being unable to be prosecuted. It is hard to justify these results and describe the use of stop and searches as a valuable tool in the detection of crime. Especially when there is a large amount of evidence from reports, cases and statistical information showing the disproportionate amount of Black and Asian individuals that are stopped and searched under section 1 of PACE 1984. This has led to issues arising between the police and the community.

Equity has been described as a ‘mysterious creature’ that lies distinctly alongside the common law. In considering the statement, there is an almost linear reversal in which the remedies in equity procure a type of right not necessarily available in the common law. This peculiar jurisdiction has created consistent controversy especially in regards to the fusion of the common law and equity. To understand further, this essay will consider the relationship between equity and the common law. The development of equity alongside the common law through its history and intention, and application in case law will be imperative in the discussion of the statement. In conjunction with an analysis of fusion, it will become apparent that equitable damages were enlivened, separate to, in unfair circumstances where no rights/damages existed within the common law. In trying to tread the murky waters of the distinction yet the procedural fusion of equity and common law, the contention of this essay becomes apparent. Effectively, this essay aims to highlight that the history, intention, application and fusion fallacies regarding equity, all which point to an assertion that rights in equity are indeed the product of its remedies. Whether they are merely ‘two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters’, is yet to be seen.