Regina v Commisioner of the Metropolitan Police

involved in an offense, for 46 different Group A offenses and 11 different Group B offenses”(2). Even though the NIBRS had more details, and came as a way to solve the problems that the UCR had, the NIBRS still has its fair share of problems leading us to be cautious about this method.

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.

These outcomes are linked to the health and social care act. I have taken some direct text from the act and copied below;

Preventative Detention Orders serve as a viable alternatives to judicial trials, by allowing Police to ‘detain or restrict the movement of individuals without charge or conviction’. External reviews of PDO’s by the Law Council of Australia has deemed these measures ‘justifiably balance security and civil liberties’ by prioritizing community safety over the presumed innocence of terror

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

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.’

Citation: New Jersey v. T. L. O. 469 U.S. 325 105 S. Ct. 733; 83 L. Ed. 2d 720; 1985 U. S. LEXIS 41; 53 U.S.L.W. 4083.

Issue: Whether respondent’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated when he was subjected to a search of his person, albeit under probable cause, without a warrant and prior to a formal arrest.

Stretch B. and Whitehouse M. –Health and Social Care Level 3 Book 1 BTEC National. London: Pearson Education Limited, 2010

R.v. Feeney (1997) is a important case for the development of a Feeney warrant, which is needed for the police to enter a dwelling house. This ensures individuals have privacy at their homes from the police making forcible entries. When a suspect gets arrested and their privacy rights are infringed. The job of the courts are then to evaluate the case, and check if the appellants rights were indeed violated, if so was it because the protection of society outweigh the individual right to privacy. First, in this paper we will discuss important section numbers relating to the Feeney case which includes section 8, 10 (b), and section 24 (b). Than we will examine the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Feeney case and how this case has impacted police in their work and assuring individuals their right to privacy. After we will look at two other cases precedent to the Feeney case that includes R.v. Godoy (1999) and R.v. Gomboc (2010). Lastly, the personal analysis section will evaluate the decisions made from the three cases, identifying whether the judges have made the correct decisions.

Boys D and Langridge E – BTEC National Health and Social Care Book 1 (Nelson Thornes, 2007)

the Caplan Report. This report, developed by a committee chaired by the Hon. Elinor Caplan, had been

Present: Kerry Davies, Peter Babbington, Jo Ruffin, Margaret Lawlor, Denis Glanville, Michelle Glanville, Colin Jones

Although extradition is a general procedure in a criminal justice system , it is quite terrible when people have to be sent to the foreign court and have little help in legal aspects. In recent years, there have been a lot of concerns in the Europe countries that the fast process of extraditions under the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) are biased against the innocent. (The Economist , 2010) Nowadays, the EAW is the automatic process in the European Union country which can extradite wrongdoers or the innocent. (The Economist, 2010) European countries agree to use the EAW because the extradition used to be an extremely slow and inconvenient process. Therefore, the solicitors can take advantages and earn a lump sum of money. Hoping to solve these problems, EU enacted the arrest warrant which can repatriate criminals from other countries and ended the situation. (Spencer, 2010) For example, Osman Hussain, who was a bomber and set off a bomb in London in 2005, was sent from Italy in a very short time because of the EAW. However, the EAW was criticized by critics that it was not fair with people who do not commit a crime and used with improper ways to extradite people from the country to another country. (The Economist, 2010) This essay will argue that there are many reasons why the EAW is unfair and can be considered as a burden on the innocent. However, it is not correct to reject this law but we should support the proposal to improve the procedural rights.

Critical Review – provide a literature review of the public health significance of the health issue talked about in the case study. Please use 6-8 references and include them in a separate reference page (750–1000 words).