Facebook Pixel Code
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.

Answers on Questions Concerning Law Issues

This is a preview of the 8-page document
Read full text

11) Were these offences summary offences or indictable offences? (1 mark) All of the offences were indictable.           12) How did the trial judge define ‘ suspicion’ (3 marks) According to the judge of the first instance of the case, a suspicion is an act of suspecting one or to imagine without proof or tiny evidence about something to be true. But any hint or slight idea that an act of criminal conduct is in progress is adequate enough to be used against one in their offence. 13) a) How did the counsel for the Appellant wish to extend the ground on which he was given leave to appeal?

(2 marks) The counsel of the appellant wished to leave to appeal on the ground of passage the definition of suspicion was given. b) Did the Court accept the counsel’ s argument? (1 mark)   No, it didn’ t.  The Court dismissed it because it could not be justified by their argument. c) Why did the court refer to section 93C of the Criminal Justice Act 1988? (2 marks) Because in 93A (1) the word “ reasonable grounds” for suspicion has not been spelt or was not contained in that section.

Therefore 93C is used as a reference of “ reasonable grounds. ” d) What method of statutory interpretation did the Court of Appeal use with regard to the counsel’ s argument? (2 marks) With regards to counsel arguments, the court of appeal stressed that according to the statutory construction, the two-section required to be interpreted as one without regarding the other section or interpreting them separately. e) What case authority did the Court of Appeal use to give support to its conclusion? (1 mark) To give support to its conclusion given on “ reasonable grounds” of suspicion, the court used the authority of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. f) Did the Court of Appeal agree with the counsel for the Appellant that failing to imply a requirement for reasonable grounds for suspicion would lead to inappropriate convictions?

Give reasons for your answer (2 marks) Court of appeal did not agree with the appellant argument of inappropriate conviction based on the reasonable ground of suspicion.

This is a preview of the 8-page document
Open full text
Close ✕
Tracy Smith Editor&Proofreader
Expert in: Law, Sociology, Religion and Theology
Hire an Editor
Matt Hamilton Writer
Expert in: Law, Social science, History
Hire a Writer
preview essay on Answers on Questions Concerning Law Issues
  • Pages: 8 (2219 words)
  • Document Type: Assignment
  • Subject: Law
  • Level: Undergraduate
WE CAN HELP TO FIND AN ESSAYDidn't find an essay?

Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples

Contact Us