¶ … Sentencing, and Punishment England and Wales work on an adversarial principle when it comes to law enforcement. The adversarial principle states that "that a person is not considered to be guilty of a crime simply on the word of a government official" or any other means other than a guilty verdict given by a court of law (Davies, 2000). Thus, when a suspect is arrested, arraigned, and questioned, he or she must be treated as if there is no guilty ruling on the case. This is meant to provide the best possible defense in a given scenario. In fact, "conviction in a court requires presentation of admissible evidence that convinces the fact finder -- a jury, in the case of serious crimes; for less serious crime, a stipendiary (professional and salaried) magistrate (renamed District Judges in 2000), or a panel of lay magistrates -- that the evidence demonstrates the guilt of the defendant 'beyond reasonable doubt'" (Davies, 2000). Each side must present its case in order to try to prove the most convincing to an unbiased outside party. The final decision of guilt is then decided by these unbiased juries or judges. The side that proves the most efficient adversary, with the strongest case that is most persuasive, thus wins the opinion of the court.

Question 2

This act imposes on the custody agent the duty of properly seizing certain items and possessions of a detained person. It outlines the nature of when such search and seizures are appropriate with a person in custody, such as if the custody officer believes the suspect will use items on his or her possession to harm themselves or others (The National Archives, 2015). Based on the stipulations of this act, the custody officer must make judgment calls when searches and seizures are appropriate. This is a power based on a critical assessment of the suspect, the item, and the particular situation. Custody officers, however, cannot conduct intimate searches. This allows citizens to retain a degree of privacy and dignity when such searches are necessary, as they require a same-sex constable to conduct them. The act also allows citizens to have seized items returned to them when appropriate. Taking everything into consideration, this takes into account an individual's right to privacy and freedom of personal possessions.

Question 3

The significance of 'R' in this criminal appeal means that it is the Crown vs. The defendant. Ultimately, "this is where a case is heard between the Crown (the Government) and an individual," where the R. stands for the King or Queen (SOAS, 2015). Thus, this appeal pits the Government against the defendant, R v. Jones. The modern name for the appellate court is the Court of Appeal. Another word for judge / judgment is rule / ruling. Court documents often interchange ruling with judgment, as does the current case. Another word for counsel is advocate. Mr. Bentham was charged with violating section 17(2) of the Firearms Act of 1968, meaning he was convicted of using a firearm, or I this case imitation firearm, while conducting a robbery. The offense is often sentenced with life in prison (Crown Prosecution Service, 2015). The major key facts here where that Mr. Bentham did tell his victim that he had a gun and threatened to shoot him, as this implies Mr. Bentham was using something to imitate a firearm. Such reasoning is what got him convicted in the first place. Yet, his lawyer suggested that since it was his fingers, he could not have had an imitation firearm in his possession. Essentially, fingers are undetectable and therefore not able to be possessed or considered an object which could then be removed from one's possession. Thus, the lawyer is suggesting that fingers cannot be considered an imitation firearm. The case was originally held in the Crown Court at Preston. The very first appeal originally upheld the first ruling. This court believed that since Mr. Bentham was imitating a firearm with his fingers and even explicitly told his victim he was going to shoot, that he intentionally mimicked a firearm and thus the case was a violation of section 17(2) of the Firearms Act of 1968. The original case did not go to trial, as the defendant took a deal. Then, the case was appealed in the Court of Appeal in the Crown Court at Preston. In the end, the final ruling of the second appeal changed the original ruling and the judge sided with the appeal. The judge claimed that the lower courts were too biased...

Since one cannot possess one's own hand, the original ruling was thrown out.
Question 4

There is a difference between indictable offenses and indictable only offenses. Indictable offenses is possible to be tried on indictment, but can also be tried as a hybrid offense that can be summarily handled rather than through indictment. On the other hand are indictment only offenses, which include serious crimes like murder and rape. These crimes, according to section 51(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 can only be tried through indictment of a suspect in the Crown Court (The National Archives, 2014). Indictment only offenses can only be tried in the Crown Court (Crown Prosecution Service, 2007). The standard of proof in criminal courts is at much higher expectations than civil courts. Criminal evidence must show proof beyond reasonable doubt, thus providing a clear picture of exactly how something happened. Civil courts are not so adamant, as "the difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe," (Find Law, 2015). Criminal cases are tried by jury, and the system of trial by jury in the UK is often considered the "Jewel in the Crown" of the criminal justice system. It is considered this because it represents a true equal playing field. The juries are made up of one's peers, and thus the court system "is the embodiment of the Common Law tradition, going back to the Middle Ages, of 'trial by your peers' (your equals)" (Lea, 2006). It is a very democratic method for convicting criminal cases.

Question 5

There are a number of evidential and public interest factors that will need to be taken into account for this particular scenario. First and foremost, there is very reliable physical evidence that connects Andy to the area around the crime scene. However, there seems to be only fingerprints and blood evidence from outside and around the caravan, rather than from inside it itself. Under section 9 (1) (b) of the Theft Act of 1968, the Crown must provide that Andy had acted as "having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser" to be charged and convicted of burglary (The National Archives, 1968). This may be difficult if Andy does not admit to having been in the caravan or if no physical evidence is found inside the caravan. Moreover, the fence Andy had injured himself was poorly maintained. Andy himself could look to take action in civil court against the fence owners, Smith and Jones. Thus, a prosecutor would have to try to avoid the fence owners receiving any burden for Andy illegally entering their yards.

Question 6

Summary offenses can be treated summarily, without having to necessarily indict anyone. There is no use of a jury, rather a judge decides on how to proceed with the case verdict. Magistrates courts can only sentence individuals for up to six months for a single offense, and up to a year with more than one offenses (Gov.Uk, 2015). Either way offenses can be treated as both indictment offenses or summary offenses, thus they can be tried using a jury or summarily. These are often hybrid offenses in the yes of the Crown Court. In the Crown Court, "a judge sits alone as a Trier of fact and law without assistance from a jury" (Doc Lecture, 2013). There are typically two or more magistrates on a bench, normally three in magistrate courts. [2005] EWCA Crim. 1510 is a court case that took place in 2005. The EWCA stands for England and Wales Courts of Appeals, while Crim means it is in the criminal court division. The number 1510 means it was the 1.510th case of that year. For [2006] EWCA Civ. 25, this case was tried in England and Wales in 2006 in the civil court system and was the 25th trial that year. Finally, [2007] EWHC Admin 265 was in 2007 in England and Wales High Courts in the High Court Administrative division, the 267th case of that year. The case of R. v Bristol concerned the concept that "note authority exists for judicial reviews by witnesses of witness summons," (von Berg, 2014). R. v. Badham gave police the power to enter premises "without permission if they believe that there is evidence relating to an arrest" (Law Teacher, 2015).