Overview of the Case Brief
In the case study as has been referred to herein, a case brief shall be prepared. The case brief so prepared shall indicate the prosecution case and the charges against the accused which the prosecution proposes to try against the accused in the present case. The issues that shall be dealt with in this case basically and primarily relates to the identification of the appropriate court in which the matter of prosecution and the trial proceedings of the accused might be carried within. The issues shall also assess and discuss certain other legal factors and parameters which are stated herein. The legality of the charges against the accused as impleaded by the prosecution, the requirement of the material evidences for the purposes of supporting or refuting the charges so imposed by the prosecution, the probable and possible defenses that might be raised by the alleged accused during the trial proceedings before the appropriate court of law having the due jurisdiction for trying with the substance of the case.
The legislation that shall be considered herein for the purposes of deciding the probable charges against the accused and the co-accused, as the content of the present case indicate namely Alex and Peter is referred to as Drugs, Poison and Controlled Substances Act, 1981. The relationship which these two individuals being the co-accused share is a cordial friend relationship since childhood. The other legislation apart from the Drugs Act that shall be material in the present context shall be the Crimes Act, 1958. This act would facilitate the prosecution in charging the accused for those offenses which directly come under the jurisdiction of criminal violations and aggressions apart from possession and selling of drugs that is punishable under the Drugs Act of 1981 as has been stated in the above statements. The legislations provides for a complete mechanism and procedure of punishment of illegal possession and further and subsequent selling of drugs and also entails provisions for poison and controlled substances and prescribes punishments therefore in accordance to the gravity and nature of the offence so committed.
The sections that shall be considered relevant in the present context for the purposes of determining the guilt of both the accused named as Peter and Alex as the prosecution wishes to implead and convict before the court of law deal with all the actions of the accused that is the unlawful actions of injuring people, resisting lawful arrest search and seizure procedure by the police officials, possession and selling of drugs under the banned and illegal list, assaulting the officials and other people so present in the premises where their actions so suspected by the search officers on regular duty and the absolute refusal on the part of Alex to provide the officers with the names and address of their location of the place at where they ordinarily reside.
Sentencing Act 1991 shall also be a material and relevant legislation that shall be considered herein for the purposes of supplementing the charges upon the accused for their wrongful and unlawful actions towards the law enforcement officials as well as the public so present in the party where the offense is alleged to have been committed by the accused. As far as the charges are concerned, commencing from the jurisdiction of the Drugs act 1981, the charge that shall be certainly made out against both the accused is the Voluntarily and willful sale of psychoactive substances as defined under the Drugs Act 1981 which is an offence under Section 56E of the Drugs Act 1981 under discussion and the trial shall proceed in accordance to the same being one of the most important and crucial charge as against both the accused.
Legal Factors and Parameters for Determining Court Jurisdiction
The fact as has been presented in the case study so given that they did resort to selling of Marijuana and Methamphetamine for the purposes of getting margins in the party premises and the possession of same in the backpack so found by the police officials and also at the house of Alex shall be sufficient to determine the guilt of both the accused as for the offence mentioned herein and the charge so stated.
Considering other legislations under which the charge shall follow upon both the accused relates to the negligent and reckless acts of unlawfully resisting the police officials from conducting search and seizure and injuring the people present in the party by act of evading the due process of law and arrest procedures therefore. The sections that shall be considered relevant in this regard shall flow from the subsequent statutes so stated herein and discussed herein primarily, Crimes Act of 1958 and the Sentencing Act of 1991.
The relevant sections in this regard shall be Section 17, Section 31, Section 341, Section 29A, Section 30, Section 464ZC of the Crimes Act 1958. These are the charges for which the accused have been impleaded by the prosecution the purposes of commencement of trial procedures and conviction. This section shall basically deal with the admissibility and the lawfulness of the charges so framed and proceeded with against the accused by the police officials on the basis of investigation for the offenses so alleged to be committed as has been indicative and reflective in the prosecution case study and the story.
The charge under Section 17 shall be relevant and lawful as against Alex and not peter. The reason for charging only Alex for the offence under this section is the wrongful and unlawful conduct of running from the place where suspected with the possession of marijuana and methamphetamine. The offence under section 17 is deemed to have been completed as against the aggressor and the offender when negligently and recklessly causes serious injury to the custodial officer on duty or any other emergency worker shall be liable for the offence under Section 17 of the Crimes Act 1958, so operative in Australian Jurisdiction and punished under the provisions and terms given therein.
The conduct of running from the crime scene badly hitting and injuring the police official and also another person in the halfway while running is evident of the fact of reckless actions from Alex and it shall be absolutely lawful to frame a charge against the accused under Section 17 of the Code under discussion. The offence under Section 31 of the Code under discussion shall also be considered lawful for the purposes of prosecuting the accused, but the same shall follow only against the Alex and not against the peter. The act of assaulting an on duty custodial officer shall be considered sufficient for attributing liability under Section 31 of the Crime Act of 1958 and the punishment upon the accused shall be imposed accordingly.
Legislation under Consideration for Determining Probable Charges
The other sections that have been imposed upon the accused shall be attributable to the accused concerned herein for the sole purposes for their attempts to evade lawful arrest and conduct of search by the police officials. By the virtue of Sentencing Act and the Crimes Act it shall be lawful for the police officials to conduct search without a search warrant when the authority and officials so feel prima facie that an offence has been committed which has been the result in this case, A reasonable suspicion in this case has been raised against the accused specifically Alex for unlawfully possessing in excess Marijuana and other banned drug and a voluntary and willful attempt to evade he due process of law when asked by the police officials on duty to submit to search shall be enough to impose the liabilities under the sections so concerned in the above referred paragraphs.
The Court within which the matter shall be dealt with and the trial of the accused shall take place in this case would be the Magistrate Court of Victoria being the Court of First Instance. The court shall have requisite jurisdiction to deal with the offenses and charges stated herein and would be considered by Virtue of the Criminal Procedure code and legislation of Australia to refer both the accused to remand or judicial custody until and unless the charges are finally decided and the judgment of acquittal or conviction is passed therefore. The right of appeal of both the accused shall hold good and no order restricting the right of appeal shall be passed by any court of law, primarily court of first instance for the purposes of depriving the accused of their legal rights to be heard in superior courts in case of their un satisfaction with the order so passed by the court of first instance.
The evidences which shall be considered material in this case for prosecution to prove for the purposes of conducting effective trial against the accused shall basically proving beyond reasonable doubt the possession of drugs and illegal substances by the accused voluntarily and willfully, criminal intent to deprive the public of their rightly entitled legal interest, criminal intent to deprive the custodial officer of their legally entitled right to arrest and search the accused, the act of assaulting and injuring the personnel so stated and referred to herein for the purposes of evading the due process of law. The evidences in reference to these actions and conduct shall be proved by prosecution in order to try the accused and substantiate and facilitate the court of law to frame a formal charge against the accused based on the investigation report of the police officials and pass an order of conviction therefore.
The defenses shall also be considered in these cases which can be raised by the accused as has been referred to Peter and Alex in this very case under discussion. Considering and viewing the facts of the case It can be reasonably inferred and deduced that the weight of defenses shall lie in the favor of peter and would not support Alex much as far as his actions, guilty mind and conduct is concerned. The possible defense that Peter might raise during the trial or at a pre trial stage before the Magistrate court of law shall basically be the absence of any wrongful and misconduct in the part of Peter to prevent or evade any due process of law.
The presence of Peter at wrong time and wrong place shall be the defense which would be raised by the accused herein “Peter” as far as the attribution of charges and imposing the penalties similar to Alex is considered and concerned. The absence of any material abused drugs or illegal substances and lack of any refusal to submit to search and seizure shall be considered material by the court in inferring the criminal guilt and guilt of the accused and therefore he shall be either discharged or acquitted for the charges so framed against him. Although, in this case the Peter shall only be required to create a doubt in the mind of magistrate for the purposes of proving the point and not beyond reasonable doubt as it is the general rule of criminal law which says that the benefit of doubt shall lie with defense and the prosecution requires to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The possible penalties upon Alex and Peter shall vary in accordance to the discretion of the Court and the conclusions derived upon by referring to the material evidences and submission of prosecution and defense therefore. It is evident from consideration of the facts of the case and the evidences on record that the weight of penalty shall be high as against the Alex for the charges so specifically framed against Alex as compared to Peter but this consideration shall be completely dependent upon the trial proceedings of both the accused.
The maximum penalty with which the prime suspect and accused herein referred to as Alex can be charged is for 5 years under section 31 of the Crimes Act of 1981. The concurrent sentences can be passed against the accused herein Alex and Peter depending upon the due examination of witnesses and viewing of evidences placed for its kind perusal. The possibility of going into jail of Alex is quite high as compared to that of Peter.
References
Content.Legislation.Vic.Gov.Au (Webpage, 2022) https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-06/81-9719aa129%20authorised.pdf
(Webpage, 2022) https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s464zc.html
“Sentencing Act 1991”, Classic.Austlii.Edu.Au (Webpage, 2022) https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/sa1991121/
“Sentencing Act 1991”, Legislation.Vic.Gov.Au (Webpage, 2022) https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/sentencing-act-1991/219
“Crimes Act 1958”, Legislation.Vic.Gov.Au (Webpage, 2022) https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/crimes-act-1958/292
“Barnet Jade – Find Recent Australian Legal Decisions, Judgments, Case Summaries For Legal Professionals (Judgments And Decisions Enhanced)”, Jade.Io (Webpage, 2022) https://jade.io/j/?a=outline&id=281802
“Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) Reprints | The Law Library Of Victoria”, Lawlibrary.Vic.Gov.Au (Webpage, 2022) <https://www.lawlibrary.vic.gov.au/crimes-act-1958-vic-reprints>
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
