Criminal Law and Procedure - Reply to Question 1

According to the scenario, the conduct of the police was found to be lawful as evidence was found by the police that Gleeson was involved in drug abuse. As a result, the police authority started their query and it was found to be lawful according to the duty of the police. It is observed that the legal aid duty solicitor advised Gleeson not to say anything. He was advised by the lawyer as according to the Criminal Procedure Act a defendant has the right to keep silent during any proceedings in the trial as a privileged for self-incrimination.

According to section 114/115, due to questioning and investigation, an individual can be detained after arrest for questioning as mentioned in Section 114[1]. The police can detain for a specific time but should not exceed 6 hours unless it is found to be extended by a warrant as mentioned in section 115 (2). The warrant for questioning and investigation may be extended for an additional 6 hours as mentioned in section 118(3). Section 117 describes the investigation period according to which the police can perform the duty of questioning and investigation mentioned in the Criminal Procedure Act. From the above statements which can be concluded that the police have performed their duty according to the law.

It is also observed that Gleeson was asked by his lawyer not to say anything while being interrogated by the police. This is due to the reason that according to the Evidence ActSection 89A states that an individual should not say or perform anything that can harm the defense of that particular individual during the interrogation by the police that will later rely on Court. These activities can be utilized as evidence during the trial proceedings in the court. In case if a person is not guilty, answering the questions while interrogation will help to release quickly. On the other hand, if a particular person is guilty answering the question while interrogation by the police will lead to sentencing as evidence recorded in a tape by the police will be utilized in the court as a matter of evidence. It is not obligated to answer the questions as the prosecution carries the burden of proof and therefore the guilty has no application for implicating himself.

It can lead to risk as the guilty can make admissions to different things that he has not performed. In this scenario, the defendant can courteously say “no comments” that will help him to release on bail if found guilty. It is known that a confession is not admissible in court if it is not provided voluntarily. From the above statements, it can be concluded that the conduct of the police was lawful as they had not forced Gleeson to say or do something that can be produced during the proceedings. It is also observed that police have performed their duty and arrested him for questioning and investigation according to the Criminal Procedure Act as the police found him guilty due to drug abuse.

Criminal Law and Procedure - Reply to Question 2

According to the scenario, it is observed that Jack Dempsey was engaged with Tom as a drug dealer. On the other hand, it is also observed that Jack was not involved in killing Vinnie not he had any idea regarding the pistol that was carried by Tom. Due to involvement in drug dealing, Jack can be arrested by police for interrogation and investigation. According to section 114 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the police must arrest an individual found guilty.

The witness or victim can identify the offender of the suspect by one way mirror according to the NSW Police Code of Practice 2015[2]. A case of Alexander v R (1980) 145 CLR 395 can be taken into consideration for supporting the case study. It is known that Jack can be detained after arrest for questioning for a reasonable time and it should not exceed 6 hours unless it is extended true detention warrant according to Section 115(2).

The prosecution can argue that Jack was present during the murder and can be held guilty for conspiracy. At the same time, the defense can argue that Jack did not have any Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Hence he should not be guilty according to the above scenario.

If Jack applies for bail can be granted based on any information or evidence that the bail authority founds trustworthy or credible according to Section 31 of the Evidence Act. This type of evidence can be considered as the balance of probability according to Section 32 of the Evidence Act[3]. If bail is granted to Jack he may be required to appear when required by the court according to Section 13 of the Evidence Act. From the above statement, it can be concluded if Jack applies for bail it can be granted to him as there is no evidence of involvement in the murder.

Criminal Law and Procedure - Reply to Question 3

Part 1:

Tom Sloane would be charged for robbery and murder. The motive is the usual connection, with the criminal law that shows the reason why the person acted in a certain way. Tom Sloane clearly showed criminal intent. In the determination of his guilt of Tom Sloane, the prosecution has to prove that the defendant i.e. Sloane intended to commit the illegal act, here, exchange of illegal drugs, robbery, and murder. As the defendant was already under the influence of illegal drugs by his own will, the prosecution need not prove the defendant’s motive. (Jrank, 2020)

The prosecution may also produce the evidence that Sloane had the motive to commit the crime of murder, as he was already carrying the gun of which Jack Dempsey was not aware. Although under criminal laws, proof of motive is usually not needed unless specified. In this case, the motive is easily evident, and prosecution can argue on that. The prosecution might also argue on the need of consuming illegal drugs, trading illegal drugs, plan of robbery, and greed was the motive of the murder, as Sloane knew he would not be able to pay back and robbery may go wrong, so he chose to kill Vinnie

Part 2:

Tom Sloane Has to Face Charges Under Different Crimes of The Australian Penal Code.

Under the Crimes Act of the country, the penalty base level for the intent of robbery is a maximum of 14 years. At the same time, an aggravated robbery can land a penalty of a maximum of 20 years of imprisonment.
Drugs Law in Australia defines the usage of legal and illicit drugs and their penalties. Heroin is covered under the category of illegal drugs. The drug laws are a little complicated. Heroin comes in schedule 9 of the list which contains the prohibited substances. Other Acts of Narcotic Drugs Act, 1967 of the Criminal Code Act, 1995 can also be applied to determine the sentence for this case. Penalties also depend upon the number of illegal drugs being dealt with. (DH, 2019). The period of the sentence may vary from ten to fifteen years.
The murder charge would also be faced by Sloane. Under Australian law, murder is defined in criminal law by state legislation. In any jurisdiction in Australia, the maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. (LOC, 2016).

The presiding judge, on listening to the appeal of both prosecutor and defender, can consider the above-stated facts to conclude making a penalty sentence for Tom Sloane.

References for Criminal Law and Procedure

2019. Drug laws in Australia. From Department of Heatlh, Australian Government: https://www.health.gov.au/health-topics/drugs/about-drugs/drug-laws-in-australia

Fox, R. G. and Deltondo, N. 2019. Victorian criminal procedure: state and federal law. Federation Press.

Odgers, S. 2010. Uniform evidence law. Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia.

Del Carmen, R. V. 2013. Criminal procedure: Law and practice. Cengage Learning.

Gans, J. 2016. Modern criminal law of Australia. Cambridge University Press.

Jrank. 2020. Motive. From Law Jrank: https://law.jrank.org/pages/8663/Motive.html

LOC. 2016. Sentencing Guidelines: Australia. From Library of congress law: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/sentencing-guidelines/australia.php

[1] Fox, R.G. and Deltondo, N., 2019. Victorian criminal procedure: state and federal law. Federation Press.

[2] Gans, J., 2016. The modern criminal law of Australia. Cambridge University Press.

[3] Odgers, S., 2010. Uniform evidence law. Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia.

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help