3.10 Reasonable Grounds for Granting Bail
It was not suitable to permit that bail to an accused person where reasonable grounds to believe that he was committed an offence were exposed to exist. Equally where the Court was satisfied that no reasonable ground existed to connect the accused with the liability it was free to enlarge him on bail. In the court held that the actual test for grant or refusal of bail rested on availability of reasonable grounds.
By granting bail on reasonable grounds is an appearance which that the grounds be such as would appear sufficient to a reasonable man for involving the accused with the crime with which he is alleged. Bail should be refused if such grounds exist tending to connect the accused with the crime without the need to go into a deeper obligation of the merits of those grounds and the evidence on which they rested, which functions was to be assumed at the trial stage. It is not the prima facie case against the accused but the reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of offence which prohibits granting bail which is found that the responsibility is on the prosecution to disclose those reasonable grounds.
The Court exercising the jurisdiction for granting bail should refrain from indulging in
…show more content…
The State of Bihar (1996) that giving reasons disclosing his mind while granting bail could not be considered an evident mistake or impropriety to pass condemning remark and initiate action against concerned officer and the Courts do not have to prove the merit of the case. They have only to look at the material placed before them by the prosecution to see whether some significant evidence is available against the accused, which if left unrebutted, may lead to the inference of guilt. Reasonable grounds are not be confused with mere allegations or suspicions, nor with rested and proved evidence, which the law requires for a person’s opinion for an
In chapter twelve, Joel Samaha has discussed various court proceedings before trial. Samaha begins to elaborate the importance of the prosecutor’s decision in determining whether there is a concrete case against the alleged defendant. The evidence at hand ultimately dictates the proceeding of events in court. Along with evidence, the lack of resources might add to the difficulty in charging an individual. Prosecutors are faced with an overload of cases; ultimately prosecutors are forced to prioritize their cases based on their resources and the evidence provided. The cases that are regarded are then considered for suspect detainment. Probable cause to detain suspects is undergone so that the case may proceed to trial. Typically an arraignment
During the submission by the amicus curiae it was evident that the police might not have put much interest in arresting the suspect given they did not follow due procedures. However had the suspect been arrested near his premises the case would take another
This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law.
When an offender is sentenced to imprisonment, post sentencing considerations must be made based on an evaluation of the individual and this will determine the manner in which the prison sentence is served. Post sentencing considerations include security classifications, parole and continued detention orders. These offer different levels of incapacity, accessibility of rehabilitation programs and incentives for good behaviour, and are implicated in order to achieve justice through upholding the rights of the victim, the offender and the wider community.
Reasonable suspicion constitutes a stop by police. According to our textbook, the Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, which is why is it important for police to justly stop a person (p. 17). The exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained from improper police work, like an unwarranted stop, is not allowed in court.
This paper assumes that a police officer may or may not have “probable cause to arrest a defendant for armed assault” (AIU, 2016, para 1). I will address if the police officer had probable cause to believe that there is a person hiding in the third person’s garage, attached to the house (AIU, 2016, para 1). Accordingly, the police officer may need or not a warrant “to enter the garage to arrest the defendant” (AIU, 2016, para 2). An examination to “if the officer is in hot pursuit with the defendant” (AIU, 2016, para 2), and if the defendant is known to be injured and armed” (AIU, 2015, para 2). In addition, explain if the police officer probable cause to arrest and search the A and B residences.
In conclusion, as shown throughout this paper, evidence is needed to convince jurors to give a verdict of guilt or not guilt. Evidence comes in several forms such as physical evidence, substantial evidence. When evidence is presented, it acceptance in trial depends on relevant to the case to be admissible. “Relevance refers to any material fact or evidence having a tendency to make the existence of a matter at issue more probable than it would be without said fact (probative value)”(Britz, 2008, p. 344).
Subsequently, one of the main components of the procedural limitation is innocent until proven guilty, which brings about the right to a Grand Jury- a panel that determines whether or not there is a need to go to trial. As a result, a guilty verdict in criminal cases is determined with evidence that is sufficient and that must be proved “‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” (pg.131), so there is an immense need to increase the chances for the respect of “reasonable doubt” (pg.
Reasonable Suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable su...
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
The English legal system is ostensibly embedded on a foundation of a ‘high degree of certainty with adaptability’ based on a steady ‘mode’ of legal reasoning. This rests on four propositions
The grounds of judicial review help judges uphold constitutional principles by, ensuring discretionary power of public bodies correspond with inter alia the rule of law. I will discuss the grounds of illegality, irrationality and proportionality in relation to examining what case law reveals about the purpose and effect these grounds.
consideration" . And this very definition of bailment was used by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Gujarat v. Menon Mohammad .
...n of legally obtained evidence and statements. Each and every person involved in the process of the evidence collection and processing must be available for trial. If one of these parties is not available, it may cause some doubt in the juror’s mind, as to what was done with that piece of evidence. The case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In conclusion if any piece of this investigation is not followed by using established guidelines, the outcome will not lead to the successful conviction.