Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
role of the police in criminal justice
section 3.6 human rights act 1998
section 3.6 human rights act 1998
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: role of the police in criminal justice
The Justice system comprises of entities which serve to prevent, detect, prosecute, adjudicate and discipline criminal activities. Globally, Justice systems aim to ensure citizen security simultaneously without infringement on the citizen’s rights. The Due Process model is a model which recognizes that the state must respect all the legal rights of a person when carrying out justice. The Due process model questions the criminal justice system as to whether there is a miscarriage of justice as highlighted in Regina (Rottman) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. This case questioned whether there was an infringement of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act by the Police upon the Claimant whereby the Police overextended their common law power in performing a search and seizure without a warrant.
In the case of Rottman v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Mr. Michael Rottman (the claimant), a German Businessman was allegedly involved in fraudulent activities involving an East German Power Company. The claimant was accused of having access to stolen funds and no longer resided in Germany from 1995 subsequently on December 27, 1996 a court in Germany issued a warrant for his arrest. A request was made by the German authorities on 13 September 2000 to the Metropolis Police via Interpol for the extradition of Mr. Rottman to Germany. The Claimant resided in the South of England at the time of the issue of the extradition request. A provisional warrant for his arrest was issued for alleged conspiracy to defraud on September 22, 2000 at the Bow Street Magistrate’s Court under section 8 (1) of the Extradition Act of 1989.
After police investigation and surveillance Mr. Rottman was located in Henley-on-Thames on September 23, 2000...
... middle of paper ...
...d the protection of the society and the efficient implementation of the justice system by the police.
The Judicial system has proven to be effective since the claimant utilized the due process model and sought redress where he opined his rights were infringed by authorities. The claimant was given a fair trial by the House of Lords. The interpretation of the law in particular PACE as it relates to the common law power extended to police officers leaves some ambiguity. The legislation was enacted in 1984 and may be subject to review or further amendments to provide greater clarification for scope as it relates to extradition and the evolving cross border criminal offenses such as cyber terrorism. I am in wholehearted agreement that due process model is a fundamental principle of any criminal justice system for the safety of all individuals in a democratic society .
The defence argued that because the detention was unlawful, any arrest or search that flows from the detention should be regarded and was similarly unlawful. The Crown referred to common law power of arrest and search. As of R.v,Caslake’s case, it clearly stated that in the situation of an arrest, it is generally permitted that upon lawful arrest, police have the power to search a person for officer safety reason as well where there is “some reasonable prospect of securing evidence of the offence for which the accused is being arrested” and to secure that evidence. However, in the situation of Mr.Nanokeesic’s detention it is considered to be unlawful. The police did not have grounds to suspect that Mr.Nankeesic had provided a false name to them, as well, the fact that Mr.Nanokeesic ran
...arately from the length of the delay, the prejudice towards the accused can be inferred from the length of the delay as established in R. v. Morin. Examining the Morin guidelines made the decision and since the guidelines set out an 8 to 10 month institutional delay and in this case the court deemed that the Crown was responsible for 23 months of delay. The court failed to justify the reason for the 23-month delay and since it exceeded the Morin guidelines the court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and the accused’s right under Section 11(b) of the Charter has been violated and the trial within a reasonable time was infringed and negated.
The Criminal Justice System and its agencies encounter challenges while trying to perform their daily activities. The system deals with laws involving criminal behaviour. It dwells on three major agencies: the police, courts, and the corrections. Each agency has its own specific and important roles to contribute to society. This paper will explain both the roles and challenges each agency unfortunately battles.
When examining criminal justice systems it is important to note two important criminal justice models, the due process model and the crime control models. Most governments function based on several aspects from each criminal justice model; these crime models were initially introduced by Herbert Packer in 1968 (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2014). The due process model in the criminal justice system reflects the formal decision making process and highlights the importance of ensuring the criminal justice system works upon reliable knowledge (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2014). The crime control model is based on efficiency and ensuring crime is repressed as much as possible; this model promotes bargaining and often encourages defendants making deals with
The Canadian Criminal Justice System is, for the most part, reflective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various Supreme Court of Canada case-law. Everyone who finds themselves on the opposing end of the Criminal Justice System is entitled to certain protections every step of the way, beginning even before the arrest; laws protect us from unreasonable investigative techniques, guarantee certain rights at point of arrest, and provide us with the right to counsel. The bail court departs from the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in that the crown only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities (Kellough, 1996, p. 175) in order to take away a person’s freedom. It is for this reason I decided to limit the scope of my observations to the bail court. What I found is a systemic evidence of a two-tier justice system. In this essay, I will outline the roles of the 'regular players' of the bail court and demonstrate how the current bail process essentially transforms the Canadian Criminal Justice System into a two-tier system where the affluent and powerful are able to receive preferential treatment over the poor.
Within the Federal Government there are three main branches; “the Legislative, the Judicial, and Executive” (Phaedra Trethan, 2013). They have the same basic shape and the same basic roles were written in the Constitution in 1787.
The entire criminal justice system can be very frightening and even intimidating if someone fails to understand the meaning of terms used, procedures, laws, and rules (Cook, 2009). Criminal law is among the terms that have been defined differently by various sources. It is mainly concerned with a system of legal rules defining actions that are classified as crimes and the manner of which the government prosecutes people who commit crimes (Snyman, 2014). According to the chapter, some sources use it in a way that is very general that describes it as the entire spectrum of laws that deal with the criminal justice system while others use shorthand ways which terms it as substantive criminal law, which is very true.
The governance of our present day public and social order co-exist within the present day individual. Attempts to recognize the essentiality of equality in hopes of achieving an imaginable notion of structure and order, has led evidence based practitioners such as Herbert Packer to approach crime and the criminal justice system through due process and crime control. A system where packer believed in which ones rights are not to be infringed defrauded or abused was to be considered to be the ideal for procedural fairness. “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” Thomas Jefferson pg 9 cjt To convict an individual because proper consideration was not taken will stir up social unrest rather then it’s initial intent, when he or she who has committed the crime is not punished for their doings can cause for a repetition and even collaboration with other’s for a similar or greater crime.
The two models of crime that have been opposing each other for years are the due process model and the crime control model. The due process model is the principle that an individual cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards. ( Answers.Com) Any person that is charged with a crime is required to have their rights protected by the criminal justice system under the due process model. The crime control model for law enforcement is based on the assumption of absolute reliability of police fact-finding, treats arrestees as if they are already found guilty. (Crime control model) This paper will compare and contrast the role that the due process and crime control models have on shaping criminal procedure policy.
Crime control and due process are two different ideal types of criminal justice. One could say they are extremes on a continuum. The role of crime control is to get the criminal off the street and to protect the innocent. The due process model of criminal justice is like an obstacle course, you have to keep going through legal obstacles to ensure in the end you convict the right person. In Canada the police lean toward crime control and the courts lean toward due process. This causes tension between the police and the courts. I will argue for both crime control and due process, putting more weight on due process If we did not have due process in Canada, people in positions of power, could manipulate the system for their own personal or political gain and railroad the innocent off to prison.
The criminal justice system is a group of institutions that work together to protect a society, prevent and control crime, and maintain justice; enforcing the laws regulated by society. As the years have gone by and society has evolved; so have the criminal justice system and its methods to accomplish its role in society. This short analysis will evaluate the main facts that have been affecting the criminal justice system for decades and have influenced the evolution the justice system is enduring in a changing society (Muraski, 2009). Amongst the changes in the system, we will discuss the effect the changes have had on the citizens and how their perceptions have evolved as well.
The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.
The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process.
MATERIAL FACTS- the respondent, Mr. Micheal Rottman , is a German businessman and was suspected of fraud in Germany. A court in Germany issued a warrant for his arrest on the 27th December 1996. The respondent left Germany at the end of 1995. On 13TH September 2000 the metropolitan police received a request from the German authorities via Interpol, for the respondent’s extradition to Germany. On 22nd September 2000 a provisional warrant for the respondents arrest was issued by the Bow street magistrate’s court under section 8(1) of the extradition Act 1989. The respondent was arrested a few yards from his front door. Though in section 17 of the police and criminal evidence act 1984,the police had to enter the grounds of the house to arrest according to the warrant . After a short period of time two German police officers arrived and asked Detective Sergeant Loudon, the senior Metropolitan police officer to search the house and seized a number of properties in it. The respondent brought an application for judicial review against the appellant and the home secretary in respect of the decision by the police to enter his home in Hazlem...
Newburn, T., (2013) Criminology Tim Newburn. (2nd ed). 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon 0X14.4RN: Routledge.