CONTENTS. Introduction Part 1: The nature of crime. Part 4: Sentencing and punishment. Part 2: The criminal investigation process

Transcription

1 CONTENTS Introduction Part 1: The nature of crime 1.1 The meaning of crime The elements of crime: actus reus, mens rea Strict liability offences Causation Categories of crime Summary and indictable offences Parties to a crime Factors affecting criminal behaviour Crime prevention: situational and social 22 Part 2: The criminal investigation process 2.1 Police powers Reporting crime Investigating crime Arrest and charge, summons, warrants Bail or remand Detention and interrogation, rights of suspects 34 Part 3: Criminal trial process 3.1 Court jurisdiction The adversary system Legal personnel Pleas, charge negotiation Legal representation, including legal aid Burden and standard of proof Use of evidence, including witnesses Defences to criminal charges The role of juries, including verdicts 52 Part 4: Sentencing and punishment 4.1 Statutory and judicial guidelines The purposes of punishment Factors affecting a sentencing decision The role of the victim in sentencing Appeals Types of penalties Alternative methods of sentencing Post-sentencing considerations 68 Part 5: Young offenders 5.1 Age of criminal responsibility The rights of children when questioned or arrested Children s court: procedures and operation Penalties for children Alternatives to court 78 Part 6: International crime 6.1 Categories of international crime Dealing with International Crime 82 Student Glossary 84 Themes and challenges 87 References 88 List of URLs 89 3 Copyright C.K. Williams & G.H. Williams 2017

2 1.7 Parties to a crime R v Stanford, Marcus [2016] NSWSC 1174 Case summary On the 5th of April 2015, Vincent Stanford sexually assaulted school teacher Stephanie Scott before he stabbed her to death. This case received much publicity as the community of Leeton came to terms with the tragic and violent nature of Stephanie s death only a week out from her wedding. Following the murder, Vincent made contact with his twin brother Marcus saying that he would send him an envelope to keep safe. This envelope contained Ms Scott s drivers licence and jewellery. The accused held onto the victim s property before selling two rings on May 9th at Adelaide Exchange Jewellers on the instructions of Vincent Stanford. Marcus also burnt the victim s drivers licence. Vincent Stanford was found guilty of the sexual assault and murder of Stephanie Scott and is set to be sentenced in October Marcus Sanford was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to murder. Under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), the offence of being an accessory after the fact to murder carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years. Discussion points Should Marcus be punished? What punishment is appropriate for Marcus Stanford? Conclusion Marcus was sentenced to 1 year and 3 months (which expires 9 September 2016) for being an accessory after the fact to the murder of Stephanie Scott. STUDENT VERSION valid until 1/11/2018 Copyright C.K. Williams & G.H. Williams

3 Comprehension and revision questions 1. Identify the four parties to a crime. 2. Of the four parties to a crime, identify the role played by both Vincent and Marcus Stanford. 3. Do you agree with the sentence given to Marcus Stanford? Give reasons for your answer. Sample case integration The law recognises all those who have a part to play in the execution of criminal acts. This includes those who help a person plan a crime and those who harbour an offender after a crime. In the case of R v Stanford, Marcus (2016), the principal in the first degree was Vincent Stanford who had planned and executed the violent murder of Stephanie Scott. His brother Marcus was an accessory after the fact as he helped Vincent dispose of evidence which linked Vincent to the crime. Both Vincent and Marcus were convicted for their involvement in the crime and Marcus received a 15 month jail sentence for being an accessory after the fact. The purpose of identifying different parties to a crime is to ensure that those involved in breaking the law are held accountable for their actions. Extension activity Investigate the 2009 Mascot airport brawl and murder of Anthony Zervas. Find out the facts of the offence and charges laid on each accused person. Why did these charges differ? 19 Copyright C.K. Williams & G.H. Williams 2017

4 4.3 Factors affecting a sentencing decision R v Isbitzki [2017] NSWDC 41 Case summary At approximately 1:00am on 8 April 2016, Mr Jason Mark Isbitzki (who was on bail) and two other men entered a home in Bonnyrigg, NSW. Isbitzki was dressed in a black hoodie, beanie, sunglasses and gloves, and wore a bandana as a mask. Isbitzki had damaged the power box, which cut power prior to entering the property. At the sound of a glass smashing, two of the residents awoke and ran downstairs to see what was going on, however the lights were not working. When the residents noticed the broken window, they both ran outside. Armed with a screw driver and rusted meat cleaver, the offender walked up to the victims saying Don t call the cops back off! One victim fell and Isbitzki went over to him, stood over him and, pointing the screwdriver, said If you call the cops, we know where you live. The two co-offenders then walked to the other victim, a female,and said, Give us the money. The female victim said she did not know what money they were talking about. The offenders went back inside the property. At this time the victims managed to flag down a passing car and asked them to call the police who arrived at the property and arrested the offenders. Isbitzki pleaded guilty to aggravated break and enter with the intent to steal. A report by Dr Ashkar, a forensic psychologist and clinical neuropsychologist, stated that the offender expressed considerable regret and remorse for his behaviour. Discussion points Under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) aggravated break and enter with intent to steal can carry a maximum sentence of 14 years. What sentence would be suitable for Isbitzki? Conclusion Isbitzki was sentenced to a 6 year gaol sentence. STUDENT VERSION valid until 1/11/2018 Copyright C.K. Williams & G.H. Williams

5 Comprehension and revision questions 1. List the elements that show Isbitzki s intent to commit a crime. 2. Identify the aggravating factors in this case. 3. Outline how the early plea and mitigating factors helped reduce Isbitzki s sentence. 4. Do you agree with the sentence given by the judge? Give reasons for your answer. Sample case integration In determining appropriate sentences it is essential that the courts consider the facts of each case. Mitigating factors are those that the magistrate or judge considers that can reduce a sentence. These include the level of cooperation or remorse shown by the convicted offender. In the case of R v Isbitzki (2017), Isbitzki entered an early plea of guilty. This shows he took responsibility for his actions which entitles him to the maximum sentence discount of 25%. In addition, showing remorse for his action also helped reduce the sentence further. Aggravating factors are those which make an offence worse and can lead to an increased sentence. In the case of R v Isbitzki (2017), Isbitzki was armed and in company. These factors led to minimum custodial sentence of six years. 59 Copyright C.K. Williams & G.H. Williams 2017