Magistrates Court Mock Trial Competition. CASE 1: R. v LOW. Organised in partnership with. Sponsored by

Transcription

1 Magistrates Court Mock Trial Competition CASE 1: R. v LOW Sponsored by Organised in partnership with

2 R. v George Low case 1 Summary of Facts Following a call from a member of the public on a No 88 bus, police attended Newtown Memorial Park. There they met an off duty special constable who gave them a description of a group of teenagers, including that of the defendant, coming out of the bushes with bottles of vodka. The police quickly find the group kicking a ball about in the park. Two of this group, one of whom is the defendant, were swigging vodka from a bottle. The defendant George Low told the police that he/she found the bottles in the bushes. The police officer notices that the price ticket on the bottles has the name Carons Newsagents on it. The police officer is aware that the newsagents was trashed and looted about two hours earlier that day. The Charge On Saturday the 19 th November 2011 at New Town, George Low dishonestly received stolen goods, namely two bottles of vodka to the value of knowing or believing the same to be stolen, contrary to Section 22 of the Theft Act The Law Section 22(1) of the Theft Act 1968 states that a person handles stolen goods if knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person or if he arranges to do so. Section 22(2) of the Theft Act 1968 states that a person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. This is an offence which can be heard either in the Magistrates or Crown Court (either way offence). In this case the matter has been deemed suitable for hearing in the Magistrates Court and the defendant has consented to be tried there. 1

3 In the Magistrates Court of Newtown The Queen v George Low George Low is charged as follows: STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Handling stolen goods, contrary to section 22 Theft Act 1968 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE George Low, on 19 November 2011, handled goods purported to have been stolen from Carons Newsagents earlier on that day. All the witness statements that follow are signed by the witness and bear this declaration: This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true. 2

4 Prosecution Witness Statement 1 Name Inderjit Gill Date of birth 15 February 1965 Address c/o Green Bus Company, Newtown Bus Garage Occupation Bus Driver Date of statement 20 November 2011 I have worked for the Green Bus Company as a bus driver for six years. I was at work on the 19 November At about 4 pm I was driving along bus route 88, going towards the centre of Newtown. I had stopped at the Quadrant Bus Stop near the memorial park to let passengers get on and off the bus. A group of five teenagers got on the bus. They asked for child fares and I asked for their ID bus passes to confirm their age as they looked more like 20 to me. They immediately started being rude to me and their shouting became louder and quite threatening. There were some passengers on the bus and I could see in my mirror that one or two of them looked quite scared. I could hear a couple of the group talking about a newsagent, Carons. I heard them say, They had it coming, That ll teach them, Did you see the stuff Ali got? I was on the verge of calling for help when the youth wearing a bright orange stripy T shirt got a text message and then shouted, Let s go there s some stuff for us. With that they all got off the bus and started running towards the Memorial Park the entrance is about 4 minutes walk away from the bus stop. I was just about to drive off when a police car with the siren going stopped in front of me and two officers came running onto the bus. They told me a passenger on the bus had dialled 999 as there was some trouble with a group of youths. I briefly told them what had happened and gave a description, one had a distinctive orange stripy t shirt on and the other four all had various football shirts on one was a Manchester United, shirt, another Chelsea but I cannot recall the rest. I told the police I had seen the group run into the park. 3

5 Prosecution Witness Statement 2 Name Billie/Billy Catterick Date of birth 27 March 1983 Address 14 Grove Lane, Newtown Occupation Veterinary Nurse / Special Constable Date of statement 21 November 2011 I have been a special police constable for about three years. During this time I have become much more aware of events and people around me. I was not on duty but walking my dog through Memorial Park on 19 November I think the time was about 4.15 pm as I was getting a bit worried about being late for a dentist appointment that I had booked for 5 pm. I was walking towards the gate of the park on Quadrant Street and was about 100 metres away when I saw a group of five youths coming into the park through the gate. They were laughing and shouting and heading towards a large clump of bushes about 20 metres inside the park and just to the left hand side of the gate as you exit the park. They were being led by someone in a bright orange T shirt with broad horizontal stripes I now know this to be George Low. I saw George Low head into the bushes and emerge seconds later with a football in one hand and two bottles of vodka in the other. He/She was shouting Look here guys, see what I ve got for us. They then all went towards a large grass area. I had just got to the gate when police came running in and asked me if I had seen anyone wearing an orange T shirt. I quickly told them what I had seen. The police went off into the park to continue their search and I made my way home. 4

6 Prosecution Witness Statement 3 Name PC 516 Jordan Jones Address Newtown Police Station Date of statement 19 November 2011 Section 9 Statement This statement is simply to be read out in court. Nothing in it is disputed and the defence has no questions to ask this witness. I was in full uniform and on duty with PC Roberts on 19 November We were called to a bus in Quadrant Street where a passenger had dialled 999 as there was some trouble with a group of youths not paying their fare and arguing with the bus driver. By the time I arrived the group had gone but the bus driver gave brief details of what had happened and a description. He/She also related that he/she had heard the teenagers talking about a newsagent immediately before they left. I was aware that this newsagents - Carons - had been trashed and looted about two hours earlier. I had attended the newsagents following this incident and was aware that a large quantity of alcohol had been stolen from the premises. This gave me some cause for concern and I along with PC Roberts went into the Memorial Park to check on the group. On entering the park we saw Billie/Billy Catterick walking towards the gate and she/he stopped us as she/he had seen a group behaving suspiciously. Her/his description fitted with that of the bus driver and she/he pointed in the direction in which they had run. We found the group about 2 minutes later; three of them were kicking a football about. I saw two members of the group, one of whom was the defendant swigging a bottle of vodka. As it was early evening, about 4.20 pm, I asked one of the group where he/she had got the bottle from. He/She pointed to a youth, George Low. I then asked George Low where he/she had got this bottle from. He/She said he/she found it in the bushes. I could see that there was a sticky label on both bottles with the name Carons Newsagents above the price. Knowing that Carons Newsagents had been trashed and looted at about 2 pm that afternoon I became suspicious. I asked him/her where he had bought the bottles and he/she said he/she had not bought them but had found them in the bushes when he/she had gone to pick up his/her football which he/she had left earlier in the day. I asked him/her why he/she had left the football and he/she said he/she was going to football training at 5 pm and could not be bothered to carry it around town in the afternoon. He/She told me he/she usually does this. I asked him/her to show me where he/she had left it, which he/she did. I found a carrier bag with the name Caron Newsagents containing 8 packets of cigarettes tucked into a bush. George reiterated that he/she had found the bottle next to his/her football and he/she hadn t seen the carrier bag. I arrested George low on suspicion of handling stolen goods. 5

7 Defence Witness Statement 1 (Defendant) Name George Low Date of birth 19 January 1992 Address Flat 22, Oat Road, Newtown Occupation Unemployed Date of statement 19 November 2011 On November 19 I met up with my friends just after lunch. We planned to go to football at about 5 pm as there s a new group started in the park and its good fun. We wanted to go into town and I couldn t be bothered to carry my football around with me so I went and left it in the bushes I had done this the previous week. We ended up going to a mate s house nearby at about 3 pm and watched a DVD but it was rubbish. So at about 4 pm we decided to go into town as Sam, one of my mates, wanted to get some new trainers. We walked to the bus stop and got on a No 88. A couple of us had got a text about Carons newsagents being messed up and were talking about it. The guy in there has been really shirty with us lately only letting two of us in at a time. All of our group apart from me are 17 but the driver got real shirty and wouldn t let them pay the child fare. We were having a bit of an argument with him/her but only for about a minute and then I got a message from Taylor, the football coach to say he/she s got some new equipment for us. So I shouted to the lads, Let s go there s some stuff for us. We all piled off the bus and into the park which is pretty close by. I went to collect the football from the bushes and found two bottles of vodka nearby in a bag. It didn t seem to belong to anyone and I thought maybe a couple of tramps, you know, had left it there by mistake so I just took it so that we could have a drink - we can t afford it being unemployed and all that. We walked across the park and were just messing about kicking the ball and having a swig when the police came over. I showed the police where I found the bottles. I hadn t seen the bag with the cigarettes in before. I just found the bottle next to the football. We were just messing about waiting for Taylor our football coach to come along. 6

8 Defence Witness Statement 2 Name Taylor Bennett Date of birth 8 th July 1977 Address Flat 13, 22 Park Road, Newtown Occupation Salesman Date of statement 22 nd November 2011 I have completed my basic football coaching qualification and my CRB checks are all completed. At the end of September 2011 it was suggested that I might start a football club near the Memorial Estate to give the kids there something to do. I advertised and have about 20 youths turning up to every session now. George Low has been coming to the session s right from the beginning and is a good player. There are usually about half a dozen of them kicking a football about when I arrive at about 5 pm. I have got the basic stuff like goal posts but I have managed to get some money from a local charity to buy some team shirts. I picked up the shirts at lunchtime and just after sent a message to George telling him/her that I had a surprise for them and that I was going to try and get there a bit earlier. As it happened I got held up and arrived about 15 minutes late. There were about ten youths in all waiting for me and just messing about kicking a football. Two of them were really messing about and I suspect they were drunk. They told me that George had been arrested but they didn t say anything else. 7

9 Legal Advisor At the end of the trial, it is your job to sum up for the magistrates the main issues in this case. Try as far as possible to use your own words in explaining the case and make that explanation as simple and clear as you can. To do this well, you need first to have worked out in your own mind what the case is all about and what key messages you need to get across. Below is a summary of the law concerning handling (or receiving) stolen goods. Take note that the law referred to below may or may not be relevant to the circumstances of this particular case. You will therefore need to decide which parts apply. The main areas you will need to cover are: 1. The law which creates this offence s.22 Theft Act 1968 (1) A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person or if he arranges to do so. (2) A person guilty of handling stolen goods shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. This is an offence which can be heard either in the Magistrates or Crown Court (either way offence). In this case the matter has been deemed suitable for hearing in the Magistrates Court and the defendant has consented to be tried there. 2. Standard of Proof It is for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It was stated in the case of Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of a doubt: If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence of course it is possible but not in the least bit probable the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice. Where the defendant raises a defence, then that defence need only be proved on the balance of probabilities. That is, where the court can say: we think it more probable than not. 3. The Evidence As legal advisor, you must remind the magistrates that in making their decision, they must concentrate on the evidence they have heard in court. They should concentrate on those areas where there is a conflict of evidence or where the evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. In highlighting areas of 8

10 disagreement the magistrates are then directed to that evidence and will consider it in their retiring room. The magistrates will decide what each witness said and can make findings of fact on those issues. It is not necessary for you to summarise what each of the witnesses has said in court but it will be helpful if you have made a note for yourself of what the prosecutor said when the case started and the points made by the defence when they summed up the case at the end. This will enable you to remind the magistrates what the prosecution said they would set out to prove and why the defence argued that the magistrates should find not guilty. You may find it useful in advising the magistrates to suggest some questions they might ask themselves. Try to use your own words and style but here are some examples: What evidence exists that the vodka is stolen? What evidence exists to show that the vodka stolen from the newsagent is the same one being consumed in the park? What evidence is there to show that George knew or believed the vodka to be stolen? Is there any reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of any of the witnesses? Is there any evidence to demonstrate that the defendant should be believed? Remember, there are two elements to this offence (apart from the fact that the goods must be stolen) both of which must be present, to the requisite standard of proof, for the offence to be made out. These elements are the guilty act (actus reus) and the guilty mind (mens rea). These are two elements that are involved in almost every crime: You will not need to explain what a guilty act and a guilty mind is, but you will need to remind the magistrates that both of these elements are needed for the defendant to be found guilty. The test of knowing or believing is subjective ie what did George know or believe at the time of the alleged offence. It must be proved that the defendant was aware of a theft or that he/she believed the goods to be stolen. Mere suspicion, even if he/she shut his/her eyes to the circumstance, is insufficient though such evidence may be relevant to determining the issue. FOR REFERENCE 1. Actus reus: a guilty act The actus reus refers to the basic fact that the crime took place; for example, the actus reus of theft is the appropriation (taking) of property that belongs to another. A failure to act can also constitute an actus reus, eg if an animal is left to starve by its owners. In relation to the offence of handling stolen goods, this element would be the act of receiving the goods. 2. Mens rea: a guilty mind The mens rea is the guilty state of mind of the accused at the time of committing the actus reus. The mens rea varies from crime to crime; it could be intent, recklessness or negligence. Some crimes crimes of strict liability require no mens rea, simply the actus reus is enough for conviction eg many crimes involving the safety of food are strict liability. In relation to the offence of handling stolen goods, this element would be knowing or believing the goods to have been stolen, and dishonesty. 9