A more recent version of these Case Analysis Interview Advising At Station notes – written by Cambridge And Oxilp And College Of Law students – is available here.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Criminal Litigation Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Work Shop 1
Case Analysis Theft Criminal Litigation Step 1: Element s of the Offence Step 2: What must the Prosecut ion Prove and what is the Burden of Proof?
Step 3: What Evidence does the Prosecut ion Have?
___________ has been arrested on suspicion of theft contrary to s.1 Theft Act '68 A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it (s.1(1)). This is an either-way offence.The prosecution must prove that:Who: Daisy SmithWhat: Stole a pair of designer Diesel jeans worth PS79.99When: On 5th February 2013Where: from the Continental Department Store in GuilfordHow: by concealing them insider her jacket and running out of the shop down a back alley when approached by the store detective, Mr Edward Peters. Burden of Proof: the legal burden of proof will be on the prosecution throughout the case and the evidence must prove that Daisy committed the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution have the initial evidential burden to show that Daisy has a case to answer to and defend. Statement of Daisy Smith 12.02.13Statement of Edward Peters 12.02.13He was on duty in plain clothes (therefore being conspicuous) on the day the designer jeans were stolen on 05/02/13He saw a woman matching the description of ____ looking nervous and "constantly looking around"He saw this woman conceal a pair of designer Diesel jeans worth PS79.99 in her jacket and leave the store without making any attempt to pay for them. She then ran off as Mr Peters approached herThere is CCTV evidence corroborating EP's claim that she left the store and then ran away as EP approached herWhen Daisy entered the store on 12/02/13, EP claims that she matched the description of the woman who ran away and believes it was the "same female"As soon as this woman enters the store and sees EP, she started to leave the store, possible in fear of being recognised Statement of David Jones 12.02.13There is no direct and explicit evidence that Daisy was the one who stole the jeansThe stock records and till receipts for 05/02/13 confirm that one pair of jeans was not accounted forThe CCTV evidence of 05/12/13 showing a female with hair matching Daisy's description running from the store when approached from behind by EP List of Previous ConvictionsThe convictions on 10.01.12 may be admissible under gateway s.101(1)(d) CJA 2003 ("CJA") if the prosecution can prove that they establish a propensity to commit offences of the same kind charged. The convictions prior to this are spent and therefore too old to be relevant (s.103(3) CJA).
Step 4: State the Suspect' s Defence Step 5: State what Evidence??
She could not have stolen the designer Diesel jeans on 05/02/13 because she was at home that week with her boyfriend, Leon Rogers She walked away from EP on 12/02/13 because she believed him to be a 'pervert' (he was in plain clothes and looking at her in an unusual way) not because she was frightened of being caught Daisy totally denies having anything to do with the theft in her statement of 12/02/13 If the evidential burden does indeed move to Daisy to rebut the prosecution's allegation, Daisy should provide facts and evidence in support of her defence: o Why did she go to the store on 12/02/13? To buy a pair of new shoes because her
Work Shop 1Supports the Defence?
old ones had split ? show the old shoes o Why did she leave the store as EP approached her? Because she felt that EP was giving her a 'funny look' and that he could have been a 'pervert'. EP was on duty in plain clothes on 05/12/13. We are not sure if this is the case on 12/02/12. If he was, Daisy would have no way of telling that he was a detective (hence the funny look and accusation of him being a pervert) until ID was shown. When it was shown, Daisy complied to be remanded. To rely on her alibi that she was with her boyfriend, Leon Rogers, on 05/12/13, Leon would be required to give evidence in support of this defence Burden of proof: the prosecution then must prove that this defence is not true beyond reasonable doubt
Case Analysis Fraud Criminal Litigation Step 1: Element s of the Offence Step 2: What must the Prosecut ion Prove and what is the Burden of Proof?
John SCOTT has been arrested on suspicion of having committed the offence of fraud by false representation contrary to s.2 of the Fraud Act 2006 A person is guilty of fraud if he dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation to either make a gain for himself or another, or to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss (s.2(1)). This is an either-way offence.The prosecution must prove that:Who: John SCOTT (date of birth 12 January 1980 of 11 The Avenue, Godalming, Surrey GU9 3LF)What: Made a false representationWhen: On 1st April 2014Where: at Omega Securities Ltd.How: claiming to have returned a Dell Inspiron 15R laptop serial no FG3876 valued at
PS589,00 to Omega Securities before leaving his job at Omega Securities Limited.Burden of Proof: the legal burden of proof will be on the prosecution throughout the case and the evidence must prove that John SCOTT committed the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution have the initial evidential burden to show that John SCOTT has a case to answer to and defend.
Work Shop 1 Statement of Annika Blohm dated 14 April 2014??Director of Omega Securities Limited On 1st April 2014 John Scott went to se her to informed her that he intended to leave Omega Securities to accept a job at Offshore Finance. In accordance with standard Co. polity she asked him to leave the office immediately and to sign a statement indicating what company equipment he had. He returned the Blackberry Immediately With regards to the Laptop he said that he had given it back. He was escorted out of the office.
Statement of Julia Benson dated 14 April 2014
Step 3: What Evidence does the Prosecut ion Have??Analyst at Omega Securities Limited Attends Pilates with Scott's partner (Chelsea) On 7th April Julia attended John Scott's home and noticed one of the Company's Dell Inspiron Laptops on the breakfast room where Scott's daughter was using it to do her homework. She knows it to be an Omega Security's laptop as it had the Company's name on the side of it.
Statement of Detective Constable Dawood Jarwar (369) dated 14 April 2014???
at 11:00, On 14 April 2014, , Detective Constable DJ attended the front desk at Guildford Police station where he met Scott John Tate, introduced himself and told him that "he was arresting him on suspicion of fraud. Mr Tate made no reply. Tate was taken into custody for questioning was authorised by PS 1101 Ferguson. At 12:35 DJ conducted an interview with Mr Tate and produced two exhibits. At 15:30 Tate was charged with the offence of Fraud Mr Tate made no reply.
Any Previous Convictions?
1 Theft offence (Theft Act 1968 s.1) 1 Fraud Offence (Fraud Act 2006 s.1) Step 4: State the Suspect' s Defence Step 5: State what Evidence Supports the Defence
Fined PS120.00 plus PS45 Costs
Imprisonment 3 MonthsHe denies telling Anika Blohm that he had given the laptop back. That is just not true. His mind was a bit of a blur and didn't expect to be told to clear his desk immediately when he handed over his notice to quit. There was never any conversation about the laptop. If there had been he would have told her that Ashok had told him to keep it.He needs to demonstrate that he offered to return the Laptop but that Ashok said that as the model was out of date he couldn't really use it and that if Scott knew of a good home for it, he was welcome to keep it. This was a phone call and Scott has no evidence of the conversation taking place. According to Scott Ashok, does not work for Omega any more. Scott does not have the computer anymore, he states that he gave it away to Oxfam last week (presumably sometime between the 7th and the 12th of April) Ashok's witness statement may clear the whole matter up. Burden of proof: the prosecution then must prove that this defence is not true beyond reasonable doubt??
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Criminal Litigation Notes.