CRIMINAL JUSTICE ASSIGNMENT
Importance of the final report as well as the possible impact of poorly completed final reports
The summary of the trial file for the approval officer (usually in the form of a covering memo), explaining where necessary any delay in completing the investigation as well as/or report; the trial case, including draft information; the investigation report, consisting of the factual report as well as analysis, if the case arises from an investigation of an accident or incident; a note of any points of law that may arise, together with any relevant case(s) as well as references to case reports or journals in which they are reported; an EMM Enforcement Assessment Record form; copies of witness statements, typed where appropriate, as well as any expert evidence; copies of relevant photographs, maps or plans; copies of any drawings or diagrams, labelled with measurements where appropriate, including those you or other investigators have produced to assist in the understanding of the facts; any other documentary evidence (e.g. accident reports etc.); a summary or transcript of any PACE conference with the planned defendant; any correspondence with the defendant (e.g. previous letters of advice or warning); copies of relevant HSE inspection records from the computer database, e.g. COIN/records, relating to the inspection or investigation leading to the proposed trial or relevant contacts with the duty holder prior to the alleged offence; a Companies House search confirming, for example: that the company is registered; the correct name of the company; the registered office of the company (for service of the summons); as well as whether the company is in the course of being wound up; in the more complex or serious cases or where a not guilty plea is anticipated, completed schedules of unused material as required under CPIA. You should refer to the Disclosure section for further information on what should be included in CPIA schedules; clear reference to any material, whether used or unused, which might undermine the trial case or assist the defence; any documents as well as statements required to show the defendant’s safety record; a witness check for any previous convictions, if the case relies on the credibility of a particular witness; the views of the victim, including any victim personal statement taken
The information which the report should consider the report, you must identify the essential elements of the case as well as the most reliable admissible evidence by which each element will be proved. You should include any facts or information favorable to the defendant or which are likely to be employed by the defense, as well as any representations received from the defendant concerning the potential trial. You should also consider what evidence may be required to rebut possible lines of argument from the defense; where an offense under consideration involves the failure to do something ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’, it is advisable to adduce trial evidence to show what measures it would have been reasonably practicable for the defendant to take. This may include, for example: HSE or industry guidance, or expert evidence, to counter any potential defence arguments on foreseeability1; or where the defence may argue that the actions (or omissions) of an employee were not foreseeable, evidence of wider custom as well as practice, human factors or the hierarchy of control measures.
See the section Proving the offence for further guidance on reasonable practicability, section 40 HSWA as well as ‘advance rebuttal’. You should also record the views of the victim (injured person or bereaved) about the proposed trial. If a victim personal statement (VPS) has been taken, this should be provided to the Approval Officer. If the victim has not made a VPS, his/her views should nevertheless be considered in the trial report. The VPS scheme is one element in HSE’s policy on working with victims. You should set out the aggravating, mitigating as well as other factors relevant to sentencing, so as to provide a clear summary for the approving officer. This will also facilitate the production of a Friskies schedule if the case is approved (see the section on Sentencing as well as Costs). Where, because of the particular nature of a case, senior management has been kept informed of its progress, you should include details of senior management comments/input in the report. Timeliness of reports as well as time limits. You should draw up a trial report as well as submit it to the Approval Officer as soon as possible after you have concluded your enquiries. You should meet any time standard set by your Directorate, as well as include in the report a written clarification for any delay. A defendant is entitled to “trial within a reasonable time” 3 as well as any undue delay in undertaking a trial may lead to the defence arguing that the trial is an abuse of process.
Most HSE cases may be heard either before the magistrates or at Crown Court (“triable either way”). Whilst there must not be unreasonable delay, there are no limits for laying the information in such cases. A few cases are summary only, as well as the information must be laid within 6 months of the offence, unless s.34(3) as well as (4) HSWA apply.
Section 18(1) HSWA imposes a duty upon HSE to make adequate arrangements for the enforcement of health as well as safety law. In all cases, the trial is conducted on behalf of HSE. However, it is important to distinguish the role of laying an information from that of bringing a trial.
In line with other enforcement regimes, the responsibility for laying an information lies with an individual, i.e. the inspector. The responsibility for deciding whether to commence a trial on behalf of HSE is a different role. This function, which involves assessing as well as approving cases for trial, is undertaken by the Approval Officer who is, in most cases, a Principal Inspector. In certain cases, the Approval Officer should consider notifying senior managers of the circumstances of the case before s/he makes any trial decision; a more senior officer may decide to take on the role of Approval Officer instead 4. ## When a file is forwarded to an Approval Officer, you will already have applied the standards under the Enforcement Management Model PDF as well as obtained an indication of the type of enforcement action that HSE would normally expect to be taken. The proposed action is still subject to approval by the Approval Officer, who will have an opportunity to consider any relevant “dutyholder or strategic factors”. The EMM helps to ensure that HSE meets its commitment to consistency, proportionality as well as targeting in relation to its enforcement decisions, in accordance with in accordance with HSE’s Enforcement Policy Statement. The Approval Officer will also consider the views of the suspect, or its representative in the case of a body corporate. T the suspect may l have been interviewed under caution during the course of the investigation (see Collecting Witness Evidence – Interviewing Suspects) as well as therefore will have been given an opportunity to put forward their views as well as representations in that interview. Where no interview under caution has taken place, the suspect will have been invited to provide any written representations s/he may wish to make in relation to the investigation.
If the suspect’s representations are obtained (either in an interview under caution or in writing) a significant period of time before the approval process, it will be necessary to check with the suspect at that stage whether they wish to make any further representations. This check should be done in writing, unless you intend to hold a further interview under caution for other reasons.
Where written representations are received, they should not be treated as evidence against the person supplying them. However, they may be useful in other ways; for example, they may: reveal further lines of enquiry; or inform you of matters which may be relevant to the trial decision; or provide new information which may be relevant to the public interest stage of the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
It is important that you do not query a suspect about an alleged offence without observing the Codes of Practice under PACE, as this may be viewed as unfair. If you invite a suspect to make representations (other than during an interview under caution), you should always do so in writing.
Use of evidence in the process of criminal justice stages
Crime
Obviously, the criminal justice process begins with the commission of a crime. A short definition of a crime is “an act in violation of the criminal law.” For example, theft occurs when a person takes property from its owner with the intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently. Normally, when a crime is committed, it is not immediately detected by the police. Rather, it is typically reported to the police either by the victim or by another citizen who discovers the crime. Therefore, any law or criminal justice policy that discourages citizens from getting involved in the process will be detrimental to the operations of the criminal justice network.
Investigation
Police investigation, the second stage in the criminal justice process, begins when the patrol officer responds to the scene of the alleged crime. If police determine that the act was not illawful, then the case gets filtered out of the criminal justice network as well as thus does not lead to the next stage, arrest. If the responding officers determine that a crime was in fact committed, their primary job is to “solve the crime,” which in law enforcement terms equates to making an arrest. Ideally, a criminal investigation leads the police to answer the query, “Who done it?” Patrol officers conduct a preliminary investigation at the crime scene; later, when the scene has been secured, trained detectives conduct a secondary investigation. The primary goal of the preliminary investigation is to secure the crime scene to protect the integrity of the evidence as well as to identify, locate, as well as query potential witnesses as well as/or victims. The secondary or follow-up investigation will lead to a more thorough collection, preservation, as well as presentation of evidence.
Arrest
Once police identify a suspect by collecting enough high-quality evidence, their goal is to remove the alleged offender from the street. This is usually accomplished through an arrest. An arrest occurs when the police take a suspect into custody so that trial of the suspect may begin. Generally, arrests must be based on probable cause—a reasonable belief that a particular person has committed a crime. For serious crimes such as felonies, police officers “must have knowledge of sufficient facts as well as circumstances that would allow a person of reasonable caution to believe that a crime has been committed” (Gottfredson, 1999: 31).
Booking
After arrest, booking occurs. At this point, an administrative record is made of the suspect. Typically, his or her photograph as well as fingerprints are taken, as well as he or she may be queryed further by the police as well as/or placed in a lineup for witness or victim identification.
Initial Appearance
After being formally charged with a crime or crimes by the trial, the suspect makes an initial appearance before a judge. At this stage, the suspect is notified of the charges against him or her as well as is advised of his or her rights. The judge determines whether bail is necessary; if not the suspect is released on his or her promise to reappear for trial (called release on own recognizance). When a flight risk exists because the judge fears the suspect may flea the jurisdiction to avoid trial, suspects may be required to post bail, or even be held in preventive detention in cases where the judge determines there a flight risk as well as some danger to the community. If the judge determines that there is not enough evidence to warrant the charges, the case may be dismissed by the judge as well as hence filtered out of the criminal justice network.
Preliminary Hearing / Grand Jury
Assuming a case is not dismissed, the next stage in the criminal justice process is either a preliminary hearing or a grand jury, depending on the jurisdiction in which the case is being heard. Both of these mechanisms are ideally intended to ensure that innocent persons are not hastily, maliciously, or arbitrarily prosecuted. In reality, these processes are typically one-sided as well as almost always result in a finding that there is probable cause to warrant a person being detained until trial. This can be a major impediment to fairness in the criminal justice process, because findings of preliminary hearings as well as grand juries are routinely published in local media, perhaps creating assumptions among the public that named defendants are already guilty of crimes, even though in fact they have not yet been convicted of anything.
Arraignment
At arraignment, the next step in the process, the accused is read the information or indictment by the judge. The suspect then has the right to enter a plea of guilty, not guilty, or nolo contendere (no contest). Upon a plea of guilty or no contest, sentencing may take place immediately because a trial is not necessary to determine guilt. Pleas of guilty are not to be accepted by the judge unless several assurances from the accused are received. The reality is that plea bargaining occurs in more than 90% of all cases before U.S. courts, as well as the suspect is presumed guilty by virtually all involved, including the suspect’s own attorney.
Trial
Although the right to trial is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, three amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as numerous Supreme Court decisions, very few U.S. citizens have a reasonable expectation of a criminal trial when charged with a crime. As noted, more than 90% of defendants plead guilty to the charge(s) as well as thus do not need a trial. When a trial does occur, it becomes a contest between the government (trial) as well as the accused (defense) to win as well as secure their own interests. Ideally, our agencies of criminal justice are adversarial in nature, because they are supposed to feature two adversaries fighting it out for the truth. But the ideal is very different from the reality. Gaines, Kaune, as well as Miller (2000: 286) state it this way: “Television dramas often depict the courtroom as a battlefield, with prosecutors as well as defense attorneys spitting fire at each other over the loud as well as insistent protestations of a frustrated judge. Consequently, many people are somewhat disappointed when they witness a real courtroom at work.” Even when trials do occur, they commonly produce cooperation rather than battle.
Sentencing
When defendants are found guilty by a jury of their peers or by a bench trial (where a judge determines guilt or innocence), the next step in the process is sentencing. When suspects are found not guilty or acquitted, they are filtered out of the criminal justice network as well as cannot be retried for the same offense because of the Fifth Amendment protection of freedom from double jeopardy. Sentencing addresses the querys: “What do we do with the lawfully guilty? What punishment should be administered?” Judges typically bear the responsibility for passing sentences, which are recommended by juries. Judges have discretion within certain guidelines in indeterminate sentences (which specify a range of possible sanctions) but have less discretion in determinate sentences (which are specific to the type of crime committed), as well as no discretion in mandatory sentences.
Appeal
Those convicted of criminal offenses, particularly serious crimes, have the right to appeal their convictions to appellate courts, or courts of appeals. Those convicted through plea bargains give up this right, along with many others. Convicted offenders can appeal on the basis of any matter of law—for example, that the trial court somehow failed to follow proper procedures or that Constitutional rights were violated at some point in the process. Perhaps unlawfully obtained evidence was admitted into trial, or maybe a defendant’s evidence was wrongfully excluded from trial. In these cases, appeals may be allowed, yet in the vast majority of cases, appeals are denied. Because appeals are made on matters of law rather than fact, a convicted criminal cannot simply argue that he or she is “really innocent!” Calls to review jury decisions often fall on deaf ears.
Corrections
Once a sentence is passed, correctional services such as probation, jails, prisons, as well as numerous other agencies administer the sanctions imposed by the court. Probation, a form of punishment that allows the offender to live in the community under certain rules, is the most widely used form of the criminal justice sanction in the United States. Probation, the cheapest sanction available, is intended for less serious offenders. Jails as well as prisons are forms of incarceration, where offenders are deprived of their freedom as well as locked away from the rest of society. Jails are intended for persons sentenced to less than one year of incarceration, prisons for those sentenced to more than one year of incarceration.
Release
Once a sentence has been fully served, a person is released from the criminal justice network in what is supposed to be the final stage of the process. Offenders are also commonly released early from incarceration through the process of parole, which allows the offender to be released back into the community prior to serving his or her full sentence, as long as he or she agrees to live under certain rules. In the current “get tough” environment in the United States, parole has been abolished at the federal level as well as in many states.
Definition of a criminal investigator role
The lawful investigator must have good command of the English language as well as proper grammar. Reports created by the lawful investigator must be detailed but concise as well as easily understood by the client as well as attorneys on the defence team. A chronological order of his/her actions in each case should be kept, as well as all reports should reflect the time as well as date of any action taken by the lawful investigator. The practice of including a spiral bound lawful pad in each case file for field as well as progress notes for reference as well as authenticity should be established by the lawful investigator.
Preparation of Exhibits
The lawful investigator should review, organize as well as label each exhibit planned to be used at trial. If the lawful investigator possesses the skills to draw scene drawings on computer or mechanical drawings, his/her value is increased dramatically. These can be drawn with a simple program such as “Paint” provided in the Windows 95 software or a variety of other drawing programs available at reasonable costs. These drawings as well as photographs can be “blown up” to poster size or done on transparency for overhead projection for the courtroom presentation, providing a prepared, professional image for the defence team. Juries look for as well as expect this type of preparedness. The Court will also appreciate this as well as will not take opportunities to “get on to” the attorneys for causing delays thereby lessening the credibility of the presentation before the jury.
A well- prepared, professional presentation of the case will win points with a jury, rather than a haphazard, unorganized as well as lackadaisical attitude toward the presentation. The practice of attaching a “Prepared by” label or text box on any documents, drawings or photographs should be established. This keeps the name of the defence in front of the jury, as well as they realize that you have gone to great lengths in your preparation as well as investigation even though the defence “doesn’t have the burden of proof”.
Courtroom Testimony
The lawful investigator may be called upon to provide testimony in any case which he/she works. It is imperative that the integrity, reliability as well as truthfulness of the investigator is above reproach.
The lawful investigator must never “manufacture” evidence, only testify truthfully to the evidence available. The use of “jargon” as well as “trendy” language or phrases should be avoided. Again, a well- prepared, organized as well as professional demeanour is required to enhance the lawful investigator’s credibility with the jury as well as the Court.
Follow Up Investigation
In the event the lawful investigator is not expected to testify during the trial, he/she should be in the courtroom listening carefully to each witness testify as well as take careful trial notes in order to identify discrepancies as well as inconsistencies of their previous statements. Sometimes querys arise about weather conditions, lighting conditions, traffic flow, time of day, etc. The lawful investigator should be prepared to check on these issues immediately as well as relay an answer to the defence counsel in order to use it in cross examination. The lawful investigator should be available to meet with the attorneys at breaks as well as after testimony each day in order to go over the day’s events as well as plan for the following day.
Differentiating not guilty as well as acquitted
Verdict of not guilty constitutes an acquittal. In other words, to find a defendant not guilty is to acquit. At trial, an acquittal occurs when the jury (or the judge if it’as a judge trial) determines that the trial has’t proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (But see Jury Nullification.) A jury can find a defendant not guilty of some, but not all charges. In that scenario, the acquittal is only partial. A not-guilty verdict is not the only way for an acquittal to come about. Trial judges as well as appeals courts can, for example, effectively acquit defendants by finding that there was insufficient evidence of guilt. While there’s no way for the trial to appeal a verdict of not guilty, there is sometimes an opportunity to appeal a court’s judgment of acquittal.
Changes that will take place in criminal investigation in 20 years’ time
By 2030, the world will be more complicated, divided between a broad American sphere of influence in Europe, the Middle East as well as south Asia, as well as a Chinese sphere in east Asia as well as Africa. Even within its own sphere, the US will face new challenges from former peripheries. The large, educated populations of Poland, Turkey, Brazil as well as their neighbours will come into their own as well as Russia will continue its revival. Nevertheless, America will probably remain the world’s major power. The critics who wrote off the US during the depression of the 1930s as well as the stagflation of the 1970s lived to see it bounce back to defeat the Nazis in the 1940s as well as the Soviets in the 1980s. America’s financial problems will surely deepen through the 2010s, but the 2020s could bring another Roosevelt or Reagan. Sign up to the new-look Media Briefing: bigger, better, brighter. A hundred years ago, as Britain’s dominance eroded, rivals, particularly Germany, were emboldened to take ever-greater risks. The same will happen as American power erodes in the 2010s-20s. In 1999, for instance, Russia would never have dared attack a neighbour such as Georgia but in 2009 it took just such a chance. The danger of such an adventure sparking a great power war in the 2010s is probably low; in the 2020s, it will be much greater.