Thanks for taking the time to read it. Please tell me mark you think it will get out of 15, and what I should change, add or remove to improve. I really appreciate this!
Assess the effectiveness of the criminal investigation process as a means of achieving justice (15 marks)
The criminal investigation process is a complex aspect of the legal system that aims to gather evidence lawfully, justly and in accordance with the rights of victims, suspects and society. The criminal investigation process encapsulates the powers of police to detain suspects, interrogate and to search and seize property, through the appropriate use of warrants and other legal means. The criminal investigation process also entails the rights of suspects, such as to bail and remand and the right to counsel during interrogation.
Firstly, it can be argued that the criminal investigation process is effective in achieving justice, as it protects the rights of suspects. For example, in the case of Darby v Department of Public Prosecutions (2004), Darby was acquitted of drug possession after it was found that the sniffer dog committed an illegal search, by coming in contact with Darby's genitals. Thus, under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), it was found that this evidence was unlawfully obtained and hence, inadmissible in court. According to Geesce Jacobson of, “The Sydney Morning Herald” (SMH, 5th June 2009), the conditions and circumstances for obtaining illegal evidence, might let probable suspects off and hence pervade the course of justice for victims and society, rendering it somewhat ineffective. However, the protection of suspects is of utmost priority in the criminal investigation process, the reading of a caution and following the principles of procedural fairness is pivotal, in a system that defends the individual rights of suspects during investigation, hence, deeming it as effective in achieving justice for suspects.
Next, it can be argued that the criminal investigation process is ineffective in achieving justice, as it fails to protect the rights of suspects. For instance, in the case of R. v. Jama (Victoria, 2008), the suspect, Jama, was wrongfully convicted of rape based on faulty DNA evidence. Following Jama's full exoneration, Milanda Rout of “The Australian” (3rd October, 2009), deemed this saga as a, “disastrous miscarriage of justice”. In addition, according to Adam Bennet of SMH, 2nd October 2009, DNA evidence is flawed, “because it goes through several hands and several stages”. Thus, the criminal investigation process failed to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and hence, for the suspect, who was deprived of his right to liberty, the victim, who failed to see justice on her part and society, who incarcerated an innocent man, it must be deemed that the criminal investigation process has failed to achieve justice for the rights of victims and suspects, reflecting its ineffectiveness.
Thirdly, it can be argued that the criminal investigation process is effective in achieving justice, as it meets the needs of society. For example, through state parliament's enactment of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibility) Act 2002 (NSW), police have specific authority and powers than enable them to protect society. Under this legislation, police have the powers to detain, question, search and seize evidence, use reasonable force and make arrests. Furthermore, this statute states all must be treated equally under the law, hence, testifying to the aim of the criminal investigation process, in meeting the needs of society, and hence, being effective. Similarly, the Bail Amendment Act 2007 (NSW), is effective for the criminal investigation process, as it limits one chance to apply for bail. According to retired magistrate, Paul Johnson, this ensures greater proof is required for bail applicants and hence, protects and achieves justice for society, by ensuring the presumptions against bail is certain.
Lastly, it can be argued that the criminal investigation process does not meet the needs of society, rendering it somewhat ineffective in achieving justice. For instance, the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 (Cth), does not reflect the communal values. In 2007, Indian doctor, Mohammed Haneef was held without charge for 16 days under this legislation and was deprived of his right to liberty as charges against him were subsequently dropped. Additionally, the Clarke Inquiry into the Haneef saga, found the government had no reasonable basis, other than unconfirmed circumstantial evidence to hold Haneef. These laws resulted in public outcry and thus, this legislation fails to meet the needs of society, where unprecedented police powers enable suspects to be held without charge indefinitely. This failure to comply with social needs, reflects the ineffective nature of the criminal investigation process as a means of achieving justice.
Overall, the criminal investigation process is both effective and ineffective in achieving justice. In regards to protecting the rights of suspects, in order to be effective in the future, as Milanda Rout of “The Australian”, recommends, there should be “national standards”, in the possession and investigation of DNA evidence. Similarly, in relation to meeting society's needs, it is necessary for the criminal investigation process, in the words of The Hon. Mr. Clarke QC, to have “reasonable grounds”, before enforcing the terrorism laws on innocent individuals. Hence, though the criminal investigation process is both ineffective and effective in achieving justice, by reforming, it can effectively achieve justice for victims, offenders and society.
Assess the effectiveness of the criminal investigation process as a means of achieving justice (15 marks)
The criminal investigation process is a complex aspect of the legal system that aims to gather evidence lawfully, justly and in accordance with the rights of victims, suspects and society. The criminal investigation process encapsulates the powers of police to detain suspects, interrogate and to search and seize property, through the appropriate use of warrants and other legal means. The criminal investigation process also entails the rights of suspects, such as to bail and remand and the right to counsel during interrogation.
Firstly, it can be argued that the criminal investigation process is effective in achieving justice, as it protects the rights of suspects. For example, in the case of Darby v Department of Public Prosecutions (2004), Darby was acquitted of drug possession after it was found that the sniffer dog committed an illegal search, by coming in contact with Darby's genitals. Thus, under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), it was found that this evidence was unlawfully obtained and hence, inadmissible in court. According to Geesce Jacobson of, “The Sydney Morning Herald” (SMH, 5th June 2009), the conditions and circumstances for obtaining illegal evidence, might let probable suspects off and hence pervade the course of justice for victims and society, rendering it somewhat ineffective. However, the protection of suspects is of utmost priority in the criminal investigation process, the reading of a caution and following the principles of procedural fairness is pivotal, in a system that defends the individual rights of suspects during investigation, hence, deeming it as effective in achieving justice for suspects.
Next, it can be argued that the criminal investigation process is ineffective in achieving justice, as it fails to protect the rights of suspects. For instance, in the case of R. v. Jama (Victoria, 2008), the suspect, Jama, was wrongfully convicted of rape based on faulty DNA evidence. Following Jama's full exoneration, Milanda Rout of “The Australian” (3rd October, 2009), deemed this saga as a, “disastrous miscarriage of justice”. In addition, according to Adam Bennet of SMH, 2nd October 2009, DNA evidence is flawed, “because it goes through several hands and several stages”. Thus, the criminal investigation process failed to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and hence, for the suspect, who was deprived of his right to liberty, the victim, who failed to see justice on her part and society, who incarcerated an innocent man, it must be deemed that the criminal investigation process has failed to achieve justice for the rights of victims and suspects, reflecting its ineffectiveness.
Thirdly, it can be argued that the criminal investigation process is effective in achieving justice, as it meets the needs of society. For example, through state parliament's enactment of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibility) Act 2002 (NSW), police have specific authority and powers than enable them to protect society. Under this legislation, police have the powers to detain, question, search and seize evidence, use reasonable force and make arrests. Furthermore, this statute states all must be treated equally under the law, hence, testifying to the aim of the criminal investigation process, in meeting the needs of society, and hence, being effective. Similarly, the Bail Amendment Act 2007 (NSW), is effective for the criminal investigation process, as it limits one chance to apply for bail. According to retired magistrate, Paul Johnson, this ensures greater proof is required for bail applicants and hence, protects and achieves justice for society, by ensuring the presumptions against bail is certain.
Lastly, it can be argued that the criminal investigation process does not meet the needs of society, rendering it somewhat ineffective in achieving justice. For instance, the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 (Cth), does not reflect the communal values. In 2007, Indian doctor, Mohammed Haneef was held without charge for 16 days under this legislation and was deprived of his right to liberty as charges against him were subsequently dropped. Additionally, the Clarke Inquiry into the Haneef saga, found the government had no reasonable basis, other than unconfirmed circumstantial evidence to hold Haneef. These laws resulted in public outcry and thus, this legislation fails to meet the needs of society, where unprecedented police powers enable suspects to be held without charge indefinitely. This failure to comply with social needs, reflects the ineffective nature of the criminal investigation process as a means of achieving justice.
Overall, the criminal investigation process is both effective and ineffective in achieving justice. In regards to protecting the rights of suspects, in order to be effective in the future, as Milanda Rout of “The Australian”, recommends, there should be “national standards”, in the possession and investigation of DNA evidence. Similarly, in relation to meeting society's needs, it is necessary for the criminal investigation process, in the words of The Hon. Mr. Clarke QC, to have “reasonable grounds”, before enforcing the terrorism laws on innocent individuals. Hence, though the criminal investigation process is both ineffective and effective in achieving justice, by reforming, it can effectively achieve justice for victims, offenders and society.
