o Was Keith correct in his decision not to call Amanda and Tom to give evidence?
Keith’s decision not to call on the testimony of Amanda and Tom was incorrect. This might be based on the fact that both of the said individuals did not see the actual occurrence of the accident. This might have given Keith the impression that the account of the two individuals may well be inadmissible in court considering that their accounts may be deemed as hearsay. The rule aligned with hearsay is administered by the common law, and is cause to undergo a variety of very technical exceptions. There are a couple of important grounds for the rule. The statement presented into evidence by hearsay is not steadfast evidence for the reason that the individual who made it would unable to be cross-examined. For the reason that evidence presented by hearsay similarly makes it awfully complicated for the soundness of the statement to be disputed by the conflicting party, it can bring about unfairness.
o What should he have done?
Although the Committal Hearing was done after the acquisition of the said statements, Keith should have submitted the said accounts of the witnesses and allow the presiding authorities to deem whether the statements of Amanda and Tom would be admissible in court. By not doing so, the court may find Keith of excluding the “truth” regarding his client, Philip. Specifically, testimony on the part of Amanda reveals that Philip was on a rush when she saw him. This may provide the impression that Philip was not “standing on the side of the road and looked both ways before crossing.” However, Keith could have easily rebutted by merely claiming that there was no actual evidence that his client failed to do what he claimed he did because a witness saw him running prior to the accident. It is also established in the account of the witness that she failed to see the actual accident and failed to see what the plaintiff was actually doing prior to the accident because she lost sight of him. In looking to the said discussion, Keith should have forwarded the said evidence in court. It is part of his duty as a prosecutor, to call all the witnesses. The provision of the statements subsequent to the Committal Hearing is a minor detail. Keith could have asked the appropriate individuals, specifically the judge and the opposing party, of the requirement and materiality of the testimony of Amanda and Tom to provide a clear picture of the actual events.
o Was Robert correct in his decision not to call Mathew to give evidence?
Robert’s decision to the calling of Mathew for his testimony was wrong. Particularly, Robert failed one of his duties to the court as a practitioner of the law by withholding information from the court. This may well be an indication that the failure of Robert to provide the testimony of Mathew, regardless of its materiality or immateriality on the court, as an intention to mislead the court of the proper assessment of the case. The testimony of Mathew may have established the reason and the actuality that William was indeed driving very fast as a result of his disposition. This actual disposition may be seen by the courts as an actual practice of “Driving in a Manner Dangerous to the Public.” Withholding such evidence from the courts has compromised the capacity of the court to effectively and efficiently render an appropriate ruling on the said case.
o Are there any distinctions between the Prosecutor’s responsibility and the Defence’s responsibility when calling witnesses?
Essentially, there are no particular distinctions regarding the responsibilities of the prosecutor or defence with regards to the calling of the witness. Both sides of the case are compelled by the courts to comply and be vigilant in upholding the rules of court whenever they are placed in trial. In the language of the Legal Profession Act of 1987, both are still recognized as “practitioners” that have a particular duty on their client and to the court. Specifically, these duties are outlined rules 17-24 of the Act. In taking this into account, the testimony of witnesses is regarded as evidence. Therefore, the calling of witnesses is similarly bound by the legal rules of evidence of the court. However, in the context of the Legal Profession Act of 1987, the prosecutor has a more specified set of duties that should be considered in handling cases and specifically calling witnesses. In part (a) of A66B, it is stated that the prosecutor “must call as part of the prosecution’s case all witness whose testimony is admissible and necessary for the presentation of the whole picture.” Thus, with this passage, it is apparent that the prosecutor has the responsibility of presenting the entire picture that would reveal the sequence of events that would establish a set of data that would aid the court in arriving at a sound judgment.
o Was Robert correct in not informing Keith or the Court about the recent decision?
Robert was wrong for not informing Keith or the court of the said decision regarding the mens rea case that he found in the internet. Even though Robert slightly indicated the existence of such case in the proceedings, he did it in such a way that it tried to mislead the court. (A.21) Moreover, he failed to rectify this mistake by engaging in actions that would correct the said misleading action. (A.22) Similarly, based on the Legal Profession Act of 1987, Robert is bound by A.25 to inform the court of any binding authority, precedent, or past cases held by “the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, a Court of Appeal of a Supreme Court or a Full Court of a Supreme Court.”
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment