I'm much aware that I still need to write a conclusion, I need some feedback on this asap. the question is "explain the investigation progress and it's effectiveness"
In the assessment of the investigation process it was found that it can achieve justice by using evidence lawfully and justly and in agreement with the rights of victims, suspects and society, and corrects its errors when they are made to justify falsely convicted people. Three different aspects of the investigation process will be examined, these are police powers, physical evidence and bail and remand. The process is effective regarding finding evidence to prosecute a suspect and ineffective with regards to police not using their powers according to the law and the Bail Act not being used enough.
The investigation process begins with the police powers that are written in the Law Enforcement (Power and Responsibilities) Act 2002 AKA the LEPRA. The LEPRA was created after the Wood Royal Commission. The criminal investigation process can be effective in achieving justice as it protects the rights of suspects. In the case of Darby v Department (2004), Darby was innocent of drug possession after it was found that the sniffer dog committed an illegal search, by meeting Darby's pocket. Under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), it was found that this evidence was unlawfully obtained and was inadmissible in court., which made Mr Darby innocent Although the evidence was obtained unlawfully the police have the right to search without a warrant on reasonable suspicion as found in s 21 of LEPRA. In 2012 the bill would insert a new Subsection 148 (1)(d) into the LEPRA to extend the use of sniffer dogs for general drug detection in authorised places. Because the dog touched his pocket without his consent it was considered an unlawful search. Glass JA said: “In my opinion, Rocky’s sniffing in the vicinity of the appellant, indicating that there was a scent without putting his nose on it, was not a search.” [para 62]. This case shows that the LEPRA has worked effectively as it protected the right of Darby by proving that he was searched without consent which was against In the Cory Barker case, the police physically abused Mr Barker and lied about the video footage evidence that was later used to find them guilty.
It can be argued that the criminal investigation process is ineffective in achieving justice, as it fails to protect the rights of suspects. The investigation process is the process of finding evidence to prove a person of a crime that they either did or didn’t commit. It begins with the reporting of a crime, from a witness, worried citizen or family of a missing person. Evidence can range from physical evidence such as documents, weapons and clothing or electronic like photos, phone records or anything that can be put on a computer. Evidence can also be statements from witnesses. In the case of R. v. Jama (Victoria, 2008), Mr Jama was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault based on faulty DNA evidence. Because of the mix-up, Mr Jama spent three months in prison. This case shows how the investigation process failed to prevent a miscarriage of justice and ended in a false conclusion. The use of physical evidence is usually very effective in most cases but is not in Mr Jama’s. Physical evidence like this is used to track down the offender which, in a way, it did, but it was concluded to be the wrong person. The criminal investigation process failed to prevent a mistake of justice for the suspect who was disadvantaged of his right to freedom. The victim also failed to see justice on her part and society, who imprisoned an innocent man. The criminal investigation process has failed to achieve justice for the rights of victims and suspects, reflecting its ineffectiveness.
Bail and remand is an important part of the investigation process as bail and remand both lead to a trial which can either deem the suspect innocent or guilty. After a person has been arrested, they will either have “one shot at bail” (s22A Bail Act 1978) or be held in remand. In 1978 the Bail Act was made and since 2002 there were lots of reforms that made being granted bail harder to get, such as presumption against bail….. In 2013 the unacceptable risk test was introduced and 2014 introduced the show cause test. The bail amendment 2015 re-introduced presumption against bail for terrorism offences..... I still have to write this paragraph on bail...
In the assessment of the investigation process it was found that it can achieve justice by using evidence lawfully and justly and in agreement with the rights of victims, suspects and society, and corrects its errors when they are made to justify falsely convicted people. Three different aspects of the investigation process will be examined, these are police powers, physical evidence and bail and remand. The process is effective regarding finding evidence to prosecute a suspect and ineffective with regards to police not using their powers according to the law and the Bail Act not being used enough.
The investigation process begins with the police powers that are written in the Law Enforcement (Power and Responsibilities) Act 2002 AKA the LEPRA. The LEPRA was created after the Wood Royal Commission. The criminal investigation process can be effective in achieving justice as it protects the rights of suspects. In the case of Darby v Department (2004), Darby was innocent of drug possession after it was found that the sniffer dog committed an illegal search, by meeting Darby's pocket. Under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), it was found that this evidence was unlawfully obtained and was inadmissible in court., which made Mr Darby innocent Although the evidence was obtained unlawfully the police have the right to search without a warrant on reasonable suspicion as found in s 21 of LEPRA. In 2012 the bill would insert a new Subsection 148 (1)(d) into the LEPRA to extend the use of sniffer dogs for general drug detection in authorised places. Because the dog touched his pocket without his consent it was considered an unlawful search. Glass JA said: “In my opinion, Rocky’s sniffing in the vicinity of the appellant, indicating that there was a scent without putting his nose on it, was not a search.” [para 62]. This case shows that the LEPRA has worked effectively as it protected the right of Darby by proving that he was searched without consent which was against In the Cory Barker case, the police physically abused Mr Barker and lied about the video footage evidence that was later used to find them guilty.
It can be argued that the criminal investigation process is ineffective in achieving justice, as it fails to protect the rights of suspects. The investigation process is the process of finding evidence to prove a person of a crime that they either did or didn’t commit. It begins with the reporting of a crime, from a witness, worried citizen or family of a missing person. Evidence can range from physical evidence such as documents, weapons and clothing or electronic like photos, phone records or anything that can be put on a computer. Evidence can also be statements from witnesses. In the case of R. v. Jama (Victoria, 2008), Mr Jama was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault based on faulty DNA evidence. Because of the mix-up, Mr Jama spent three months in prison. This case shows how the investigation process failed to prevent a miscarriage of justice and ended in a false conclusion. The use of physical evidence is usually very effective in most cases but is not in Mr Jama’s. Physical evidence like this is used to track down the offender which, in a way, it did, but it was concluded to be the wrong person. The criminal investigation process failed to prevent a mistake of justice for the suspect who was disadvantaged of his right to freedom. The victim also failed to see justice on her part and society, who imprisoned an innocent man. The criminal investigation process has failed to achieve justice for the rights of victims and suspects, reflecting its ineffectiveness.
Bail and remand is an important part of the investigation process as bail and remand both lead to a trial which can either deem the suspect innocent or guilty. After a person has been arrested, they will either have “one shot at bail” (s22A Bail Act 1978) or be held in remand. In 1978 the Bail Act was made and since 2002 there were lots of reforms that made being granted bail harder to get, such as presumption against bail….. In 2013 the unacceptable risk test was introduced and 2014 introduced the show cause test. The bail amendment 2015 re-introduced presumption against bail for terrorism offences..... I still have to write this paragraph on bail...
