Skip to document
Welcome to StudocuSign in to access the best study resources
Guest user
0followers
Upload
HomeMy LibraryAsk AI
  • You don't have any recent items yet.
My Library
  • You don't have any modules yet.
  • You don't have any books yet.
  • You don't have any Studylists yet.
Premium
This is a Premium Document. Some documents on Studocu are Premium. Upgrade to Premium to unlock it.

Crim Defence Statement - completed

criminal litigation workshop materials task of defence statement to se...
Module

Criminal Litigation (456Z0410)

61 Documents
Students shared 61 documents in this course
Academic year: 2021/2022
Uploaded by:
Anonymous Student
This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.
Manchester Metropolitan University

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Students also viewed

Related documents

Related Studylists

Criminal Advocacy Qs

Preview text

DEFENCE STATEMENT

Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996, ss5 & 6

Case Number: MA 0047398

To the Prosecutor: CPS, Trinity Chambers, West Street, Manchester To the Court: Manchester Crown Court Defendant: Jason Harris Charge: Burglary of 10 Rushmore Avenue contrary to s9 (1) (a) Theft Act 1968: Theft of Ford Focus Motor car contrary to s1 Theft Act 1968 Date of next hearing: Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing XXXX date Defendant’s solicitors: Jordan Maxwell Solicitors, Hathersage Court, Upper Brook Street, M13 7PJ

1. The nature of the accused’s defence including any particular defence upon which he intends to rely: 2. I did not steal the motor vehicle as alleged, or at all. I will rely on the defence of alibi. I was at home when the theft and burglary took place.

3. The accused takes issue with the prosecution in relation to the following matters of fact:  The assertion of Brian Windsor that I was involved in the theft of the vehicle  The allegation that I was seen in the driveway of 10 Rushmore Avenue  The reliability of any confession made in the back of the police vehicle

4. The accused takes issue with the prosecution about these matters for the following reasons:  I was not involved in any way with the theft of the motor vehicle, I was at home at the time with my sick child. Details of my alibi are set out in sections 4 and 6 below  The prosecution witness Audrey Merton is mistaken in her identification of me in the driveway of 10 Rushmore Avenue.  Any confessions were obtained as a result of an interview carried out in breach of PACE and when I was intoxicated

_____________________________________________________________________

© Manchester Metropolitan University 2021

5. The accused sets out the particulars of the matters of fact upon which he intends to rely for the purposes of his defence For the whole of the evening of XXXX date, I was at home at Flat 3a, 25 Gower Road, Manchester, with my partner, Kylie Porter and our child, Sean Porter. Sean was ill and we needed to call doctor Patel from the Manchester Out of Hours Service.

6. The accused will raise the following points of law at trial:  The admissibility of the identification evidence of Audrey Merton will be challenged on the basis that there were breaches of PACE Code D during the video identification. In particular the other participants did not bear an adequate resemblance to me. These breaches will be referred to during any application under s78 PACE 1984  If the video identification evidence is deemed admissible the quality of the evidence will be challenged as being weak under the principles established by the case of R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224  The admissibility of the interview in the police vehicle and any confession evidence arising out of that interview will be challenged due to the PACE breaches by the officer in the case. In particular, the interview in the back of the police vehicle was carried out in breach of Code C, paragraph 11 of the Codes of Conduct issued under PACE 1984. In addition, I was unfit to be interviewed as I was still under the influence of alcohol. These breaches will be referred to during any application under s76(2)(b) and/or s78 PACE 1984

7. The accused intends to call the following witnesses to give evidence of alibi: (1) Kylie Porter, of flat 3a, 25 Gower Road, Manchester. Date of Birth: 25th February 198- (2) Doctor Patel of the Manchester Out of Hours Service, Manchester. Date of Birth: Unknown

The defence reserves the right to amend the above statement on the receipt of further evidence

Signed: Jason Harris

Dated: [Today’s date]

_____________________________________________________________________

© Manchester Metropolitan University 2021

Was this document helpful?
Premium
This is a Premium Document. Some documents on Studocu are Premium. Upgrade to Premium to unlock it.

Crim Defence Statement - completed

Module: Criminal Litigation (456Z0410)

61 Documents
Students shared 61 documents in this course

University: Manchester Metropolitan University

Was this document helpful?

This is a preview

Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 2 pages

  • Access to all documents

  • Get Unlimited Downloads

  • Improve your grades

Upload

Share your documents to unlock

Already Premium?
DEFENCE STATEMENT
Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996, ss5 & 6
Case Number: MA 0047398
To the Prosecutor: CPS, Trinity Chambers, West Street, Manchester
To the Court: Manchester Crown Court
Defendant: Jason Harris
Charge: Burglary of 10 Rushmore Avenue contrary to s9 (1)
(a) Theft Act 1968: Theft of Ford Focus Motor car
contrary to s1 Theft Act 1968
Date of next hearing: Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing XXXX date
Defendant’s solicitors: Jordan Maxwell Solicitors, Hathersage Court,
Upper Brook Street, M13 7PJ
1. The nature of the accused’s defence including any particular
defence upon which he intends to rely:
2.
I did not steal the motor vehicle as alleged, or at all.
I will rely on the defence of alibi. I was at home when the theft and
burglary took place.
3. The accused takes issue with the prosecution in relation to the
following matters of fact:
The assertion of Brian Windsor that I was involved in the theft of the
vehicle
The allegation that I was seen in the driveway of 10 Rushmore Avenue
The reliability of any confession made in the back of the police vehicle
4. The accused takes issue with the prosecution about these matters
for the following reasons:
I was not involved in any way with the theft of the motor vehicle, I was
at home at the time with my sick child. Details of my alibi are set out in
sections 4 and 6 below
The prosecution witness Audrey Merton is mistaken in her identification
of me in the driveway of 10 Rushmore Avenue.
Any confessions were obtained as a result of an interview carried out in
breach of PACE and when I was intoxicated
_____________________________________________________________________
© Manchester Metropolitan University 2021

Why is this page out of focus?

This is a Premium document. Become Premium to read the whole document.

Students also viewed

Related documents