Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or compromise for the convenience of the accused. The rule allows a plea of guilty to a lesser offense, not only at arraignment but also after arraignment and after his prior plea is withdrawn, but said rule also provides that the same be made before trial. When there is a plea of guilty to a lesser offense and the same was allowed by the court, there is no need to amend the information or
THE EFFICIENCY OF STRICT LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL LAW Most offences are now defined by statute. Usually the statute will state whether the offence requires a mental element and also define what the mental element is. Often the definition uses a word or phrase like “knowingly”, “recklessly”, “wilfully” and “dishonestly” in which it gives guidance to the court. But in some statute this kind of word or phrase is absence, hence the court will find that mens rea is not required. And this is basically in what so called strict liability and it is also can be seen an exception to the general principle of a criminal liability.
A Fixed punishment for crimes has both advantages and disadvantages; however, time-settled is the rule that fixed punishments are highly efficient and more equitable to the society. Among the advantages of fixed punishment are; First, it promotes equality in the application of the justice system. No court of law may impose an arbitrary and indiscriminate penalty to an accused based on its own discretion. The judges are obliged to comply with the fixed punishment based on the law and not based on their personal discretion. Second, it respects the right of an accused to due process of law and equal protection to the law, which means that the accused is well informed of the crime he or she has committed as well as the punishment that is attached to it so that he or she can prepare an intelligent and reasonable defense.
This is so to ensure the protection of the rights of a particular individual on trial. In addition, the above constitutional provision, as a presumption, was well explained in the case of Woolmington v The Director of Public Prosecutions . In this case Viscount Sankey L.C. stated thus: “Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception …” The above excerpt shows that the presumption of innocence places the burden of proof in criminal cases on the prosecution, who are to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In fact, Viscount Sankey L.C.
The burden of proof is an obligation on one party to persuade the jury or a judge of an alleged claim. The defendant need not prove his own innocence; it is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty and the standard of proof here is beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to discharge such legal burden would result in the defendant being acquitted. This principle is especially important in criminal cases because a person’s liberty is at stake. In doing so, it will help to promote fair trial and somewhat uphold human rights.
Which is the Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint. The definition of the Judicial Restraint itself is a term where if a court judges wanted to create a decision, that can be based off from their thoughts and views, or outside from the “guidelines” of the law, it prohibits and limits them from doing so. Forcing them to follow the law and rules (Navelkelar, 2014). This is really useful in order to remove bias and at the same time avoiding any decisions that can create a great chaos for the future cases. If Judicial Restraint did not exist in the first place, “unconstitutional” decisions that will be the root of the chaos of the future cases will be easy to make.
The role of Equitable remedies come into play when legal remedies or monetary compensation cannot adequately resolve the wrongdoing. It is often kept as a requirement that only if legal damages are unavailable before a court can the court decide to issue equitable
The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved.
The defendant will often plead guilty to a less serious charge or to a single of several charges in return for dismissal of the other charges. The defendant may also plead guilty to the original charge but in return for a lenient sentence. It allows the parties in the case to avoid lengthy trials and may allow the defendant to avoid the risk of
Firstly, an imbalance of power may arise where one party is more powerful than the other; this could undermine the mutual nature of ADR. Secondly, a decision made by way of ADR is not one that is imposed upon the parties; consequentially, a court order may have to be obtained so as to enforce the agreement. Thirdly, some disputes are unsuitable for ADR, including: cases involving a point of law, some family disputes (eg. domestic violence), disputes requiring an urgent solution, those involving over one party and cases where the prospects of success are little or none . All of these cases are best suited for civil litigation.