Blunderwell Case: Regina vs Edward Putman (Case Study Sample)

ABSTRACT
I am instructed to act as advisor for Prosecution representing the aggrieved applicant, Mr. Kurt Allsop, who was allegedly a victim of pre- mediated assault and wounding with deliberate intent by the defendant, Mr. Edward Putman during the early hours of 12th August 2018, outside the Jazzies Nightclub in Blunderwell Town Centre. I need to provide advice on core issues in this case study relates to admissibility or otherwise, of core factors which surround this case, especially in terms of Putman’s police interrogation in which he remained silent throughout, his girl-friend Bailey’s, contradictory statements, strength of identification evidence of unknown taxi-driver, who claims to have seen the assault happening, the Turnbull Direction, which provided guidelines to eliminate recognition mistakes through Court/ juridical warnings to sitting juries in trials wholly or substantially dependent upon visual identification. CCTV footage is also important to Prosecution to prove Putman’s falsity and lies. I need to advise on how Putman’s previous convictions could be used against him, especially previous GBH conviction during 2014 to prove that he is harmful character, who cannot be remedied through imprisonment. Finally, I need to advise that Prosecution should also take heed of directional warnings which may be imposed by judge on the jury, including directions on adverse inferences and right to silence, Makanjuola Direction and finally, Lucas Direction. Finally, I advise that prosecution should rest its arguments on building a strong, irrefutable and water-tight case, providing maximum punishment to defendant, Putman, in commensuration to his crimes, which, although based on true and undeniable hearsay evidence, undisputedly, manifests his vicious role and violent complicity in carriage of this planned, deliberate and wilful wounding of an innocent man who was just dutifully carrying out official orders from his superior.
Key words: Prosecution, admissibility, contradictory statements, lies, Turnbull Direction, GBH,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Serial 
Description
Page(s)
1
Introduction3
2
Admissibility and weight given to Putman;s police interview4
3
Admissibility of Alsop( applicant) evidence4
4
Admissibility of Bailey( witness) evidence4
5
Admissibility of identification evidence5
6
Turnbull Guidelines5
7
Admissibility of CCTV footage evidence5
8
Admissibility of good /bad character of Putman- his previous convictions59Adverse inferences and right to silence610Makanjuola Direction611Lucas Direction712Final Arguments by Prosecution713Conclusion814Biblography9

IN THE CROWN COURT AT Blunderwell Case No 123BETWEEN:REGINAvEDWARD PUTMAN_________ ADVICE ON
EVIDENCEIntroduction
I am instructed to offer advice, representing the aggrieved applicant, Mr. Kurt Allsop, who was allegedly a victim of pre- mediated assault and wounding with deliberate intent by the defendant, Mr. Edward Putman during the early hours of 12th August 2018, outside the Jazzies Nightclub in Blunderwell Town Centre, where the applicant has been working as Head Doorman for last decade or so.
The Prosecution wishes to advise that in order to bring forth a strong, unassailable and water-tight case of assault and GBH on the defendant, the prosecution must prove without doubt that Putman inflicted wound on victim, which were caused under premeditated knowledge and planned intent in retribution for applicant pushing out the wife of defendant’s associate under order from his superior office well in course of his official duties and with no other mala fide intentions, whatsoever.
The prosecution also advices that statement of taxi-driver is accurate, unassailable and is the crux on which the deliberations and verdict of this case rests, since he actually witnessed the assault, is able to identify Putman among many others, and is able to vouchsafe that it is Putman and not anyone else who attacked and grievously wounded Allsof on that fateful night of 12th August 2018.
While most evidence have been hearsay, ambiguous, vague and inaccurate, the evidence provides by the taxi driver who was driving down the street on that fateful night, who actually saw Putman assaulting Allsop and is ready to give oral witness to this effect as invisible witness, seeking police/court protection could be relied upon by the Prosecution and it is advised that his version be used as primary witness against the defendant, with obvious warnings to jury.
Taxi-driver testimony, if accepted by court is indeed bearing high weight age and could be strong evidence against the pleas of the defendant but for this, he needs to be identified, named, subpoenaed and allowed to state his testimony in open court or for his safety, behind closed courtrooms.
Admissibility and weight to be given to Putman’s Police Interview:
This Prosecution wishes to advise that, prima facie, failure of the accused, Putman, to describe facts pertaining to this case must not be judged as capable of finding him as guilty. Nevertheless, absence of counteracting or contrary oral statements from Putman, during his police interrogation must be inferred by judge or jury, that prosecution is correct in its charges against the accused.Legislation.gov.uk.).
Admissibility of Alsop’s evidence
This is acceptable since not only has Alsop been the innocent victim of brutal attack by Putman, but also there is real truth and justification in his statement to police and in court. The evidence provided is genuine and real, considering the serious extent of his wounds, and also since there has been a witness who has actually witnessed Putman assaulting Alsop that night, who is also also capable of identifying of perpetrator of this gross crime, but who wishes to remain incognito, and who is ready to provide testimony as an invisible witness.
Admissibility of Bailey’s evidence:
Bailey’s statements are self-contradictory and she has proved herself to be an unreliable and hostile witness. In her testimony on 12-8-18, she offers alibi, supporting Putman since she claimed he spend the full day and night with her on that fateful night. However, in her statement dated 2-10- 18, she retraces her earlier statement and says he was out all night and appeared only the next morning in highly agitated state and she was too scared to determine from him the cause of his agitation.
This is in concurrence with Section 101 (3) which implies that Court may refuse to admit
Statements which could be unfair and unjust for the proceedings of the case and also may likely to cause harm to the parties involved (legislation.gov.uk).
This is however, not against Court rights of admissibility on grounds of lack of credibility discussed under Section 124(c) of CJA 2003, which argues that contradictory nature of Bailey’s statements could be proved through its admissibility (Criminal Justice Act 2003).
Admissibility of identification evidence and Turnbull Guidelines
Admissibility of identification evidence
The admissibility of the unknown, unidentified taxi-driver cannot be ascertained as of now, since according to the provisions of S.116 (1) (b), the depositions of witnesses whose identify cannot be satisfactorily established by prosecution cannot be admitted. (Criminal Justice3 Act 2003).
Thus it is the responsibility of Prosecution to provide satisfactory proof to the Court regarding the existence and verifiability of the taxi-driver in order to satisfy the Court that such a person really exists, but is afraid of openly testifying against the defendant for fear of his safety.
Turnbull Guidelines:
The Turnbull Guideline is indeed germane in this case, since much of the evidence which
the Prosecution would bring into this case are based on visual identification, especially the evidence provided by taxi driver and also the fact that video recordings fall well short of offering irrefutable evidence about the identity of the person actually committing the crime.
This is relevant and significant since this guideline came in order to circumvent issues arising out of wrong or erroneous identification, the Court of Appeal (CoA) in the 1977 Turnbull Case QB 224 provided guidelines to eradicate recognition mistakes through Court/ juridical warnings to sitting juries in trials wholly or substantially dependent upon visual identification. (Swarb.co.uk).
Admissibility of CC Footage evidence:
In this case it is observed that admissibility of CCTV footage can be produced by Prosecution only to prove that both parties were in close proximity during the time of incident although does not clearly prove Putman’s guilt and complicity in actually assaulting Allsop.
This could, however, strengthen Prosecution’s credibility that Putman had laid when he told the police that he had no involvement in the crime and his false statement to police that he had been at home during the alleged carriage of knife assault with intent of wounding Allsof.
Admissibility of good or bad character of Putman- his previous conviction
The Prosecution wishes to advise that under the provisions of Section 101, the prosecution intends to offer in evidence the bad character background and criminal record of the defendant, Putman in that he has had previous convictions, especially, in year 2014, of causing Grievous Body Harm (GBH) under S.20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1868.
This consultant wishes to advise that this is an appropriate and significant matter for the Prosecution to pu...