Moot Court Assessment Task (Essay Sample)

Moot Court Assessment Task
Student’s Name
Learning Institution
Role of a Prosecutor
A prosecutor is an administrator of justice in the court of law. The prosecutor’s role is to seek justice not mere conviction. The prosecutor seeks justice in the bid to ensure that no innocent person is convicted wrongly. During the trial process, the prosecutor provides evidence to the judges and jury that the defendant is guilty of the crime accused (Prosecutor’s Role, 2009). In proving the evidence, the prosecutor calls the witnesses for cross-examination to prove that indeed the defendant is guilty. The prosecutor can use a wide range of documents, objects, photographs for the witnesses to identify and prove guilty of the defendant.
It is the duty the prosecutor to seek reform and improve administration of justice in the court of law. Further, the prosecutor stimulates efforts for remedial action when injustice in the procedural or substantive law comes to the attention of the prosecutor (Snape & Watt, 2004).
The role of the prosecutor ends at the completion of the trial by giving a closing argument to the judges and jury by giving a summary the evidence given by the witnesses to prove why the defendant should be convicted.
In the present case, Moot court Assessment Task, the prosecutor’s role is to present the compliant of Susan/Samuel Baker to the court. The prosecutor will furnish the court with the details of the case about Susan/Samuel Baker, the Complainant, who bought bread from Sunny Bread Bakery, the defendant, and later found a cigarette embedded in that loaf of bread. The prosecutor will call the witnesses Michelle/Michael Green, environmental health officer and Andrew Davies, analyst, to testify before the court. Then the prosecutor will cross-examine the two witnesses before the court to prove that indeed, the defendant, Sunny Bread Bakery, is guilty of the offense of selling unsafe food contrary to section 12(2) of the Food Act 1984.
At the end of trial, the prosecutor will give a closing argument to the judges and jury by giving a summary of the evidence given by witnesses, environmental health officer and analyst, to prove that Sunny Bread Bakery should be convicted for selling unsafe food contrary to section 12(2) of the Food Act 1984.
Questions by the Prosecutor
In order to provide evidence before the court that the defendant is guilty of selling unsafe food contrary to section 12(2) of the Food Act 1984, the Prosecutor will cross-examine the environmental health officer as a witness:
* Do you know Susan/Samuel who lives at 12 Smith Road, Collingwood? Can you tell this court what happened 10 September 2010 in her house?
* Do you know Dunn Sun and Rock Analysts? Do you remember giving them a sample marked "Good Governs City Council - M Green – 28/09/10 ---- Cigarette Butt" on 28 September 2010 for analysis?
* You were allowed access the back area of Sunny Bread Bakery by the manager on 3 October 2010. What was the hygienic condition of the Bakery?
* Where was raw chicken stored in relation to the pizza oven?
* What was the state of the dough mixer?
* What were the condition of the ceiling and the roof timber of the Bakery?
* Was there a connection of water to the hand basin in the food preparation area?
* What was the state of the toilet cubicles?
* Did the Bakery have Food Safety Program?
* Did the Bakery have a Food Safety Supervisor?
* Do you remember noticing a packet of cigarettes on a shelf above the dough mixing area?
Cross-examination of the analyst:
* Do you know Michelle/Michael Green, environmental health officer?
* Do you remember receiving sample sealed and marked "Good Governs City Council - M Green – 28/09/10 ---- Cigarette Butt" on 28 September 2010 for analysis?
* What were the results of the analysis?
* Can you prove to this court that the results of the analysis were not altered?