Covid-19 Trial and Sentencing Report (Term Paper Sample)

COVID-19 TRIAL AND SENTENCING REPORT
Student`s Name
Institution
Professor`s Name
Course
Location
Date

Covid-19 Trial and Sentencing Report
Following the Covid-19 pandemic, the case in this discussion was streamed using Microsoft Teams (Glossop v Contact, 2021.). Glossop, who is the Claimant, a business owned by Print Limited, sued Contact Limited, the defendant both undertaking in printing business (Ashby, 2020). The Claimants in the appeal realized that there were issues that were agreed to be resolved of flooding and the supply of electricity agreed upon to be resolved and were not resolved by the Defendant (Ashby, 2020). The decision not to compensate the Claimant was arrived at because the risks involved were already considered at the time of the agreement. To allow such liability on the Defendants side would, in essence, act to double compensate the Claimant reason being that the commercial risks were factored in the purchase price (Ashby, 2020). This decision also clarifies that claimants are not to be compensated for such losses that relate to conditions well known to them at the time of entry into the agreement.
The Court of Appeal v the Crown Court
The Court of Appeal is structured to listen to the appeals from other courts and tribunals. It can uphold or reverse a decision arrived at by any other court, including itself save the Supreme Court’s decisions alone (Cross, 2020). The Court of Appeal is usually graced by a panel of up to three judges. Both criminal and civil cases are given hearing at the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal usually does not hear fresh evidence though it can do so depending on the emerging circumstances (Cross, 2020). The Court of Appeal begins each new case as a rehearing. Appeals from the Crown Courts are deliberated upon by the Criminal Division of the court of appeal.
On the other hand, the crown court hears cases involving criminal offences or extremely serious matters that result in an indictment. The crown court, on request, can constitute a jury of twelve (The Criminal Court System and the Criminal Justice System, 2018). However, the judge hears the submission from both sides and decides whether a jury should be instituted.
Representation
The main actors involved in not only civil cases but also criminal cases include the judges, representatives both of the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the affected parties, that is, the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Crown Prosecution Service lawyers are also participants of the criminal cases heard at the crown courts with the sole purpose of cross-examining suspects in criminal cases in the Crown Courts. Newburn (2017) also states that the judge at the Crown Court will have to supervise the choice and swearing-in of the juries in cases where jury trials are to be undertaken. The Crown Court judge will also have to give direction to the jurors involved in the particular trial concerning their roles and keeping in confidence the proceedings, deliberations, and the outcome of the trial. The appellate judges headed by The Lord Chief Justice of the Criminal Division will hear the appeals from Crown Courts (Newburn, 2017). The hearing bench of any criminal appeal would be constituted by a Lord or Lady Justice and, on most occasions, two other High Court judges.
The roles of prosecution differ from those of the defense in that prosecution charges the accused with a crime of specific nature and thereafter presents evidence that aims at proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The role of the defense is to shield the accused client against the criminal charges preferred against him or her. The prosecuting and defending attorneys will, in court, stand on opposite sides of the bench (Newburn 2017). The defense attorneys can either be privately sourced or from the public domain as being state assigned. The prosecution is always assigned by the state. Whereas the prosecutor makes recommendations for maximum possible sentencing concerning the case, the defense attorney fights so to ensure that the client receives the least severe sentence possible in the event of a conviction. The prosecution will work to represent the interest of the public safety while the defense attorney works to represent the client’s best interest (McLaney, 2017). Despite their differences, their professions are the same in academia since they both have not only completed law school but have also been admitted to the bar by passing the examination.
Power and Fairness in the Judicial System
In cases where evidence is needed, and parties are unwilling to surrender the same, the courts can compel such parties to release that evidence for use in the court proceedings. This power is also exhibited where search warrants are issued by the courts to enable access to sites considered to be relevant to the case proceedings. The courts must have the power to summon witnesses as they are required. Besides, for convicts and offenders, the courts have the power to deny them freedom or force them to pay for damages incurred by their actions (Allbon & Kaur Dua, 2020). Since facts are crucial to every trial and proceedings, courts are equipped with the power to gather all relevant information needed to ensure fair justice is administered and in good time.
Due Process
Due process dictates that the government must respect all the rights it owes to a particular person. This is a requirement that is legal and must be endowed to the individual in the form of the individual’s legal rights. Cross (2020) explains that due process aims at protecting the individual from the power of the law established in the land. Due process is applied in both the Crown and Appeal Courts by legally ensuring that no single citizen is denied his or her legal rights without proper application of the law. This means that a person cannot be found guilty and be charged without being taken through the legal system to determine whether they are guilty of the crime that they are accused of or charged with (Cross, 2020). Thus, due process can be applied in both of the courts in question.
Crime Control
Crime control refers to methods that are used to control crime in the country are referred to as crime control. Crime control, in effect, assumes that crime has already taken place and that this needs to be toned down to manageable levels. Crime control can be applied in both the Appeal and Crown Courts through the administration of more stringent and effective punishments. This is because a good number of the offenders are people who had been previously convicted (Stopes, 2018). The discipline that this will impart will thus enable them to work and avoid further crime on coming back to the community. The possibility of the courts advocating and recommending rehabilitation programs for offenders can help in crime control.
The Case of Cantrill and Ten Others
On Thursday, 12 May 2016, Abdul Wahab Hafidah was attacked by a group of young men at Moss Side, Prince Road. Two days later, while undergoing treatment, he died in the hospital. Eleven convictions were made, four for manslaughter and seven for life imprisonment (Stopes, 2018). Those convicted for manslaughter were given sentences ranging between five and utmost twelve years. The seven who were convicted for murder were sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 23 years for the principal offender, in this case, Cantrill, and sixteen to twenty years for the other six.
Offence Category
The offences perpetrated by the accused are categorized as indictable only criminal offences. The brutality administered after the hot pursuit of the victim could only render the offence as a category one type in which the harm inflicted to the victim is great and made the victim succumb to death (Stopes, 2018). The blameworthiness of the perpetrators brought a lot of discussions with most people stating that they should face indictment. Having these facts in mind, a life sentence without parole was suggested for the principal perpetrator.
Aggravating Factors
Devonte Cantrill, the principal offender had a knife in his possession with which he stabbed the victim. The principal defendant caused harm by violently stabbing the victim, and as if not enough, he stabbed the neck, knowing how fatal that could be. The victim was also vulnerable since he could not outmanoeuvre his aggressors. As identified by McLaney (2017), this act of aggression is specific since it applies to a certain felony, in this case, cruel crime against the victim.
Mitigation
Most of the offenders were first-time perpetrators having no previous criminal records. The four offenders charged with manslaughter had minor roles in the offence and did not inflict harm to the victim but just by associating with the abusers have they been charged. The four culprits sentenced for manslaughter were found to be remorseful and promised to change their behavior; hence, getting reduced sentences.
The aggravating factors would thus help give the extent to which harm was done (McLaney, 2017). The knife used to stab the victim and the point of wounding the victim did not only harm him but ensured that this injury led to his death. The culpability of the defendants is also high. T