LAWS 11060 Criminal Law Assessment 1
Weight: 40%
Due: 8am on 5th May- Tuesday week 8- cross check with the unit profile on Moodle
What is this assessment task?
In this assessment task I have given you a real-life criminal law scenario I have extracted the facts from a case where I was the solicitor and I have changed some of the details such as names and location.
You are required to make an application for bail in the form of written submissions.
Purpose of this assessment task
The purpose of this assessment task is to build your experience and skills in undertaking research, thinking about what you need to say to persuade a Magistrate to grant your client bail and to reference adopting the Australian Guide to Legal Citation.
For most students this is your first term and first time studying a law subject in the law degree. I am taking this into account in both the design of the assessment and the grade and feedback. As such the feedback I will give is designed to improve your legal research, your legal writing skills and referencing.
Return of grade:
The grade and feedback will be available on Moodle approximately three weeks after the due date. This return can be delayed when there are students with extensions.
Requirements:
The regional co-ordinating Magistrate has issued the following practice direction:
Practice Direction 1 of 2020:
All applications for bail to this court must be accompanied by written submissions of no more than three pages, size font 12 in times new roman. Referencing should comply with the AGLC.
Assessment expectations:
You are required to prepare written submissions for a bail application. You must reference relevant sections of the Bail Act 1980 (Qld) and case law to support your position on the issues you argue in your submissions to the court.
The marker is looking at your advocacy skills- this means your ability to structure, reference and persuasively argue your point.
Marking is subjective, each reader may hold a different view. Therefore, it is important you are clear and succinct in your expression and persuasive in your legal argument.
Question:
Dominic Prizeman has been charged pursuant to section 328A (4) Criminal Code Qld with dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death of Josh Platt on 7 March 2020.
Police allege Dominic was driving with friends in his car on a rural property west of Bundaberg Queensland. Dominic swerved to miss an emu and in doing so Josh Platt fell from the back of the Holden Rodeo and landed on the sand. Dominic stopped the car and he and his friends tried to provide medical assistance to Josh by providing CPR and stabilising him. Dominic called an Ambulance via his own mobile phone. The Ambulance arrived and transported Josh to the Bundaberg Base Hospital where he died several hours later after Dr Press determined the cause of death was head trauma.
After Dr Press pronounced Josh’s death, Dominic went to the Bundaberg Police station and said he was the driver of the car. He took part in a record of interview with the Police and made admissions he was driving the car, he swerved to miss an emu and Josh fell from the passenger window of the car. Dominic admitted he had been drinking alcohol before he got in the car to drive.
You are a defence solicitor and you attend at the watch house. The watch house shift supervisor informs you there is a defendant to see you named Dominic. The Police Prosecutor informs you that the investigating officer- Senior Constable Grant McGowran will oppose bail. The watch house shift supervisor has not granted Police bail.
You can presume the following would be in the bail objection which is signed by the AO- therefore it has been disclosed to the defence.
Senior Constable Grant McGowran v Dominic Prizeman
Date of birth 3 June 1998. Police allege the seriousness of this offence and the likelihood of imprisonment and alcohol consumption require the Police to object to bail and request the defendant be remanded in custody until sentence or trial in the District Court. Police allege he is an unacceptable risk if released on bail. The defendant’s criminal history shows he has a tendency to commit offences and breach bail conditions and that the nature of and seriousness of this offence shows his offending is escalating and as such is a risk to the community if he were to be released on bail. They argue the strength of the evidence is strong given his admissions to police. They also allege he has a flight risk because they believe he has a premium economy ticket booked on QF1 Sydney to London LHR on Sunday 3rd May. They believe this because one of his mate’s told the Police that Dominic is going to London for a holiday and to meet a girl he has been talking to on twitter who lives in Interlaken Switzerland. They believe he has an Australian and an EU passport because his Father is from Liechtenstein so the Police tell you they think he will be able to remain in the UK or in a EU country.
You meet Dominic in an interview room at the watch house. He instructs you to make an application for bail and he will agree to any conditions the court orders- he said to you: “just so I can get out of here and back to my job and family”.
He provides you with the following instructions.
He had consumed half a bottle of white wine over 2 to 3 hours. He and his mates were at a rodeo on a cattle property and his mates asked if they could go for a drive around the property to look at emus and kangaroos. It was 4pm when he got into the car, 2 of his friends Clancy and Jeff got into the ute tray, 2 other friends Mark and Josh sat in the back as passengers and another friend Charley sat in the front passenger seat. He started driving around the property and an emu started running towards the front of his car so he swerved, as he did so the car did a 180 turn and his friends fell off the back of the ute and Josh fell out of the back passenger window. Dominic stopped the car, got out and saw that Josh was laying on an embankment about 2 metres away from the car and he was not moving. He and his friends stabilised Josh, Dominic commenced performing CPR on Josh. Dominic used his mobile phone and he called the Ambulance. Dominic took his car back to the house on the property. Dominic’s mother came and took him to the Bundaberg Base Hospital, where he waited to find out from the Dr the progress of Josh.
When he was informed by the Dr that Josh had died Dominic went to the Bundaberg Police Station and participated in a record of interview where he told the Police he was the driver and that Josh had fallen out of the back passenger window. The police charged him and said they would oppose bail and he would have to wait to see a solicitor and go before the Magistrate to apply for bail.
He says he does not have a ticket booked on QF1 but has looked into going to London for a holiday when he finishes his apprenticeship. He says he only has an Australian passport and knows nothing about an EU passport as his Father is not from an EU country.
He can live with his Mother and Father at 1313 Mockingbird Lane Moore Park Beach which is 10 minutes north of Bundaberg. He has full time employment as a 3rd year apprentice plumber where he earns $1000 per week. You spoke to his employer Patrick Doolan. Patrick told you that if Dominic is released he will continue to have work with his plumbing business and continue to undertake his apprenticeship (through the Bundaberg TAFE) with approximately 15 months to completion. He has a girlfriend who works in administration in an air conditioning repair company. He does not have any children. He went to school in Bundaberg where he completed year 12 with graduation in HSC and 12 months of a school based apprenticeship in plumbing.
Dominic has criminal history, which is provided to defence and the court by the police, as follows:
| Entry | Date dealt with by court | Outcome |
| AOBH s339 (3) CC On 05/02/2020 | Not finalised Next mention 20 May 2020 Magistrates Court | Not finalised |
| Breach bail condition fail to sign in on 16/03/2019 | 22/03/2019 | Fine $300 Conviction not recorded |
| Common Assault on 15/02/2019 | 22/03/2019 | Probation 6 months Conviction not recorded |
Assessment criteria:
These criteria are a general guide as to the standard expected at the various levels. It is not necessarily the case that all criteria will be met at a particular standard, as there may be superior performance on one of the criteria and not so satisfactory performance on another.
High Distinction standard:
· the assignment is very well written and clearly expressed
· there is a demonstrated appreciation and understanding of the issues involved
· the assignment is well structured and logically organised
· demonstrated mastery of referencing system
· there is evidence of a comprehensive analysis of the issues
Distinction standard:
· the assignment is well written and expressed
· the assignment is structured and logical
· the issues have been reasonably well identified and appreciated
· there is correct use of referencing
· issues have been analysed
Credit standard:
· the assignment is generally well written and expressed
· the assignment is structured and sequential
· referencing is satisfactory
· issues are identified and addressed
· there has been an attempt to analyse some of the issues
Pass standard:
· the assignment is able to be followed and understood
· the assignment could perhaps be better organised and structured
· the referencing may need improvement
· issues may need to be identified and addressed in more depth
· analysis when present may be incorrect
Fail standard:
· the assignment is sometimes significantly short of the required length
· the expression is poor and difficult to understand
· the assignment is poorly organised
· there has been a failure to address the issues in the question
· referencing is generally inadequate
The post LAWS 11060 Criminal Law Assessment 1 appeared first on My Assignment Online.