Background to the Case
The trial was organized in the Crown Court of England and Wales buildings. There are several branch offices of the governmental structure in the entire country. The case that will be described and discussed below took place in the Law Courts, W Bar, Sheffield, S3 8PH, the United Kingdom. This address belongs to the Crown Court in Sheffield. Every participant of the event had to arrive at the building at approximately 14 o’clock in the afternoon on the 4th of January, 2018. The case is officially called “Drug Trafficking and Concealed Possession of Weapon.” This title was figuring during the entire court trial and in the discussion of lawyers, judges, and other individuals involved in the process.
The man who took the position of defendant in the court was accused of drug trafficking and possession of weapons. The participant of the trial was caught by the police with a bag of Cannabis (which is classified as a class B drug) (Kadish, Schulhofer & Barkow 2017, p. 102). Also, the officers who arrested him had a chance to find two knives that the defendant wore with him at that moment. However, the accused was pleaded not guilty to drugs dealing later.
Nevertheless, the quantity of the substance was high, which could mean that he supplied other people with Cannabis. Moreover, the police found a text message in the defendant’s cell phone that was in Kurdish and contained a certain price in pounds. To continue the process of the trial, it is necessary to translate the found text and identify what the defendant was about to do before he was arrested, as it will help to proceed with the case. Despite all that, he was accused of drug abuse.
Also, he is considered to be guilty of carrying the cold steel weapons. It would be proper to state that both prosecutions described above are illegal in the territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Fleetwood, Radcliffe & Stevens 2015, p. 429). Also, it is necessary to mention that the defendant can be sentenced to several years of imprisonment if further investigation does not reveal any other criminal deeds done by this person.
According to the prosecution side of the story, there are many laws that the man violated without even knowing it (Bergman & Berman-Barrett 2018, p. 32). As it is previously mentioned, he worked illegally, delivered and used addictive substances himself, and always had knives. In turn, the defense side of the story is that all the weapons that were found in the defendant’s pockets were not used as the defendant kept them for self-defense. Moreover, he said that he did not know the context of the message on his cell phone with the price in pounds. However, all these excuses will be investigated by professionals, and the results of the expertise will be reviewed by the judge that is responsible for this court case (Bergman & Berman-Barrett 2018, p. 36).
Issues Discussed
There were several issues discussed during the Crown Court visit. One of them was based on the fact that the defendant wore a serious amount of Cannabis with him. There were several opinions as to this evidence. The defense lawyer assumed that his client could buy this amount of Cannabis for himself. In turn, the prosecution side was almost sure that the man was delivering the substance to someone else.
Unfortunately, none of the points of view could be proved or refuted until the message on the man’s phone is translated and analyzed. Also, the appearance of the defendant was discussed as the man did not look like someone who works in the office or another place that requires people to be clean and tidy. Although this fact is insignificant, it can be used against the defendant. For instance, his destination can be identified during the investigation as the man would not be allowed to enter any facility except stores or other buildings that do not have any dress code.
No one gave evidence during the court trial. To begin with, it is necessary to state that no one was asked to come to trial from the defendant’s side for two reasons. The first reason is that no one else was caught with him in the area. As he was thought to be trafficking drugs, the client was not found yet. Perhaps, the translation of the message in his cell phone will help to find other people involved in the given illegal activity (Shiner 2015, p. 703). The second reason is that he was alone when he was arrested in the drug dealing area. Indeed, the police officers have chosen the wrong moment to complete this operation as they had to persecute the suspected criminal and understand his intentions.
Nevertheless, there are enough other clues that can help reveal more information about the arrested citizen. Other important data about his dwelling or partners can also be found with the help of the communications device as modern phones save the history of the websites that the user visited and had access to all the social networks that he could have been possible using to communicate with the buyers.
It is necessary to state that there were no questions asked to and by the defense barrister, as this case was nothing more than a regular trial. All the questions will be asked during the court process that will be organized after the case is investigated. At the present moment, it is necessary for the workers of the court or the local police to listen to the version of the defendant. The entire process will be built on his words, regardless of whether he will tell lies during the examination or not. Additional expertise will be made to identify whether the defendant was intoxicated when he was caught by the police or not. In addition, all his contacts and personal data will be later investigated by detectives.
Actus Reus
In this case, the man is claimed to violate the law s10 Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act (Shiner 2015, p. 704). Therefore, the defendant is deemed to have committed the actus reus of providing prohibited synthetic substances to other citizens. In particular, he intended to deliver drugs that were produced illegally by people to earn money. This process may also be called supplying as the defendant was about to give the illegal substance to his client, which is prohibited by the law. As it is mentioned in previous sections of the report, it is also obvious that the man had two knives hidden in his clothes.
Perhaps, this was the element of defense that could be used in unpredictable cases. However, the defendant did not have much money in cash. Therefore, the purpose of wearing weapons has not been revealed yet. However, the man can now be claimed to be involved in criminal possession of a weapon. If some additional clues or victims are found in the future, the actus reus will also include that of a murder. In particular, deliberate and unlawful use of the weapons or other methods to kill another person or a group of people is what must be considered here.
The actus reus is not being challenged. The defense for the actus reus may be established with the help of fake claims or answers of the defendant’s witnesses. In conclusion, it is necessary to state that the entire act of drug dealing implied the possession of the substance and the intention to supply drugs in personal or commercial goals (Natarajan, Zanella & Yu 2015, p. 415). The substance that was delivered was the Cannabis drug. Therefore, the arrested man knew all the risks he faced at the moment of supplying other people with it.
Mens Rea
The men’s rea, in this case, is aware of the defendant of what he was doing, which means that the law violation was not an accident. The man intended to supply other people with the drug mentioned in the first section of the report. The men’s rea implies the dealer’s knowledge about the fact that he is involved and can be accused of drug possession or trafficking to others. Also, the man was aware of the fact the medicaments he delivered or bought for himself contained prohibited substances that could not be produced or used in the territory of the country. Indeed, there are certain exceptions if the substance is necessary for some treatment methods in hospitals.
However, doctors who use this drug are responsible for it and must make reports about the dosage that had to be provided to several patients. As the arrested person did not deny that he could have had something else in the vessel that was found in his pockets, the men’s rea would be different. Nevertheless, this was a planned act of drug trafficking that is prohibited by the government of the United Kingdom.
The men’s rea is being challenged. The defense of the men’s rea can be established by denying all the prosecutions and explaining the situation from a different perspective. As to the men’s rea of criminal possession of a weapon is the fact that the defendant had the knives to protect himself from possible robberies or other dangerous events that could happen to a drug dealer (Stone 2015, p. 186). Also, he knew that he could use the knives to kill other people that could have used physical power against him at any moment. As it is mentioned above, the use of the weapon was not confirmed yet.
Evidence
As has already been mentioned several times throughout the report, there were not many pieces of evidence found in the defendant’s clothes and other personal things. The most significant findings are the drugs (Cannabis) and two sharp knives that were hidden when the man was walking in the streets and his cell phone with a message in Kurdish that also contained the price in pounds.
Presumably, the amount of money stated in the message was intended to cover the dose of drugs that the man was accused of delivering. Also, the man’s outfit was decent evidence of what his destination was as the clothes he wore were not appropriate for public places. It would be proper to mention that by wearing such elements of the wardrobe (unclean and old), he attracted the attention of the police as the officers knew how drug dealers usually look.
The main issue under discussion was the fact that the man did not have any other evidence that could prove his guilt in such law violations as drug possession and trafficking. As it is mentioned in previous sections, there was no evidence that would prove that the defendant earned money (Lightowlers & Pina-Sánchez 2017, p. 148). Perhaps, the drug was delivered for free (to one of his close friends or for self-use). Nevertheless, the price found in the message refuted this theory. The man does not want to reveal his intentions. Therefore, the case has not been accurately assessed yet. There are many details and controversies that have to be reconsidered by the judge or detectives as to the given case.
Such evidence as the address of the man might resolve the issue. Some clues that can be found in his dwelling would be helpful because the computer of the defendant can contain almost all the necessary information needed for the investigation. Moreover, if there are some clues that can prove his involvement in the production of drugs, he will be responsible for that during the next trial as well.
Such evidence as contacts of people who were collaborating with the arrested person or individuals who ordered drugs might help with managing the case. If these people are interviewed, much additional information can be revealed that would prove the guilt of the defendant. For instance, they could say whether he was trafficking drugs to them recently or not. Also, they could tell his address, the web resource, or another platform that he used to popularise his illegal services.
Moreover, this evidence could give an understanding of whether the person was acting alone or he was a member of a large group, which would give a hint to the police that might help them find the entire criminal organization. Other evidence that might help resolve the discussion can be found in the man’s phone (other clients’ contacts or chats about drug deliveries). Moreover, the expertise of the defendant’s blood can help with the case as it can show whether the consumer drugs himself or not.
Summary
The trial that was observed in the given report was organized in the Crown Court that is situated in the city of London (Jacobson, Hunter & Kirby 2016, p. 79). The suspected was accused of Cannabis trafficking and possession. However, the court claimed the man to be guilty only of drug abuse and carrying weapons that were hidden from other people’s eyes.
The main issues that were discussed during the trial include the fact that the man had a message in Kurdish on his cell phone with the presumable price of drugs that someone else had to pay him for the dose of Cannabis in the bag that was also found in his clothes. The evidence cannot be used at the moment as the text in the defendant’s phone has to be translated before the investigation. Another issue that was discussed in the court was the fact that the man did not tell his address and other personal information that could be used to find additional evidence that would be used against him during the next session.
The defendant tried to deny that he knew what the vessel with drugs found in his clothes contained. As no questions were asked to the defense barrister and the man claimed guilty, no other facts were revealed during the trial. No witnesses or other people from the defendant’s side were present in the court. Once all additional expertise and investigations are completed, the case and all the new evidence will be presented to the judge.
Reference List
Bergman, P & Berman-Barrett, SJ 2018, The criminal law handbook: know your rights, survive the system, Nolo, Berkeley.
Fleetwood, J, Radcliffe, P & Stevens, 2015, ‘Shorter sentences for drug mules: the early impact of the sentencing guidelines in England and Wales’, Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 428–436.
Jacobson, J, Hunter, G & Kirby, 2016, Inside Crown Court: Personal experiences and questions of legitimacy, Policy Press, Bristol.
Kadish, SH, Schulhofer, SJ & Barkow, RE 2017, Criminal law and its processes: cases and materials, 10th ed, Wolters Kluwer, New York.
Lightowlers, C & Pina-Sánchez, J 2017, ‘Intoxication and assault: an analysis of Crown Court sentencing practices in England and Wales’, The British Journal of Criminology, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 132–154.
Natarajan, M, Zanella, M & Yu, C 2015, ‘Classifying the variety of drug trafficking organizations,’ Journal of Drug Issues, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 409–430.
Shiner, M 2015, “Drug policy reform and the reclassification of cannabis in England and Wales: a cautionary tale’, International Journal of Drug Policy, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 696–704.
Stone, N 2015, ‘Eradicating this dreadful knife problem: legislative and judicial initiatives against knife possession,’ Youth Justice, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 182–194.