Memorandum

Memorandum

To:Senior Partner

From:Trainee Solicitor

27th June 2013

Re:Our Clients Mr. Charles Dickenson and William Thatcher

Advice

Thank you for your recent memorandum regarding the case of the guilty verdicts against Mr. Dickenson & Mr. Thatcher. I believe the issues can be divided into the following areas: 1) Whether the judge's verdict of the guilty defendants studying English Literature instead of business was biased or prejudicial 2) whether or not the jury was guided properly towards the usage of compelling evidence in deciding upon the produced verdict 3) and whether or not the jury was able to take the burden of proof (onus probandi) and able to prove the defendants guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

You have asked me to concentrate on an extract from the summing-up and so I will deal with each aspect of the comments as they arise in the extract.

The first area of concern is in relation to whether the judge's verdict of the guilty defendants studying English Literature instead of business was biased or prejudicial. He makes the assumption that the defendants would not have had a chance to commit the crime if they had not enrolled in the Business Studies program. However, I believe this is due to bias on part of Mr. Justice Shackleton, and it is a case of balance of probabilities which should be dealt with in accordance with the standard of proof. The Judge is casting doubt on the credibility of the defendants Mr. Dickenson and Mr. Thatcher describing them as unreliable witnesses due to their background in business. Such comments are likely to be viewed as prejudicial according to cases such as R v Ireogbu (1988) The Times 2 Aug CA if the Judge is indicating his disbelief of the defendant's evidence. The case of R v Winn-Pope [1996] Crim LR 521 suggests where comments about a defendant go beyond the proper bounds of judicial comment a conviction can be overturned.

The second area of concern refers to the whether or not the judge properly guided the jury into using compelling evidence for concluding and deciding upon the verdict that they produced. The evidence that has been produced in the proceeding has been circumstantial. Circumstantial facts require that the jury need not be told that they may rely upon a fact only if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, there exists an exception: if the fact is a series of reasons leading to the deductive ...