Assignment #2 – The Deceptive Duo

The purpose of this assignment is to give you an opportunity to analyze a fact scenario and answer specific questions relating to the information provided.

Your answers should be typed in 12 point font and double-spaced.  The assignment must be submitted with a properly formatted rubric and title page.  The title of this assignment is: Assignment #2 – The Deceptive Duo.  Number your answers according to the questions outlined below.  DO NOT re-type or copy the questions.  Your Assignment should be NO MORE THAN 6 PAGES in length (excluding the title page and rubric).  PLEASE SUBMIT THE RUBRIC AS THE FIRST PAGE.

You may work in groups of UP TO two students if you wish, in which case both partners will receive the same mark.  Please put the names of each partner on the title page.  If you choose to work with a partner, your work should be done with THAT PARTNER ONLY.  Discussing responses to the assignment with others, showing your work to others, or failing to properly secure your work, all breach the Academic Integrity Policy at Sheridan, and will result in consequences which will remain on your student record, up to and including failure in the course and possible removal from the program.  Sheridan utilizes authenticity software (Turnitin) to ensure that work submitted is your own.  Submitting your work to the Assignments folder automatically submits it to Turnitin.

Types of Evidence Presented in the Case

This type of evidence includes an individual, who is questioned by the counselor as well as Crown’s prosecutor. The verbal evidence is received through the individual. Based on the individual’s information relating to the case, the counselor has decided to take a step against a criminal. For example, in this case, Ms. Shirley Shrink can be considered as oral evidence. Crevidence against Jessica Lund.own can rely on this evidence against Jessica Lund.

Real Evidence

The real evidence reflects a tangible proof of a criminal activity, which can be touched and analyzed. It can be presented as a form of human or material/object in front of the court. Through this, the council is relying on the potential fact of a case. With respect to this scenario, burner phone along with the phone call data can be considered as a real data against Jessica Lund in the Court.

Documentary Evidence

Authentic document against the criminal in the form of a paper, text, and mails, among others can be considered as the major documentary evidence in a court. Based on this, clear and effective evidence can be obtained by the counselor. For example, in this case, Quincy Quill is an expert in forensic science, who can provide accurate and appropriate knowledge regarding Jessica’s ticket. In this context, tickets can be considered as one of the documentary evidence (Turner, 2015).

A Reasonable Expectation of Privacy for This Item

The action of the police, breaking the ticket box of Jessica’s storage falls under section 7-14 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Department of Justice Canada, 2013). Under this particular section, a citizen of Canada has a legal right to secure unfair capture and search private storage as well as documents. Police or any law enforcement individual cannot breach entering and searching an individual’s house or property. However, the police can conduct these activities, if they have a legal warrant.

The activity of police in Jessica’s case can be considered as a public privacy interest, wherein they had broken charter rules and break the storage of Jessica Lund. Based on this information, it can be claimed that the police has violated the legal rights of Jessica. With respect to her privacy, Jessica has the proper rights to secure her storage from the police. She has a reasonable expectation to receive privacy on her storage within the house. Law enforcement individuals have no right to break this rule as per the Constitution Act, 1982.

Search of This Item Conducted Reasonably

On the other hand, it has been observed that police performed a search patrol of Jessica’s house, wherein her friend led the police towards the box. After finding the box, police broke the box with the help bolt cutter and found evidence regarding the case. This scenario can develop a positive investigation process; however, the police had no proper warrant to search Jessica’s storage. At the same time, they also do not have proper permission to break Jessica’s storage. Based on this information, it can be stated that the search of the box and its breaking activity has not been conducted reasonably. Hence, the aforementioned activity of police can be considered illegal and has to go through the process court trial (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, 2015).

A Reasonable Expectation of Privacy for This Item

After analyzing the case scenario, it has been found that Jessica was claimed as a fraud for making fake identification tickets for her friends. She used the printer and scanner of the public library in a confidential manner. Based on this phenomenon, Crown thought that he has clear evidence against Jessica. Crown wants to present that she has enough experience to make fake documents and papers. It can be perceived as strong evidence against Jessica, wherein she can face a non-favorable judgment. However, this aforementioned evidence can be considered as partially admissible for the case, as making a fake identity to enter a bar is not a crime. At the same time, charges were withdrawn by the claimer due to her ‘community service work’.

Therefore, it can be stated that the image of Jessica is good in society. Simultaneously, she had apologized for her actions in the recent case. With respect to the old case, she was charged for making fake identities. Hence, the ‘Effect of Apology on Liability’ under section 26.1(1) of the Alberta Evidence Act can be reasonable in both old and new case related to Jessica (Alberta Queen’s Printer, 2015). For the above-mentioned reason, evidence related to the three years back can be considered as non-admissible in the case. It can only impact the character as well as the intention of Jessica.

On the other hand, Ms. Shirley Shrink can change the counselor’s perception with respect to the case. As it reflected that she knew about Jessica’s financial constraints and the reason behind the case incident. In addition, if she revealed the truth in front of the Court, then a new judgment may emerge. In her case, Crown will unable to prove her guilty and evidence is treated as a vital aspect for the criminal case and claim of the Crown can be disqualified and discharged (Justice Education Society of BC, 2018).

As per to the Evidence Law of Canada, an expert can provide his viewpoints and result based on the case scenario. The Law has offered certain conditions, which are to be fulfilled by an expert in order to provide evidence. These conditions include the fact that an expert must have relevant knowledge regarding the case scenario. Additionally, an expert should have the ability to represent rational as well as logical facts to prove a claim.

Furthermore, an expert has to maintain legislation and remove exclusionary rules. At least, an expert must have a proper qualification along with an educational background for proving the claim. Therefore, Dr. Quill can provide his result within the case trial. However, the Canadian Court of Justice is not comfortable with the inclusion of the expert. The court needs proper evidence against a criminal (Letcher & Akelaitis, 2015).

According to section 21(1 and 2) of the Evidence Act, an expert can only examine evidence, if the Court of Justice or counselor allows doing so (The Queen’s Printer, 2018). At the same time, the expert must represent a scientific and logical explanation of the evidence. Additionally, expert’s justification has to be clear and understandable to the counselor. However, any kind of personal observation regarding an object is not considered as valid evidence. The expert must present appropriate facts behind every result of an object or evidence (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. 2012).

Search of This Item Conducted Reasonably

Based on these legislations and rules it can be stated that Dr. Quill will be permitted for testifying the tickets of Jessica with respect to respect original tickets. As per the Canadian legislation and laws, Dr. Quill has fulfilled each criterion for giving testimony. At the same time, he also has enough knowledge regarding paper and its quality. Hence, proper evidence can be represented by Dr. Quill in front of the counselor. This evidence can be established to be strong and effective against Jessica (Turner, 2015).

As a defense paralegal, initially each of the case facts must be examined on a legal basis. It has been observed that the case is related to criminal activity. Hence, the criminal code in Canada must be checked properly prior to making an argument with the Crown. According to the Canadian criminal code “, a person arrested for a criminal offence” is treated as an accused of this activity (Government of Canada, 2010). By analyzing Jessica’s case, it has been observed that the police have arrested Jessica prior to the criminal activity. As per the criminal code, the police have rights to arrest any person, if he or she is trying to commit a criminal offense.

The suspect must be arrested by the police officer. However, the concert’s authority has not claimed anything against Jessica. Nonetheless, the tickets from Jessica’s storage can be considered as a strong proof relating to the case. Thus, in here Crown can use this proof to justify Jessica’s crime (Authority of the Speaker of the House of Assembly Halifax, 2016). With respect to Ms. Shirley Shrink, she can provide the real reason behind the incident. Although, she did not know about the Jessica’s plan but Trisha knew about the plan and its processes. This can be considered as one of the strong reasons, which can assist a paralegal to argue with Crown (Department of Justice Canada, 2009).

In addition, Crown may ask about the financial constraints to Ms. Shirley Shrink, related to the case scenario. Hence, the paralegal will not differentiate financial constraints and ticket selling activity. In addition, Dr. Quill’s examination process can unlock strong evidence against Jessica. On the basis of these scenarios, Crown will take proper action because oral evidence exists against Jessica. However, breaking Jessica’s storage without any warrant can be considered to be an arguable aspect for the paralegal (Canada.ca, 2018).

However, there are some basis through which Ms. Shirley Shrink can be stopped from giving testimony is that a paralegal must “care to see that the unrepresented person is not proceeding under the impression that his or her interests will be protected by the paralegal” but “make clear to the unrepresented person that the paralegal is acting exclusively in the interests of the client and accordingly his or her comments may be partisan” (Law Society of Ontario, 2018).

References

Alberta Queen’s Printer 2015, Alberta evidence act, Province of Alberta,    22 November 2018, <https://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/A18.pdf>.

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. 2012, Expert witness rules, Rules and More Rules, viewed 23 November 2018, <https://www.acfe.com/uploadedFiles/ACFE_Website/Content/canadian/2012/presentations/cpp-9D-Philip-Levi.pdf>.

Authority of the Speaker of the House of Assembly Halifax 2016, Evidence act, Chapter 154 of the Revised Statutes, 1989, viewed 23 November 2018, <https://nslegislature.ca/sites/default/files/legc/statutes/evidence.pdf>.

Canada.ca 2018, Canada evidence act, JUSTICE LAWS WEBSITE, viewed 23 November 2018, <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-5/fulltext.html>.

Department of Justice Canada 2009, Community legal information association of Prince Edward Island, Inc. A Guide for Witnesses, viewed 23 November 2018, <https://www.cliapei.ca/sitefiles/File/publications/CRI1.pdf>.

Department of Justice Canada 2013, The constitution acts 1867 to 1982, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, viewed 22 November 2018, <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/pdf/CONST_E.pdf >.

Government of Canada 2010, Criminal code, R.S.C. 1985, c. c-46, Criminal Code, viewed 23 November 2018, <https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/>.

Justice Education Society of BC 2018, Trials in Supreme Court, Guidebooks for Representing Yourself in Supreme Court Civil Matters, viewed 22 November 2018, <https://www.supremecourtbc.ca/sites/default/files/web/Trials-in-Supreme-Court.pdf>.

Law Society of Ontario 2018, Complete paralegal rules of conduct, Home, viewed 24 November 2018, <https://lso.ca/about-lso/legislation-rules/paralegal-rules-of-conduct/complete-paralegal-rules-of-conduct>.

Letcher, G. A. & Akelaitis, A. C 2015, ‘An overview of expert evidence in Canada’, Environmental Education for Court Practitioners, pp. 1-8.

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada 2015, Canada’s system of justice, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, viewed 22 November 2018, <https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/img/courten.pdf>.

The Queen’s Printer 2018, ‘The evidence act’, The Recording of Evidence by Sound Recording Machine Act, pp. 5-32.

Turner, B 2015, Civil judicial experts in cross-border litigation: The common law perspective, European Union, Brussels.