The Conclusion Of The First World War History Essay

The Conclusion Of The First World War History Essay At the conclusion of the First World War, Italy was riddled with chaos. This disorder was caused primarily by the belief that Italy was not adequately paid for aiding the Allies at the conclusion of the war. Italy expected to be rewarded with large expanses of territory from the defeated nations for its services. But it did not. In fact, under the charter of the League of Nations and the various peace treaties, Italy only gained territory from turkey when other nations whom they saw as inferior gained more land and more resources. Mussolini and his rapidly growing supporters capitalised on this and it was during this time Mussolinis fascist views spread throughout the country. Due to his military service during the war, Mussolini already had a large amount of support from military veterans and the lower classes in Italian society. He also had support of the business class for fear of a communist style regime that would see their profits lost. This capitalisation was the first of many political successes that would befall Mussolini and his soon to be fascist government. The next political success that occurred was Mussolinis solidification as Italys leader. This occurred in the late 1920s when Gabriele DAnnunzio and his supporters were forced out from Fiume. DAnnunzio was labeled as the John the Baptist of Italian Fascism  [1]  and Mussolinis style of leadership was rather like that of DAnnunzio during his occupation of Fiume and his leadership of the Italian Regency of Carnaro  [2]  . Aspects of this style were seen throughout Mussolinis time in power and frequently à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦included the balcony address, the Roman salute, the cries of Eia, eia, eia! Alala!, the dramatic and rhetorical dialogue with the crowd, the use of religious symbols in new secular settings  [3]  . Once Mussolini succeeded in driving DAnnunzio out of Fiume, many Italian separatists also embraced Mussolini as their leader as he promoted a strong foreign policy and the annexation of Fiume and Dalmatia. With his position as leader solidified, Mussolini rapidly ga ined power gained power and progressively converted the government into a one-party fascist dictatorship under his leadership. From that time until his death, Mussolinis only interest was in holding on to power. Perhaps, the biggest success for Mussolini and the government were the two organisations they created to control Italy. The first of these organisations was known as the Blackshirts. The Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale or National Security Volunteer Militia was formed in 1923 and was responsible for security of the regime and reported directly to Mussolini. This allowed for complete control over Italy and its subjects  [4]  . The second of these organisations was a secret police force created in 1927, called the Organizzazione di Vigilanza Repressione dellAntifascismo, (Organization for Vigilance and Repression of Anti-Fascism) or OVRA. It was led by Arturo Bocchini with the sole purpose of cracking down on all opponents of the the government and Mussolini as there had been several assassination attempts on his life since his rise to power  [5]  . The OVRA itself was an effective force, but caused fewer deaths of political opponents compared to that of the Schut zstaffel of Nazi Germany and the NKVD of the Soviet Union, the OVRA. This being said, the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦fascists methods of repression were cruel which included physically forcing opponents of Fascism to swallow castor oil which would cause severe diarrhoea and dehydration, leaving the victim in a painful and physically debilitated state which would sometimes result in death  [6]  . This created a state of constant fear of the OVRA and the Blackshirts, both of whom used this method of torture. In 1925, organised crime was rapidly rising in the Sicily and southern Italy. To combat this, the government gave special powers to the prefect of Palermo, Cesare Mori. These powers gave him the ability to prosecute the Mafia, forcing many Mafiosi to flee abroad (many to the United States) or risk being jailed  [7]  . Mori was fired however, when he began to investigate Mafia links within the Fascist regime. He was removed from his position in 1929, and the Fascist regime declared tha t the threat of the Mafia had been eliminated. Moris actions weakened the Mafia, but did not destroy them. Between 1929 and 1943, the Italian government completely abandoned its aggressive measures against the Mafia, and left them relatively undisturbed. The Fascist government had a major success when it came to education, endorsing many new and stringent education policies in Italy throughout the period aimed at lowering illiteracy which was a growing problem in Italy at the time  [8]  . To reduce the number of drop-outs, the government raised the minimum age of leaving school from 12 to 14 years of age and due to the fascist nature of the government, they were able to strictly enforce attendance at school. This was just the first step in their education plan and in 1922, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the governments first minister of education, Giovanni Gentile announced his recommendation that all education policy from this point forward should focus on indoctrination of students into fascism, and to educate youth to respect and be obedient to authority  [9]  . Before this could be realised, the government invoked a concurrent plan to increase and recognise intellectual talent throughout Italy when the government established the Royal Ac ademy of Italy in 1926 to reward, promote and coordinate Italys intellectual success  [10]  . It wasnt until 1929 that education policy took a major step toward that agenda of indoctrination. In that year, the government took control of the authorisation of all textbooks, all school teachers were required to take oaths of loyalty to fascism and children began to be instructed that they owed the same loyalty to fascism as they did to God  [11]  . It then increased in the control set by the government with all university teachers were required to be members of the National Fascist Party in 1933  [12]  , and in the 1930s and 1940s Italys education system was refocused onto the history of Italy displaying Italy as a force of civilization during the Roman era, displaying the rebirth of Italian nationalism and the struggle for Italian independence  [13]  . Also in the late 1930s, the fascist government copied Nazi Germanys education system regarding the physical fitness st udents, and begun demanding that Italians become physically healthy  [14]  . The major success in social policy for the government was the establishment of the Opera Nazionale Dopolavoro (OND) or National After-work Program in 1925 and soon became the states largest recreational organisation for adults. The Dopolavoro as it was known, had no trouble attracting members  [15]  , à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦but according to historian Tobias Asbe, while the activities sponsored by the OND were popular with the working class, these activities did not turn workers into ideologically convinced supporters of the Fascist regime was so popular that, by the 1930s, all towns in Italy had a Dopolavoro clubhouse and the Dopolavoro was responsible for establishing and maintaining 11,000 sports grounds, over 6,400 libraries, 800 movie houses, 1,200 theatres, and over 2,000 orchestras  [16]  . When Achille Starace took over as director of the OND in the early 1930s, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ t became primarily recreational; concentrating on sports and other outings and by 1936 the OND had a pproximately 80% of salaried workers as members  [17]  . The OND had the largest membership of any of the mass Fascist organizations in Italy and due to its huge success in Italy, it was the key factor in Nazi Germany creating its own version, the Kraft durch Freude (KdF) or Strength through Joy program, which was even more successful than the Dopolavoro  [18]  . Once in power, Mussolini attempted to alter the countrys economy to work within his fascist ideology. This was his major failure. He immediately began investing in and taking over industrial interests from within the leaders of Italian capitalism. There are two views amongst both historians and economist with regard to Mussolinis economic management, David Baker who discusses this in The New Political Economy There is a messy tangle between economic theory and economic practice which leads to two opposing views either Mussolini had an economic plan, or that he did not, but instead reacted to changes without forward planning  [19]  . Mussolinis first failure was though he did have an economic agenda which was both short and long term in nature, he attempted to completely change the economy in one phase. The government had two major tasks, one, to modernise the economy, and two, to improve the countrys dire lack of resources. To attempt these tasks, the government stimulated devel opment through creating a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦modern capitalistic sector in the service of the state, intervening directly as needed to create collaboration between the industrialists, the workers, and the state  [20]  . This was achieved by removing class and implementing corporations and in the short-term the government worked to reform the widely-abused tax system, dispose of inefficient state-owned industry, cut government costs, and introduce tariffs to protect the new industries  [21]  . The governments second failure was that it started to sell off legislative monopolies. The first of these was the 19 April 1923 law which transferred life insurance policy from a state run company to private enterprise. This effectively cancelled à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the 1912 law which had created a State Institute for insurances and which had envisioned to give a state monopoly ten years later  [22]  . By doing this the government lost one sector of income it rely on and with a rapidly growing inflation Up until 1925 the country enjoyed modest growth but structural weaknesses increasing rate of inflation the value of currency slowly dropped. Then in 1925 à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the Italian state abandoned its monopoly on telephones infrastructure, while the state production of matches was handed over to a private consortium of matches producers  [23]  . This led to increase in speculation against the strength of the lira. This then caused the government to intervene and De Stefani, the fin ance minister à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦was sacked, his program side-tracked, and the Fascist government became more involved in the economy in step with the increased security of their power  [24]  . The great depression of the early 1930s was the third major economic failure to beset the Italian government. As companies came close to failure, the policy of the government was for banks to buy out the companies. This was largely an illusionary bail-out as the funds used to pay for the purchases were largely worthless and this led a financial crisis which peaked in 1932 and led to the need for major government intervention  [25]  . After the bankruptcy of the Austrian Kredit Anstalt in May 1931, Italian banks followed, with the bankruptcy of the Banco di Milano, the Credito Italiano and the Banca Commerciale  [26]  . In response to this, the state created three financial management institutions funded by the Italian treasury which were designed to buy back all the debt made by the failed banks. This aid was in the form of $5.5 billion and was to be paid back within ten years. Throughout the period of 1923 and 1939, there were a number of decisions that Benito Mussolini and his fascist government of Italy made that led to both successful and unsuccessful ventures. They were successful with implementing a number of new political policies through taking advantage of the circumstances and solidifying Mussolinis position in as leader and creating new powerful policing agencies that answered directly to them and through exerting fear into the populous. Once their position was solidifies they then commencing working on the education standards of Italy and through the fascist influence increased the literacy rate of the country and also the support of their movement by the students and teachers of the school. The government also built support up through their introduction of the OND, a social organisation that grew to include over 80% of salary workers. Though this being said, their major failure was their inability to manage funds appropriately. The economy of t he country wasnt great when they came to power, and they then attempted to achieve too much too quickly and send the economy into a downward spiral once they sold off their monopolies and then failed to act appropriately when the great depression hit the country. All in all, there were a number of both successes and failures that the Italian fascist government had during the inter war years of 1923 to 1939.

College Essay Essay

The last two years I have been on the high school gymnastics team. Before that I was in club gymnastics, yet somehow both are very different from each other. When I started high school gymnastics I didn’t know what to expect. Everyone was very friendly and excited to start the season, just like I was. In club gymnastics, it seemed more like an individual sport. High school gymnastics has been such a good and different experience. It may seem like gymnastics would be the same no matter where you went, with routines and working out the same. But in high school, you see your friends in the gym and during school too. I have made so many friends and new relationships with people with different interests and personalities, that I didn’t think I would ever get to know. I have learned from these relationships how to respect people more and treat people how you would want to be treated. It has helped me to understand people better and how to respond to people in different situations. Now it may seem like I only did gymnastics for friends, but that’s not true. I have been in gymnastics since I was 3 years old. It has taught me so much more than just friendship. It has taught me self- discipline, courage, strength (physically, and mentally), and now that I’m older, leadership. In life I consider those very important traits to have. I can take what I’ve learned in gymnastics and apply it to everyday life. We would have to set goals for gymnastics on certain skills we wanted to get by a certain time. I have used that to set goals for the future and where I want to be in 5 – 10 years. Not only did I set those goals, but I know what I have to do to achieve those goals. And having self –discipline helps me keep myself on track to make sure I get things done, not just with goals in life, but also with everyday things. For example, juggling school work and gymnastics. I have to keep myself on track to make sure I understand the material to keep my grades up. So gymnastics has really taught me a lot, not only throughout my life, but these last two years especially. It has helped me over come things I didn’t think I could handle by myself. I can honestly say gymnastics has made me the person I am today, and can’t wait to see the things colleges brings my way in the future.

R v Barry White - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 10 Words: 3144 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Analytical essay Level High school Did you like this example? It is clear to see in the case of Barry White v The Crown that there are several issues arising on the facts. These issues shall now be argued under various grounds of appeal below. Ground 1- Failure to dismiss evidence that has been obtained unlawfully In regards to the evidence within the case in which great weight was held when Barry was charged, it can be seen that both pieces of evidence (the radio and the confession) have been obtained unlawfully and thus forth should be dismissed from the trial. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "R v Barry White" essay for you Create order Firstly is the issue of the radio which proved to be a conclusive piece of evidence upon which the jury ascribed great weight leading to them to be persuaded that the crowns case was proven beyond reasonable doubt, yet it was improperly obtained. Barry, although at the time of his arrest did not know what he was being arrested for, was ultimately charged with murder by the crown court, which is an arrestable offence by virtue of the fact that Barry could be sentenced to a term of imprisonment upon conviction.[1] Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE)[2], empowers an officer to enter premises à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"occupied or controlled by a person arrested for an arrestable offenceà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢[3] to search for evidence related to that offence or connected offences, therefore this section would have been used when the police carried out the search throughout Barryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s home on the 6th of May. What is interesting however is that the officer must have à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"reasonable groundsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ for believing that there is evidence on the premises that relates to the offence in question or to some offence à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"which is connected with or similar to that offenceà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢. If Barry was charged with theft then searching his house for the stolen radio would be within the sections ambit. However given the fact that Barry was ultimately charged with murder it seems unlikely that the radio which was seized would have a connection to the murder apart from the fact that they were stolen from the victimà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s car; as to whether it would hold particular weight in a murder charge is somewhat questionable. In addition to this the section also states that any officer making such a search must have prior authorisation in writing from a fellow officer of at least the rank of inspector, or subsequent approval, if such is necessary for the effective investigation of the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"offenceà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ ž ¢. From the facts it is clear to see that when the police arrived at Barryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s house and carried out their search that a warrant for the search was not present and was not shown to Barry, therefore the evidence obtained from the search should be inadmissible as the police didnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t have a valid warrant to search the premises under section 18 of PACE.[4] Moreover it is a requirement of the revised Code B[5] that when conducting a search, the police shall give the occupier a written notice of powers and rights showing which powers have been exercised. This is applicable to searches made under several powers, including those under ss18 and 32. The notice must specify under which power the search is being made and must also explain the rights of the occupier and the owner of any property being seized. The codes of practice are not technically à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"lawà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ however if Barry can show that evidence (that is relating to the radio) has been obtained in breach of the Code, then the trial judge or Appeal Court can be invited to exclude that evidence (s76(11)). In sum, Barry might be able to show that any evidence obtained relating to the radio and DVDà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s should be excluded by s78[6]. The search might not be lawful under s18[7] if: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"the search was not properly authorised in writing by an inspectorà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ which in the case of Barry has been shown to be the case as no warrant was shown to him. In addition to the admissibility of the radio as evidence it is also important to look at the lawfulness of Barryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s confession as well. A confession is defined in s.82(1)[8] of PACE as a statement à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"wholly or partly adverse to the party who made ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢[9]. Barry, within these terms, appears to have made a confession. The admissibility of a confession is governed by several sections of PACE and so it is necessary to look at these in detail to analyse whether or not the confession made by Barry was indeed unlawfully obtained and thus forth inadmissible in a court of law. S.76(2) states that in relation to confessions which have allegedly resulted from à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"oppressionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ or in consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession made, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"the court shall not admit the evidence unless the prosecution proves that the confession was not obtained in such a mannerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢[10]. One way in which the confession from Barry could be considered as unreliable is by looking at section 78 of PACE, which allows a court to refuse to admit evidence if it appears, having regard to all the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit ità ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢[11]. An example of this in relation to Barry is the failure to properly record an interview, this is evidenced by the fact that the officers who conducted the interview failed to freshly caution Barry upon the start of the interview which under PACE Code C renders the interview inadmissible as this is a key requirement when conducting an interview. Furthermore there is also the issue of Barryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s right to a legal advisor, although he requested his own solicitor and could not make contact with them the police failed to wait to try again and also failed to offer Barry a different solicitor thus letting him conduct the interview by himself. The importance of having a solicitor present during an interview under s. 58 PACE[12] has been demonstrated in a number of cases such as R v Samuel[13] and R v Walsh[14] therefore it must be considered as an important factor of a confession that legal advice be accessible and the fact that the court failed to see this when charging Barry i s exactly the reason why the case should be either sent to a re-trial or dismissed entirely. Moreover in the case of Sang[15] at the House of Lords, which permitted the exclusion of evidence where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value, Lord Diplock thought that a discretion only existed at common law with regard to admissions and confessions and à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"generally with regard to evidence obtained from accused after commission of the offenceà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢. One observation of Lord Diplockà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s which could be helpful to Barry (although obiter dicta) is that the purpose of such judicial discretion is to ensure that an accused was not induced to incriminate himself by deception. This would apply to Barry in the sense that the police asked questions about whether he thought Stuart would use the crowbar to cause harm, in which he didnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t answer yet the courts took this as a confession of consent to Stuart inflicting the blows which caused the victims death. This can be seen as an example of the unfairness section of PACE which can exclude a confession from being admissible evidence and given that the confession held great weight in the juryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s decision of a guilty charge towards Barry it is crucial that this needs to be addressed and looked into further as this could change the nature of the charge and the case as a whole. Ground 2- failure to safeguard the right to representation on interrogation Another breach which the court should have taken into account when arresting Barry was his right to legal representation during his interview. The access to a lawyer a suspect has is governed by section 58(1) of PACE[16], and states that a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"person arrested and held in custody in a police station shall be entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor at any timeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢[17]. In addition to this the request must also be recorded in the custody record and the request m ust be granted as soon as possible except to the extent that the delay is permitted by the section. In terms of Barry it seems that there has been a breach of Code C (in respect of the notification of free legal advice), given that although Barry requested his own solicitor when this failed the police failed to offer him one from the police station and instead proceeded to let him conduct the interview without legal aid. This is evidenced by Barry repeatedly requesting his solicitor and when the police gave up attempting to contact them Barry stated that he would proceed with the interview à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"notwithstanding he did not have his legal representativeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ showing that he was hesitant to proceed without legal aid and the police failed to offer him an alternative. Therefore it would be possible that if the case went to appeal then the court would quash not only his confession which was produced as a result of the interview but possibly the entire case as he w as deprived of his fundamental right to a legal representative as a result of the breach and the policeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s impatience in contacting his own solicitor when they had ample time to do so as he had only been detained less than 24 hours. A case which supports this argument comes from Beycan[18], in which the Court of Appeal quashed a conviction based on a confession when the suspect had been arrested, taken to the station and asked: à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"are you happy to be interviewed in the normal way we conduct these interviews without a solicitor, friend or representative?à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢[19]. Although the police didnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t breach the code that explicitly, Barryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s case is arguably stronger as he actually expressed a desire for legal advice and when it couldnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t be provided he reluctantly proceeded to conduct the interview. It may be possible to construe the events from the case of Barry in a way which shows him à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"changing his mindà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ about taking legal advice. Thus there could be a further breach of Code C para 6 6(d) : à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"when the person who wanted legal advice changes his mind, the interview may be started without further delay provided the person has given his agreement in writing or on tape to being interviewed without receiving legal advice and that an officer of the rank of inspector or above has given agreement.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢[20] It is not stated within the facts of the case whether or not this procedure was followed however given the fact that Barry was not properly cautioned when the interview was conducted and the fact that his custodial process wasnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t performed properly in the sense that he wasnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t booked in correctly because he was taken straight to an interview, it is unlikely that the procedure was in fact followed. The breach of this code and its implications upon trials was demonstrated in the case of Wad man[21], in which the defendant, having initially declined legal advice, changed his mind and then, while arrangements were being made, reverted to saying that he did not wish to have a solicitor. The judge in the case held that the code was not à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"mandatoryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ and admitted the evidence. However on appeal the conviction was quashed and the court ruled that the judges approach to the code was flawed as he à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"confused the discretion he had on voir doire- whether to admit the evidence- with the absence of discretion for police officers when complying with the code; it was a disciplinary offence not to do so, it was not a case where the court should exercise its own discretionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢.[22] This further strengthens the argument that the court should not have ignored the fact that Barry didnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t have a legal representative with him whilst recording his interview and the fact that the police breached Code C by not following th e correct procedure and therefore the submitting the interview as evidence was unlawful. Ground 3- failure to direct the jury properly on convicting on the basis of joint criminal enterprise Barry was sentenced for murder on the principle that he committed the act of crime on the basis of a joint criminal enterprise, there are numerous reasons as to why this was the wrong decision by the court but first we shall analyse what it means to be part of a joint criminal enterprise. A joint criminal enterprise is defined as where an à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"offence is committed by two or more persons, of which each may play a different part, but they are acting together as part of a joint planà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢[23]. The important part of this definition which is relevant to Barryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s charge is the word à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"planà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢, the courts have noted that the word doesnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t mean that there has to be a formal agreement about what has to be done but i nstead it can happen in the spur of the moment and can be made with something as simple as a nod or wink to the other party. In order for the prosecution to prove the secondary liability of a person they must establish that the conduct by the defendant amounts to assistance or the encouragement of the joint person, the intention to assist or encourage the joint offender to commit the principal offence and the defendants knowledge of the essential matters which constitute the principle offence. Therefore in order to charge Barry on the ground of joint criminal enterprise it must be proven that the above three requirements have been satisfied, however in actual fact when looking at the case it is clear to see that they havenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t been satisfied, which I will now further explain below. Firstly is the requirement of knowledge of intention from the joint offender, in this case Stuart, from the defendant, in this case Barry. If it could be proven that Barry had reasona ble knowledge that Stuart would use the crowbar to inflict the blows to the victim which lead to his death then that would be sufficient enough for the court to charge Barry with murder based on a joint criminal enterprise. However it seems that the court failed to analyse Barryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s interview properly as within it he was asked whether or not he knew that Stuart was carrying the crowbar which he stated that he did know he was carrying the weapon because it was a useful tool for breaking into cars, however what is interesting is that when he was asked whether he thought that Stuart might use violence on another human being he remained silent. Yet the court looked at this as an acknowledgement of Stuartà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s intention which is arguably wrong on a number of basis. For example in Powell and English[24] Lord Hutton[25] said that where the act committed by P (Stuart) is fundamentally different from that contemplated by D (Barry), D will not be liable. In rel ation to the case at hand it could be argued that although Barry knew that Stuart was carrying the crowbar that he only foresaw him using it as a tool for breaking into cars as it is what the pair have used in the past, not that he would have expected Stuart to use the tool as a harmful weapon towards the victim as Barry only intended to steal the car as is evident from the fact that when he received the keys to the car he immediately went and sat in the driverà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s seat. It was in fact Stuart who then proceeded to commit the act of violence, therefore how can it be argued by the court that Barry consented to the murder when he was merely sat in the car waiting to drive away? Given that this requirement hasnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t been met and the fact that Barry did not comment on whether he thought Stuart would cause harm to the victim the conviction should be quashed and the trial should be appealed in light of the ground being breached. In conclusion it is clear to see that Barry, although admittedly committing a crime of theft, was wrongly charged on the grounds of murder due to a number of grounds and procedural breaches which the Crown Court failed to take into consideration such as the wrongful processing of Barry when he arrived at the station, the lack of a fresh caution when conducting his interview, the lack of legal representation during his interview and the two pieces of evidence (the confession and the radio) which held great weight in the charge were unlawfully obtained and therefore should not have been submitted before the court or relied upon. With this said I think it is fair to say that the charges should be quashed and that a new trial take place with the above mentioned grounds and breaches taken into consideration in order to provide a conviction that can be seen as an acceptable one in the eyes of law. Bibliography Statues and statutory instruments Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) Cases Powell a nd English [1999] AC 1 R v Beycan [1990] R v Samuel [1988] QB 615 R v Sang [1980] 2 AC 402 HL R v Walsh (1990) 91 Cr App R 161 Wadman 1996 Websites Judicial Board Studies, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Directing The Juryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ (judiciary.gov.uk 2010) https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Training/benchbook_criminal_2010.pdf accessed 11/02/2015 Books and journals M Hannibal and L Mountford, Criminal Litigation Handbook 2013-2014 (8th, OUP, Oxford 2013) A Keane and P McKeown, The modern law of evidence (9th, OUP, Oxford 2012) G Slapper and D Kelly, English legal system 2013-2014, (10th, Routledge, London 2013) J F Archibold, Archbold: criminal pleading, evidence and practice 2014, (Sweet Maxwell London 2014) [1] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) s.24 [2] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) s.18 [3] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) s.18 [4] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) [5] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) Code B [6] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) [7] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) [8] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) [9] M Hannibal and L Mountford, Criminal Litigation Handbook 2013-2014 (8th, OUP, Oxford 2013) 92 [10]M Hannibal and L Mountford, Criminal Litigation Handbook 2013-2014 (8th, OUP, Oxford 2013) 94 [11] M Hannibal and L Mountford, Criminal Litigation Handbook 2013-2014 (8th, OUP, Oxford 2013) 96 [12] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) s. 58 [13] R v Samuel [1988] QB 615 [14] R v Walsh (1990) 91 Cr App R 161 [15] R v Sang [1980] 2 AC 402 HL [16] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) s. 58(1) [17] Police and Crimi nal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) s. 58(1) [18]R v Beycan [1990] [19] R v Beycan [1990] [20] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) Code C para 6 6(d) [21] Wadman 1996 [22] Wadman 1996 [23] Judicial Board Studies, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Directing The Juryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ (judiciary.gov.uk 2010) https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Training/benchbook_criminal_2010.pdf accessed 11/02/2015 [24] Powell and English [1999] AC 1 [25] Lord Hutton page 21

Technological Change Moves Faster Than Bureaucracy

Technological change moves much faster than bureaucracy, and it is the patent office that must bear the collision of novelty and government – for anyone who wishes to profit from their genius must go there to have their constitutional right to the proceeds from it verified. Exactly what technology can be patented in this day and age, as our bodies and proteins become subject to technology themselves, is indeed in need of some clarification. Today scientific advances allow us to look into the deepest codes that create our bodies – our genes. With a small sample scientists can isolate the miniscule structure of just a single gene and analyze it for every divergence it displays in an individual as compared to the ‘normal’ human population.†¦show more content†¦Smith Pharmaceuticals is one of these corporations. Over several years, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on research perfecting the method to synthesize and analyze cDNA – compl ementary DNA – in the genes LIF and LCK. Mutations in these two genes, as Smith discovered, correlated with and were highly indicative of an increased risk of leukemia. Smith filed a patent on these genes and the process of the diagnostic test, and has since benefited over one million potential leukemia patients with a diagnostic that allows them to take preemptive strikes against the disease – the average cost of leukemia in the Netherlands is $104,386 (de Uyl et al.), and one treatment in the United States costs $178,000 (Chen), while Smith’s test is under $4000, and usually insurance eligible under new Federal law, qualifying as preventative care. As the Economist puts it succinctly, â€Å"the point of a patent is to encourage innovation by giving inventors a limited period of exclusive control over the fruits of their labour,† (April 2013). Smith invested these large sums into identifying this gene under the assumption that it would make profit off o f these tests due to its rights over the information it gathers – and, important to note, it would not have done so without this financial motivation. Otherwise, it is highly plausible that LIF and LCK’s benefits would lie undiscovered even today, and the one million patients tested at under $4000 would all be undergoing $178000