*~!Justin Bieber : The Case of Dangerous Driving and Assault!~*

Page

Nripendra

@Abhisheking

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

Date : 29 September,2014
Place : The Provincial Court,Ontario,Canada

T h e a b o d e o f t h e g o d d e s s o f j u s t i c e is filled with a heavy crowd of people. A pin drop silence is there. From the entrance,the savior of commoners, the policemen arrive with the renowned pop singer, J u s t i n B i e b e r. Everyone is seeing only him.

His on-off girlfriend and a star-class actress, S e l e n a G o m e z is sitting in the first row behind the counsel's table. His father is too there. The justice-fetchers, l a w y e r s are all sitting at their respective places well-dressed in black robes and white neck tabs.The court clerk ,wearing a robe,is sitting facing the lawyers. Justin is taken to the prisoners box.

The j u d g e s who are the preachers of justice arrives along with a j u r y o f t w e l v e impressively dressed in barrister's robes and colored sashes. Everyone stands in respect and bows to the honorable officials and the next moment,they all have a seat.

https://dl2.glitter-graphics.net/pub/986/986762y2z65xa8lk.gif

The Defense Counsel : Your Honor!Today, I'm here to defend my criminally prosecuted client Mr Justin Bieber.

Before proceeding, I would like to recite the procedural summary:
On August 29th, my client, Mr Bieber was arrested after an accident between his ATV and a minivan,being driven by a paparazzi near his hometown Stratford,Ontario,Canada. He was visiting his father with his on-off girlfriend Ms Selena Gomez. After the accident, it was said that my client got into a physical altercation with one of the occupants of the minivan.

Your Honor! I truly believe my client is innocent and has not broken any rule of law.So, he should not be charged with any harsh sentence.

https://dl6.glitter-graphics.net/pub/679/679756vtql6ozj6a.gif

Contents :

Post #2 : Arguments,
Post #3 : Counter-Arguments,
Post #4 : Suggested sentence,
Post #5 : Credits.

Edited by Abhishek_King - 10 years ago

Quote

Frequent Posters

Nripendra

@Abhisheking

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

Judge : Counsel, do you have any evidence or witness to prove that the accused is really innocent?

The Crown Prosecutor : *sarcastically* Yes,my friend, have you got any means by which you can save your accused from all the sentences he has been assigned? Sorry,but the court does not works on the basis of one's own interpreted thoughts.

The Counsel : Oh,my friend, I am not too dumb to talk in air. Your Honor, I want to point out some important elements related to this case,in the court,can I?

Judge : Yes,you're permitted.

The Counsel : Your Honor! I want the court to note that the actus reus of assault is also not made out because there is no clear evidence as to the fact that it was Justin who first assaulted the photographer, be it directly or indirectly. This is an important consideration because if it was the photographer who first acted, the counsel would like to point out that Justin merely was acting in self-defence. Self-defence may be pleaded not only when there is fear of death, but even when there is fear of grievous bodily harm. The case of DPP v Smith (binding authority so its merely persuasive) states that GBH may be defined as 'really serious harm'.

The mens rea for assault, which requires intention as per the Criminal Code of Canada, may not be satisfied as well, as Justin was provoked.

Provocation, as per the Criminal Code of Canada, is a defence to assault. It may be done by "words, gestures, or blows". As such, it is sufficient that the photographer's persistence which troubled Justin & his girlfriend, caused him to act.Clearly provocation negates the mens rea (intention in this case) because he did not intend to apply force to the photographer. Please note that intention is to be contrasted from motive. The photographer was persistent. Justin merely reacted and thus should be entitled to this defence.

Also, the fact that Justin is a celebrity is worthy of mention. He deserves a right to privacy as per Art 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (which Canada does subscribe to) just as much as any ordinary person. As the paparazzi may go out of their way at times, it becomes even more important to uphold his right to privacy & thus not fault him for what ensued. A clear balance needs to be struck between how far the paparazzi can go, & the individual's right to privacy.

Edited by Abhishek_King - 10 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Nripendra

@Abhisheking

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

Judge : The Counsel has come up with really powerful arguments to save the accused but before the court announces its decision, it would like to hear the Crown Prosecutors,too.

The Crown : Your Honor! My friend has indeed come up with some interesting and strong facts to save the accused but I want to ask some questions to the witnesses and also to prosecute the favoring evidences for the accused.

Judge : The court grants you the permission, you can proceed.

The Crown : Your Honor! Mr Bieber had crashed into the mini van by his ATV. This shows how badly he was enjoying the ride on his ATV that he couldn't see the mini van coming from front. And as per the rule of law,no one can be granted any sorts of lease from the court if someone crashes into an animate or inanimate objects,and here Mr Bieber had crashed into a minivan occupied by a paparazzi and one other occupant. It is really God's blessing that the two are safe now. So,I want to learn from my friend if he has to say something in this regard.

The Judge : The Counsel! The Crown has really stated that no one can escape from any punishment if he crashes into any thing - be it animate or inanimate. Here,Mr Bieber has been truly said to be convicted of crashing into the minivan.

The Counsel : Yes,Your Honor! I'm also not saying that my client hadn't crashed into the minivan.

There was clear collision between Justin's vehicle & the ATV van HOWEVER there is no solid evidence to prove that the 'manner in which Justin operated the vehicle was dangerous to the public in the circumstances', a requirement as the Criminal Code of Canada. As such, there is no way the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Justin was reckless in his conduct of driving.

Rather, it was the minivan who had been following Justin & it may be argued that it was by virtue of the paparazzi that things got out of control. The lack of evidence is clearly a strong factor that makes it difficult for Justin to be guilty of the offence.

The actus reus is clearly not made out. And where the 'act requirement' has failed, the mens rea is irrelevant, as one can't be charged for criminal wrongs that occur in his head.

A point to be noted,Your Honor that the prior offences that Justin has been convicted of, should not be of any concern in this case.

The Crown : If that is so,then what would you say about the physical altercation your client Mr Bieber had involved in with one of the occupants of the minivan. He can be clearly convicted to a sentence of assault.

The Counsel : My friend,regarding the assault, Mr Bieber cannot be charged with it. There was clearly a physical altercation between Mr Bieber and an occupant of the minivan,and I'm not denying that. But,as per the Criminal Code of Canada,and based on the little evidence as to what ensued between the two,I argue that the driver of the van ,who was a photographer,consented to start this altercation.

Point to be noted Your Honor that S265 (1) (a) of Criminal Code of Canada states that assault consists of the elements of

- The victim's lack of consent as well as

- The defendant's act of applying force to the victim either directly or indirectly

Consent is an important element that constitutes both the actus reus as well as the mens rea of the offence of assault & with its presence, the offence cannot be made out. Here there was no express consent. Implied consent, however, existed due to the fact that the driver (a photographer) was clearly following Justin & would do whatever it would take to get his pictures. So whatever physical altercation that ensued, clearly cannot be blamed on Justin alone, as the photographer would have foreseen it coming with his decision of deciding to invade Justin's privacy. This foresight on the photographer's part may be argued to be an indication of his 'consent' for the accident that happened later.

As the paparazzi was not doing any illegal activity by following Justin around, contrary to public interest, consent is still valid & important.

Edited by Abhishek_King - 10 years ago

Quote

Nripendra

@Abhisheking

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

https://dl9.glitter-graphics.net/pub/692/692879g5azuimrkv.gif

The Counsel : The respected judges and the ladies and gentlemen of the jury,mentioning all the things above,I only want to say that the justice must be served. No innocent should get any sorts of punishment and so should Mr Bieber.

Your Honor! As per the Canadian Law S49(1), anyone commits an offence only when he operates :

(1) A motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place;

(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and; (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction; In addition to the essential elements of time, location, and identity, the Crown should prove the following:
1. The accused operated a motor vehicle,; 2. The manner the accused operated the vehicle was dangerous to the public in the circumstances,; (a) The accused riving over the road lines / driving over curbs,
(b) The accused failed to obey the road-signs, including stop signs, stop lights and speed limits,
(c) The accused was driving in close proximity with other vehicles (i.e. "tailgating"),
(d) The accused collided with other car(s), bikers, pedestrians / with inanimate objects,
(e) The accused swerved while driving.

3. The accused knew or ought to have known that the manner of driving was dangerous.
The items listed above are essential elements to the offence.
And as,my friend failed to prove many essential things above,I request the court to free Mr Bieber as no evidences or witnesses are found against him.

Edited by Abhishek_King - 10 years ago

Quote

Nripendra

@Abhisheking

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

Court Decorum & Scenario : Wikipedia

Arguments : prc_fan1
Counter Arguments : prc_fan1
Suggested Sentence : prc_fan1

Write-up and compiling : Abhishek_King
Graphics : Abhishek_King

Over-all Credits :