Introduction
Rules are formed on the basis of law, hence the two work together to form a rule of law. It, therefore, implies that law is supreme and applies to everyone, including the makers and that anybody going against it is to face its wrath. It expressly means that in the rule of law, no one can be exempted no matter the position he or she holds in society. The principle of rule of law relies on the set down procedures in which specific decisions are made, hence protecting the parties involved from decisions of judgments that may be considered arbitrary (Valverde, 2006). The case of Marie vs. Jayne case falls under the broader rule of law. The rule of law demands that everyone is granted a right to own a property as long as the property legally belongs to him or her; subject to proof (Alston, 2000). According to chapter 12 of The Ethics of Liberty, everyone has an absolute right to own a property justly, subsequently meaning that he or she has the full authority and responsibility to keep it or use it as long as the user does not infringe on others (Rothbard, 2009). However, the subdivision of the law means that not all cases belong to the same category, even this of Jane vs. Marie and Co. Jayne is more likely to face charges of pretty theft as well as assault.
The Courts
The English legal system provides two types of court structures. One structure is responsible for criminal cases while the other is in charge of civil cases. Almost all criminal cases are handled at the magistrate’s court and the Crown Court. In practice, Crown Court is left with more serious criminal offenses that Magistrate’s Court may not be in a position to handle appropriately (Owens, 2001). Civil cases on the other hand are handled by the county court and several administrative tribunals which have been incorporated in the general court systems that are mainly comprised of industrial tribunals (Owens, 2001). In this arrangement, just a few cases are left for High Court level judgments.
Civil law Vs Criminal law
In general practice, it is important for Jayne to know the difference and interrelation between civil law and criminal law. This will be important in establishing the possibility of which approach her likely accusers will take and to know the difference between particular courses of conduct that may lead to consequences in both civil laws as well as criminal law. For instance, any crime of murder and other criminal activities that may lead to inflicted injury to another person may be categorized as a civil wrong (or tort) of assault (Owens, 2001). The crime of damaging a property that does not belong to you or throwing an object to another person with an intent to hurt may be categorized as trespass while the act of damaging property without any due care may be categorized as negligence; the crimes that may involve dangerous acts like insulting and throwing objects which may lead to some sort of injury to anybody could amount to the tort of negligence (Owens, 2001).
Even though all crimes will inevitably amount to torts, it is very rare in general practice to find that a victim of a crime brings a civil case against the offender, unless he or she is sure the offender has a proper insurance policy or has the ability to pay for the damages (Broadbridge, 2005). So Jayne must be in a position to assess herself if she has the financial muscle to warrant a possible civil case against her by her accusers. The logic here is that it is almost useless to bring a case against one who cannot afford to pay for the damages leveled against him or her.
Another important thing to note is that most civil cases are normally settled out of courts. For Jayne and Marie, this is very possible in that Jayne may accept the damages of Marie’s book and they agree on personal terms on how to settle the case outside the court of law. In this aspect, Jayne may make a particular offer to Marie, which will determine the possibility of Marie withdrawing her case on personal terms (Owens, 2001).
In some instances, the conduct of the accused or defendant may be classified as both criminal and civil cases. But the possibility that a conviction of a criminal offense does not conclusively justify that the accused actually committed a crime that the court has found him or her guilty of. The result of this criminal case if applied in a civil case may increase the presumption that the accused was actually guilty of the offense (Owens, 2001). If such occurs in this case, it is up to Jayne to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was actually wrongly accused and that she did not commit the crime, hence making Marie start all over again to prove that Jayne actually committed the crime just as the criminal court had proved to warrant the demanded compensation for the damages at a civil level. Generally, this process will be very difficult for Marie.
Can the Claimant (Marie and Co.) demand compensation at the criminal case level?
While it is possible that Jayne may be subjected to compensation Marie at a criminal court level, the decision solely lies with the court (Owens, 2001). This is possible under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing Act 2000) (Owens 2001). In this case, the court is given full authority to decide on such issues and may not involve the opinions of the feuding parties (i.e. Jayne and Marie). However, Owens observes that criminal courts never use this power to the maximum under normal circumstances (2001). This is because the criminal Court of Appeal insists that compensation should never be applied where the accused is likely to commit the same crime or other forms of crime against the accusers to accomplish the unfinished mission (Owens, 2001). For instance, Jayne threatening her teacher, Audrey that she will get her later is likely to rule out the possibility of compensation if Jayne is found guilty at a criminal court level. This is because Jayne may be taken to be planning another crime later even after serving her punishment.
Self-defense
According to the law, everyone has a right to self-defense in case it deems necessary (Broadbridge, 2005). Marie accidentally forgot her book in a public place. Jayne got access to the book and used it inappropriately as it was not hers and she was in dire need of it.
How can Jane defend herself? And what does the law say? In the practice of criminal law, it is a common phenomenon that self-defense is recognized by law. The following are ways in which Jayne can carry out self-defense:
First, Jayne must deny the charges of theft in order to constitute an act of defense. For a petty theft case, Marie misplaced her book. Was the teacher’s suspicion enough proof that the book did not belong to Jayne but Marie? If that is the case how can a picture from a book of the same series that is done by the same author(s) be different in two books? Definitely, the ownership of the book was not proven, even after the search, for the search cannot make up for a concrete investigation. It will therefore take Marie and the witnesses to justify that she actually left the book where Jane got it and that the book actually belongs to her.
The use of force for self-defense
Jayne may highlight the circumstances that led to her actions, the assault. In the practice of criminal law, self-defense is defined as the application of force in an effort to prevent an imminent or perceived injury or death (Broadbridge, 2005). Basically, circumstances may differ depending on the nature of the case and the parties involved. A person who kills a burglar who has invaded his home may be proven guilty of manslaughter or murder, that is, depending on the situation, the person may be found guilty of intentionally killing a burglar who provokes him or her (Broadbridge, 2005). In such a case the case will be treated as murder. On the other hand, if the killing occurred unintentionally, it will be treated as manslaughter. In either case, the person will be acquitted if it is proven that his or her actions are proven to be in self-defense.
In the year 1987, Eric Butler was charged with an assault on a mugger, whom he stabbed with a sword stick (Broadbridge, 2005). However, the Crown Prosecution Service withdrew his case on account of self-defense (Broadbridge, 2005). The jury said that Mr. Butler’s use of the sword stick was “proper”, but it was illegal for him to be in possession of an offensive weapon, hence calling for a separate charge of being in possession of an offensive weapon, other than stabbing (Broadbridge, 2005). Jayne was not armed. Another case is that of Ben Lyon, a managed 73 was charged with attempted murder as well as wounding with the intention to kill a man who wanted to break into his house (Broadbridge, 2005). He defended his several shots, saying that he was only forced to act in such a manner in self-defense and never intended to inflict harm to the man. He was proven not guilty of any offense hence acquitted.
In this aspect, Jayne should be in a position to convince the jury beyond doubt that her actions to hurt one of the security officers and pull the teacher’s hair are because she was scared and that what she did was actually a last resort. It is important to let the jury know that her intention was not to hurt the two victims but to protect herself from being harassed and hurt in the process of search. She should be ready to acknowledge that the actions were aggravated by the fact that she felt the people were embarrassing her and any attempt to call for assistance were thwarted because she was one person against many people whose intents she believed were to spoil her reputation by labeling her a “thief” and hurt her.
Jayne should also be ready to tell the jury that her attack on the teacher and the security officers was a result of these people attacking her. This argument should be based on the point that she acted in response to the attackers’ first strike and she was convinced that the people would hurt her (Broadbridge, 2005). By this, she can demonstrate that the group (the teacher and the security officer) committed a felony (Broadbridge, 2005). In the practice of criminal law, it is legally acceptable for one to defend against attackers if they intended to or attack first. Another important thing is that Jayne should show beyond doubt that the force she used was proportionate to the level of threat she received. Normally, the law has a provision where the jury will weigh the proportionality of the act in a very careful and accurate manner (Broadbridge, 2005). She will have to show that she immediately stopped her actions when she realized that the security officers and the teacher had left her alone, but continued to hull insults to scare them off and ensure that they never repeat the same to avoid being accused of plans to hurt the teacher considering her statement, “I will get you later!”. This may be treated as a normal ‘psychological’ response for fear of later pursuance by the authority.
Reference List
Alston, P. (2000). Promoting Human Rights Through Bills of Rights: Comparative Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Broadbridge, S. (2005). Criminal Law Amendment: Householder Protection Bill. Bill 20 of 2004-2005. Home Affairs Section: House of Commons Library.
Owens, K. (2001). Laws for Non-Law Students. London: Routledge- Cavendish.
Valverde, M. (2006). Law and Order. London: Routledge- Cavendish.