Confidentiality Concerns in Response to Client's Phone Call

PART 1:

INCIDENT 1

Points to cover:

• Explain that information shared over the phone call is not confidential.
• Reassure him that legal advice is free in this situation.
• Advise him that it would be difficult to provide full legal advice on the phone.
• Advise him that I cannot give him information about what Holmes has told the police because I need to obtain disclosure from investigating officer.
• Advise him that for providing the information and legal advise to the client, I would have to take client’s instructions and then advice on law and safest option and then be present during interview to ensure it is conducted fairly.
• Ask about any questioning or about admissions, about treatment and police responses to any requests.
• Seek information to enable an assessment about the client’s vulnerability.
• Advise the client to exercise the right to silence if questioned prior to my attendance.

INCIDENT 2

Points to cover:

• Introduce myself.
• Reassure her that legal advice is free in this situation.
• Advise her that I need to get disclosure from the investigating officer, for providing the information and legal advise to Jamie, I would have to take her instructions as she is the guardian, and then advice on law and safest option and then be present during interview to ensure it is conducted fairly.
• Explain that information shared by her about Jamie’s behaviour that evening would be treated as confidential.
• Obtain instructions to attend to Jamie to get his account.

INCIDENT 3

Points to cover:

• Introduce myself.
• Advise Jamie that his mother has instructed me to take the account of the evening from Jamie.
• Caution that legal advice is free at this point.
• Advise Jamie that information shall be kept confidential.
• Provide detailed legal advice.
• Assess the client’s vulnerability and fitness for interview (age)
• Explain the conduct of a tape-recorded interview and ensure that its implications are given to the client.
• Explain the solicitor’s role during the interview.
• Explain the right to be silent.

INCIDENT 4

Points to cover:

• Take an objection to the question as it is asking the client to answer whether he assaulted Holmes and admit to guilt. Advice Jamie that he does not have to answer that question.
• Take an objection to the question as it is asking Jamie to make value judgments about someone else’s state of mind.
• Advice Jamie to answer the question as per the statement made by him earlier which specifies that Logan assaulted Jamie first.
• Take an objection to the line of questioning as it is oppressive in nature.
• Provide detailed legal advice. Resist attempts at exclusion. Inform the PN that solicitor can only be excluded if the conduct is such that the interviewer is unable properly to put questions to the suspect (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Code C para 6.11).

PART 2: MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

1. C
2. D
3. D
4. A
5. D
6. B
7. C
8. C
9. C
10. D

PART 3:

QUESTION 1

The supervisor is likely to advice Jodie Barr that she breach of the bail condition as specified in Form MG 4A. The condition states that Jodie Barr is not to communicate with the witness Miah Cruz either by herself or through any other person. As Jodie Barr approached and spoke to Miah Cruz, she has breached the bail condition. Section 7(3) of the Bail Act 1976 a constable who has reasonable grounds for believing that they are likely to break or have broken any of their bail conditions to arrest the defendant. In this case, Jodie has herself surrendered to the police after breach of bail. Now as per Section 7(4) Bail Act 1976, she has to be produced before a magistrates’ court within 24 hours of arrest. At the hearing, if the Magistrates are of the view that the Jodie has broken condition of bail, she can be remanded in custody as per Section 7(5) of Bail act 1976. Alternatively, the Magistrates may decide to grant bail subject to same or different conditions. At the hearing, the question is whether or not Jodie breached his bail conditions. Jodie does not have a "reasonable excuse" defence (R. (on the application of Vickers) v West London Magistrates Court [2003] EWHC 1809). She can either accept that she committed the breach or she can deny it. If she accepts it, the court may remand her to custody or grant bail on same or different conditions. If she denies it, further representations will have to be made or evidence called.

QUESTION 2

a. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable the following in order to secure a conviction of Jodie Barr:

That she was in possession of the drugs.

That the drugs in her possession are controlled drugs.

That she intended to supply the drugs to another.

b. The evidence that the prosecutor has is as follows:

1. Statement by Miah Cruz that Jodie offered to sell her some heroin: “She then leaned in towards me and asked me quietly whether I’d like to try some “brown”. I asked her what she meant and she said something along the lines of “you know, brown sugar, it’s the best way to relax and chill”. She then showed me two clear plastic bags that looked like they had some powder in them and she told me she’d sell me a bag for £40” (Document B).

2. Statement by Adam Lehner that he found 2 clear bags with powder on Jodie: “On searching her front right jacket pocket I discovered 2 clear plastic bags containing a white-brown powder which I seized and produce as exhibit ALR/1” (Document C).

3. Statement by Darcy Morel that he heard Miah accuse Jodie of wanting to sell her drugs: “Miah was accusing this other person of trying to sell her drugs and was getting quite hysterical.” (Document D).

4. Statement by Liam Pugh that he noticed 2 clear bags with powder on the floor where Jodie and Miah had an altercation: “I noticed two clear plastic bags on the floor next to where they were stood. Each bag contained some light brown coloured powder which I picked up”. (Document E).

5. A large number of clear plastic cash bags located in a drawer in the kitchen, identical to the plastic bags seized earlier at the nightclub and produced as exhibit ALR/3.

6. 2 clear plastic bags containing a white-brown powder which I seized and produce as exhibit ALR/1.

7. 2 clear plastic bags containing a white / brown powder procuded as exhibit ALR/2.

3. What defence is Jodie Barr raising and what evidence does she have to support her defence?

The defence that Jodie is raising is that she bought the heroin for personal use and not for supply. She is arguing that it was Miah who had offered her the drugs and not the other way round. She is arguing that Miah offered to share some “brown” with her and that the two bags of powder were thrown on the floor by Miah and not her. At this point, she does not have evidence to prove this claim because the CCTV camera was not working to capture this scene. This also makes certain evidence against her circumstantial.

Furthermore, some of the evidence against Jodie, including the large number of clear plastic cash bags located in a drawer in the kitchen, identical to the plastic bags seized earlier at the nightclub and produced as exhibit ALR/3, has now been found to not have any trace of controlled drugs.

With regard to Jodie’s argument that Miah had approached her for selling drugs to her, there is the evidence of Miah’s conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to supply dated 31.01.2017. This can be used by Jodie to establish that Miah Cruz does have a history of arrest for possession of a controlled drug.

QUESTION 3



Where the Draft Indictment notes that the offence is of “Possession of a controlled drug intending to supply it to Miah Cruz, contrary to Section 5 Misuse of Drugs Act”, the correct provision is Section 4 as it is offence of supply of controlled drug. Section 5 relates to offence of possession and not of supply.

QUESTION 4

With regard to the first matter, Jodie should be advised that if she tries to persuade Miah to not give evidence on behalf of the prosecution through her friend, she would be in breach of her bail conditions because the condition of the bail is that she is not to communicate with the witness Miah Cruz either by herself or through any other person. Thus, firstly any attempt to approach Miah through her friend would be a breach of Jodie’s bail conditions. Secondly, Jodie may even become chargeable with the offence of witness intimidation, which relates to making an attempt is made to threaten or persuade a witness not to give evidence to the police or courts. Under Section 51 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, there are two offences related to witness intimidation. Section 51(1) creates an offence directed at acts against a person who is witness whilst an investigation or trial is in progress; and Section 51(2) creates similar offence after an investigation or trial has been concluded. In this case, Section 51(1) could be engaged if Jodie tries to approach Miah even through a friend for persuading her to change her mind about giving evidence for the prosecution.

With regard to the second matter, which is Jodie receiving a youth caution for supply of cannabis when she was 14 for giving cannabis to friends at cost value, a youth caution for the first offence to which the individual has pleaded guilty, for which an absolute discharge is given there will still be a criminal record. In this case, there is no record of Jodie having being given a youth caution or reprimand or final warning. It is advisable to not refer to this event because there is no record of the same.

Take a deeper dive into Concurrent Liability in Tort and Contract with our additional resources.