Business Law Case Study: A Civil or Criminal Case?

Answer

Business Law Case Study: A Civil or Criminal Case?

            Without doubt, the incident involving John Doe being convicted for selling cigarettes to minors was criminal in nature. This is evidenced through the applicable criminal law, which is simply the rules pertaining different kind of crimes. In this case, the case involving Doe’s conviction emerges as a criminal case because of the statutory instrument put in place by the relevant government arm, which seeks to restrict sale of cigarettes to minors. In fact, in most criminal cases it is usually a state seeking to prosecute a defendant before a judge, magistrate, or jury (Schott 2009, p 76). The overall assumption in criminal cases is that a mental characteristic as well as physical characteristic is involved in an offence. Nevertheless, criminal processes are characteristically initiated by and agency or government directed towards the sentence of a person who is alleged to have breached a rule such as those restricting sale of cigarettes to minors. It is important to point out that individuals that are alleged to have been involved in a crime are generally charged through a formal indictment. Often, in criminal cases, a government attempts to act on behalf of a community. As such, it can be said that the case involving Doe is a criminal case in which the government via its minister enforces communal codes of behavior as exemplified in the laws. In essence, the government is attempting to prosecute Doe for his involvement in selling cigarettes to minors, which contravenes a statutory instrument.

            What is more, in criminal cases it is not a victim’s responsibility to start criminal proceedings as evidenced in Doe’s case in which a minor is involved. In all likelihood, the government has brought the case against Doe who is alleged o have committed a crime through selling cigarettes to minors. The implication in criminal cases the government often prosecutes an individual alleged to have contravened a rule and the victim may not necessarily be party to the action (Ross 2014, p 113). Indeed, some criminal cases a specific victim may not be identified. Rather, the assumption is that laws were violated and potentially placing the member (s) of a society in danger. Altogether, when it is beyond doubt that crime was committed a sentence is likely to follow.

The composition and jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court;

            The composition of magistrates’ court often involves a magistrate (s). This includes any individual appointed pursuant to the constitution can be empowered by a Chief Justice through warrant as 1^st Class magistrate, Principal magistrate, or 2^nd class magistrate. In fact, a magistrate presides over these types of courts. Magistrates’ court also has clerk of the court who is often appointed by a High Court judge or the Chief Justice (Gibson and Watkins 2009, p 18). In most cases, clerk of the court are attached to each magistrates’ court and are under the immediate power of a magistrate presiding over a court. Indeed, magistrates often appoint temporary clerks when one is absent to carryout various duties including attending the sittings of a court, issue civil processes, act as recipient of monies paid to a court, create court documents and provide them to a magistrate for signature, as well as administer oaths as asked by a magistrate among others. The composition of magistrates’ court also includes other officers of the court including a sheriff as well as the bailiff. It is worth noting that a Chief Justice may also appoint other officers as required. 

            With regard to jurisdiction of magistrates’ court, they exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction. This also includes applying customary law as well as the general law. By far and large, the jurisdiction of these courts is determined through the Act as well as defined through territorial boundaries. Yet, other factors may also determine jurisdiction of magistrates’ court including the nature of a case as well as the monetary sum involved. This implies that a Chief Justice may by order invest these types of courts with jurisdiction to try particular class of offences that would otherwise be out of their jurisdiction (Keogh 2012, p 51). In fact, magistrates’ court is capable of carrying out a preliminary and committing an individual for trial to the High Court. As far as the nature of crime is concerned, it must be pointed that magistrates’ court often does not have jurisdiction over such offences as treason. This is despite the fact that the sentencing jurisdiction being dependent on the level or grade of the presiding magistrate.

The relevance of the decision for future cases of a similar nature

            The decision made during Doe’s case is likely to affect future cases of a similar nature. More so, similar cases will likely borrow the rationale used by the magistrate to reach a particular decision. In essence, other similar cases arising in the future and taken before magistrates’ court will likely use the same reasoning as the one in Doe’s case throughout the trial process. It can be said that future magistrates handling cases of a similar nature at magistrates’ court level with refer and or court the decision reached in Doe’s case. This introduces the notion of legal precedents in which court decisions more often than not act as guides for magistrates and judges deciding similar cases of the future. In fact, it is known that decisions made by the highest court in a jurisdiction develop mandatory precedent, which must be followed by lower courts in a jurisdiction. Seeing that magistrates’ court is practically a lower case, the decision made during Doe’s case may be limited as far as its jurisdiction is concerned but it nonetheless create a precedent to be followed in future cases of a similar nature.

            As an example, future cases of a similar nature could cite Doe’s cases. In fact, citations are often used in reference to opinions. Typical future citations may have such characteristics as the name (s) of the lead party, which may include Doe. Worth noting, is that a court decision may be either binding or persuasive for similar, future court cases when deciding them (Duxbury 2008, p 69). This is because common law legal structures place considerable value on court deciding cases in accordance to consistent principled laws to ensure that facts yield predictable, if not similar, outcomes. Observance of precedence is increasingly the mechanism through which such goals are attained. In most cases, this is referred to as case, which implies that decisions made in a particular case can be cited as standard especially when similar facts are available in a future case. This is particularly the case in European nations to refer to a set of rulings that are guided through previous decisions.

The meaning and effect of a directive

            A directive is essentially a law that is addressed to European Union (EU) nations. Often, a directive is intended to be transported by each nation into its national laws (De Freitas 1999, p 42). In essence, a directive brings about an overarching effect in which each EU member states is expected to conform to what the EU laws say. In fact, directives ought to be implemented into state law and because they tell member nations to do something, when they are passed they require a legislation piece to transform them into national law. This is evidenced through the fact that directives often stop short of telling member nations the means of achieving diverse outcomes even as they provide these nations with an overall structure in the form of directing them to achieve a particular outcome. It can be said that a directive is a legislation that is simply directed at member nations. Nonetheless, directives are widely used to help enforce competition rules, free trade, as well as free movement.

            Since a directive is legislation, its effect can be far-reaching. In fact, directives often affect member states through setting minimum EU standards that are to be used at national level. The classical models shows that a directive can have a direct effect especially when the conditions of direct effect are met and the association is vertical or between the state and a private individual (Samuilytė-Mamontovė 2014, p 63). In such cases, a directive is often precise as well as unconditional. In addition, a directive has horizontal direct effect in which an individual can utilize EU law against another individual. Indirect effects associated with directives may include the fact that all state laws being interpreted in line with EU law. This may not always be possible, which shows that EU law is limited.

The meaning and effect of European Union Laws and Human Rights laws on the English courts

            The meaning and effect of European Union Laws and Human Rights laws on the English courts is that, as a member state, the United Kingdom is simply expected to observe EU’s charter of fundamental rights. In fact, EU laws simply function as directives with regard to what the English courts may do given certain circumstances. Yet, decisions reached by EU human rights court barely have an effect on the English courts (Rozenberg 2013, web). As an example, convicted prisoners are denied their right to vote, even though the UK’s ban on prisoner voting was found to have contravened the human rights years gone by. This demonstrates that EU laws as well as human rights law only direct the English courts to consider Strasbourg decisions. The implication is that they are not binding and, where possible, the English courts should give effect to legislation in ways that fit into the convention rights. The EU human rights laws come across as wide-ranging and must be interpreted in a broad manner, and an English court ought to strike down national legislations that contravenes with EU laws (Mckinney 2015, web). It becomes evident that European Union Laws and Human Rights laws have an overarching effect on the English courts simply because the UK law is impacted in presence as well as in absence of the Convention. In sum, the English courts are largely affected indirectly and the need to observe EU laws is indispensible even as people tend to focus on human rights law.

Word count: 1694