Essay Evidence Law – Khloe and Kourtney are Jointly Charged with the Murder of Scott – Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task

QUESTION 1 –

Khloe and Kourtney are jointly charged with the murder of Scott. Khloe and Kourtney were arrested by the police at the time Scott’s body was discovered. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to Scott’s head. The wound was caused by a pink hand gun, with diamantes on the handle, located next to Scott’s body. The fingerprints of Khloe, Kourtney, and Scott were all found on the gun.
Khloe, when interviewed by the police, elected to exercise her right of silence. However, during trial, she claimed that Scott’s death was the result of a game of Russian roulette – i.e. Scott shot himself.
Kourtney, when interviewed by the police, stated that Khloe had shot Scott when Khloe picked up the gun and had inadvertently pulled the trigger resulting in the gun discharging and Scott’s consequential death. At the trial, Kourtney exercised her right of silence.
The trial judge directed the jury that Khloe was: Perfectly entitled to remain silent when interviewed by the police and that the right of silence is a fundamental common law right from which no adverse inferences should be drawn from its exercise. However, in this case, you the jury would think, would you not, that if there really had been a game of Russian roulette and if Scott had really shot himself during it, that Khloe would have mentioned it earlier!

Questions:
1. Advise (a), Khloe and (b), Kourtney of any grounds of appeal.

2. Would your answer be any different had Kourtney given evidence at the trial and had testified that she (Kourtney) had accidentally shot Scott while cleaning the gun?

QUESTION 2 –
Acme Pty Ltd is charged with breaching the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (‘the WHS Act’):
-By failing to provide its employees with a safe working environment (a Category 1 offence under s.31); and
-By exposing its employees to toxic substances (a Category 2 offence under s.32).
The charges arose out of the manufacture by Acme Pty Ltd of a chemical used in the production of insulation for electrical wiring. The chemical had been manufactured for a number of years, but it was only recently that long serving employees and former employees began exhibiting symptoms of exposure to toxicity. These workers developed a rare form of cancer previously associated in the United States with similar types of chemical compound.
Under the WHS Act, directors of companies convicted of breaching the Act can also be liable. A Category 1 offence will be found where the defendant, without reasonable excuse, engages in conduct that exposes an individual to the risk of death or serious injury or illness. A Category 2 offence will be found where the defendant has a health and safety duty, fails to comply with that duty, and the failure exposes an individual to a risk or death or serious injury or illness.

(a) While one Acme Pty Ltd director was being questioned, she made a telephone call to her lawyer which was overheard by the interrogating officer from WorkSafe. During the course of this conversation, the director admitted that investigations into the potential side effects of the chemical prior to beginning manufacture were perfunctory.
(b) As a result of an employee complaint of ill health, a medical report was commissioned by the human resources department of Acme Pty Ltd. It was automatically remitted to the company solicitors, BrisVegas Lawyers. BrisVegas Lawyers then sought a second specialist opinion regarding the cause of the employee’s ill health because the first report clearly disadvantaged Acme Pty Ltd by identifying its product as a possible cause. These reports were dated 3-years prior to the commencement of the prosecutions under the WHS Act, and the suspension of the manufacture of the chemical. The Office of the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor obtained copies of the reports from a disgruntled employee who surreptitiously downloaded them from Acme Pty Ltd’s files.