Mr. Robinett Case Study - Strength of Ms. A’s Case Against Victoria Police - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task:

Questions 

This assessment task is comprised of Part 1 (1,500 words) (25 marks) and Part 2 (1,500 words) (25 marks). 

You must answer Part 1 and choose ONE question from Part 2 

Part 1 

You are a solicitor. Ms A has come to your law firm for advice after her partner Mr R died as a result of an incident that occurred in police custody at the Doncaster police station. Ms A would like advice about whether she has grounds to sue Victoria Police. 

Your managing partner has provided you with the following summary of the circumstances. 

There were reports that Mr R was causing a disturbance outside the Royal Hotel in Essendon at approximately 10pm Friday 11 January. Victoria Police responded and arrested Mr R for public drunkenness, then took him to the Doncaster police station and put him in a cell to “sober up”. 

Mr. R was very agitated about being in police custody and was yelling out “get me out of here” and “being in here is killing me”. The police officers on duty ignored his shouting, except for one occasion when an officer yelled back “settle down and be quiet. Sleep it off.” 

Victoria Police has guidelines for monitoring intoxicated people in their custody. The guidelines require that they check on a person in their custody at least every half an hour and establish their wellbeing. The police on duty opened the slot in the cell door to check Mr R every half an hour, but they did not respond to him being agitated, except on the one occasion noted above. 

Mr. R grew increasingly agitated and approximately two hours after he was put into the cell he climbed onto a low partition wall between toilet bowls in the cell and flung himself, head first, onto the concrete floor below. The head injuries sustained resulted in the death of Mr R in hospital several days later. 

Your managing partner has asked you to provide him with an assessment of the strength of Ms A’s case against Victoria Police. You will also need to identify the arguments that Victoria Police would make in their defence. 

You have undertaken diligent research and found the following relevant precedents.1 Assume that this is the full applicable law, but you will need to carefully consider the weight to be given to each of the precedents. 

Jarvis v Victoria Police (2000) 85 CLR 175 

Police are subject, at common law, to a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of detainees while they are in their custody, from the time that they deprive a detainee of their personal liberty and assume control of their person. In arresting and 

1 These cases are based on and have been adapted from real decisions for assessment purposes. 

detaining Jarvis the police officer was no doubt acting lawfully and properly and in the due execution of his duty, but he was depriving Jarvis of his liberty, and he was assuming control for the time being of his person. It necessarily followed, in our opinion, that the police officer came under a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of Jarvis during his detention. 

There was also little contest that the Victoria Police, because of the previous experience of relevant officers, did have knowledge of the special vulnerability of intoxicated prisoners and the need for special attention to them. A vigilant system of surveillance would probably have prevented Mr Jarvis' injury, or at least have resulted in medical attention being provided quickly and reducing the likelihood that the injuries would cause death. It was a breach of the standard of reasonable care for Victoria Police to have failed to provide a better system of surveillance for prisoners. 

Robinett v Victoria Police [1998] VCC 405: 

Mr. Robinett was arrested while behaving in a drunk and disorderly fashion on Flinders Street outside Flinders Street Station. In order to effect the arrest, the arresting officer applied capsicum spray to Mr Robinett’s face. 

Once in the charge area at the police station Mr Robinett complained of burning eyes from the capsicum spray. Two police officers present sprayed his eyes with water. He continued to complain of burning. He was staggering and supporting himself on the charge desk and moving about the area. Within three minutes of his arrival he complained: “I’ve got bad asthma and that, can you give me some help?”. 

That was the first of three requests for medical assistance he made within one minute, one of which included a request for a doctor. The requests were repeated, becoming steadily louder and more abusive, with continuing complaints of irritation to the eyes and requests for water. 

People arrested and in custody, even when intoxicated, are completely disempowered in their ability to command the services or even the respect that others in the community may be able to command. They are likely to react to that disempowerment, and to any physical needs that may arise, in a variety of unpredictable ways. The situation is exacerbated when the person concerned is a member of an already socially disempowered section of the community, such as the Aboriginal community. The consequences of ignoring requests of that nature can be catastrophic. 

In my opinion, it was inappropriate in the present state of community understanding and insight into the effect of the neglect of possible medical needs and requirements of persons in custody to ignore requests of the type that were made in this case, and in the circumstances in which they were made. There is a duty of care owed by police to persons in their custody in such circumstances. The duty was breached in this instance. 

New South Wales v Jones [2005] NSWCA 47, per Brown J: 

Ms Jones was 18 years old at the time of her arrest and was a heroin addict. She was taken to the Kings Cross police station one hour after injecting heroin. She was being interviewed at the police station and was smoking a cigarette. Ms Jones went over to the window, which the officers assumed was to let the smoke out, then jumped out the window of the interview room, which was on the second floor of the building. She suffered serious injuries and sued New South Wales police. She gave evidence that she had jumped out of the window because she was afraid of being sent to prison as a result of the charges brought against her. 

The police officers did not expect this to happen. They gave evidence that Ms Jones had been behaving normally on the way to the station and this is why they considered her fit to be interviewed. They had not placed handcuffs on her as they saw no need to do so. 

Statistical evidence demonstrated that over a period of some 39 months before this incident occurred, there were 156 reported incidents of attempts to escape from custody, of which only five involved an attempt to escape through a window or a skylight. During this period the average number of prisoners charged was 8,459 per month. 

This unchallenged evidence seems to form a sufficient basis for the conclusion that reasonable people in the positions of the constables might have regarded it as unlikely that the respondent would attempt to escape through the window. 

It seems to me that, in a practical sense, if one of the constables had contemplated the possibility that the respondent might attempt to escape from the interview room, the probability was that she would do so through the doorway, rather than the window, and, practically speaking, both the constables were in a position to be able to stop her from escaping through the doorway. 

In my judgment, therefore, it was not foreseeable that the respondent would jump out the window, thus no breach of the duty of care has been demonstrated. 

Question: What is the strength of Ms. A’s case against Victoria Police? What arguments could Victoria Police make in their defence? 

Note that this is not a research exercise, which means that you should not consult any law outside of LAW5PMI. Also in Part One only, you do not need to use AGLC referencing. You can assign a short name to each case and use that throughout your answer. 

Part 2 

Write a 1,500 word essay answering ONE of the following topics (25 marks). 

Note that you are required to conduct legal research outside of LAW5PMI, while also referencing relevant essential readings prescribed throughout the course. All referencing should be in accordance with the AGLC. 

Access to Justice 

(a) A fundamental tenet of the rule of law is ‘equality before the law’. Critically evaluate two features of the Australian legal system that promote ‘equality before the law’ by reference to one disadvantaged group in the Australian community. 

Note for essay option (a) you must choose a different group to the group that you researched for Assessment Task 2 (Oral Presentation). 

OR Legal Profession, Professional Responsibility & Legal Ethics 

(b) You act for a building company that manufactured a particular type of asbestos that exposed people to dangerous micro-particles when it was cut with circular saws. This particle dust has been linked to asbestosis, mesothelioma and other lung conditions. The company wants to seek advice about whether declaring bankruptcy will have the effect of delaying or reducing pending litigation, and asks you to aggressively defend cases on their behalf at all costs. You are one of three solicitors from the firm selected to give this advice, and being a junior lawyer, you see this as an opportunity to impress the law firm partners. However, you feel uneasy about taking on this work as it does not truly align with who you are and what you believe in. The concern about this case is keeping you up at night. 

Questions:

1. Can you refuse this work, and on what grounds? (500 words)

2. Would it be harder to refuse such work if you were a barrister? (500 words)

3. What process would you undertake to resolve your concerns? (i.e. is there a legal body you can contact for assistance? Will you speak to the senior lawyer? Etc.) Outline your process for managing your concerns (500 words). 

OR Therapeutic Jurisprudence 

(c) What role does therapeutic jurisprudence play in the Australian Legal System? Refer to examples in answering this question. 

This Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.