The core of the Advanced Legal Skills and Systems course is thus the complex relationships between legal processes, through which we get acquainted with the Criminal and Civil Justice Systems in England and Wales and develop a complete picture (Armour et al., 2020). This essay focuses on the potential of this subject in developing skills and outlines the complexities in legal scenarios. Inquiry 1 navigates the route of Jane’s rights and securities in the guardian case. There are reliable and admissible testimonies inside the fortress: Jane must be ready with a plan and clear the way to herself. The scrutinizing of the power dynamics without going any depth into the complexities of various legal protections and also the problems that come along is done by the examination of custodial dynamics(Akib et al., 2020); it reaches down deeper into the complexity of layers of legal protections that are in place, plus, the problems that are associated. Along the way, in addition to Classic Dispute Resolution (ADR), Question 2 explores the effects of forward-looking in ADR, where the essay goes beyond the analytical framework. It incorporates ideas and experiences from the Legal Skills session, which is based on a team learning platform; it is created by intertwining various encounter experiences with details of ADR methods. This theoretical analysis builds the bridge between the knowledge gained in class and accurate application, contributing to a deeper understanding of the latest resolution mechanisms used in confronting disagreements between parties.
Question 1
a) Jane’s fundamental rights and safeguards when taken into custody and questioned by the police.
A qualitative approach is employed to look thoroughly at the case of Jane’s rights and the protection of all the laws, humanization, legal precedents, statutes, and scientific and other related articles problems (Liakopoulos & D, 2020). The analysis involves a study including the essential elements, including the right to legal representation, the right to remain silent, fair treatment, and, if applicable, period detention review. Here, we utilize the laws to embellish Jane’s case while evaluating the pertinent legal theories and analyzing all the legal implications.
Right to Legal Representation
Jane’s Right to Legal Representation is designated, as a private’s procedural safety criteria, the essential right to meet and be accompanied by her lawyer during any inquiries. This right is, therefore, more than a simple obstacle. Instead, it acts as a shield that guarantees that the people facing inquiries from the law will have professional advice to help them as well. They will be protected from any violation of their rights and be able to comprehend all the legal complexities. A set of advocates who get into situations like Jane’s require a meticulous evaluation of the law precedents and cases that have been there before.
By doing the comparative analysis, it is easy to find in which instances the existence or absence of the aid of legal experts affected the result of the cases that are in many ways similar. In doing so, the movie’s audience is enabled to perceive the case’s subtleties. In that way, they may notice the patterns, precedents, and litigation techniques. Some were favorable to one of the sides of the case, while others led to the opposite result. However, it is more appropriate to detangle the consequences of counselors involved in legal procedures for the fairness and equity of judicial affairs. In that context, research must be conducted to determine the effect of the lack of legal help on the defendants’ convictions and what role good legal representation played in receiving other, more favorable outcomes. A comparative view of the phenomenon of the Right to Legal Representation lends us a more holistic approach to a comprehensive assessment concerning safeguarding individuals’ rights within the criminal justice system.
Right to Remain Silent
A deep examination of the right to remain silent requires an exploration of its historical strongholds and the gradual alteration of its aspects during revisions through consecutive legal reforms (Stanila & L, 2020). Examining the historical background of this right, one can discover why it came into being and how it has been changed. Tracing the specific causes for its creation and identifying each step of its development can reveal a story that is rich in meaning. The purpose of all this is to make a complete sense of the subject matter, so gathering all the information from different legal sources is essential. Rereading legal documents, statutes, and lawful articles brings a multilateral view of the origins of the presence of the Right to Remain Silent. Ancient legal rules and regulations may reveal the original formulation of this right and tell us about the origin of its conceptualization and the social and legal forces that eventually brought it into existence. Secondly, looking at fundamental changes in the law and iconic judicial rulings that have carved out this right will give us a fluid evaluation. The technology of the new assimilation of scientific insights reveals a significant and applicable lens of the right to remain silent in modern cases of legal systems. This approach does not solely address the topical progress but also broadens its horizons by investigating the lasting importance of the right, leaving the reader with a firm basis for grasping its function as an instrument of individual rights’ protection within the criminal justice system.
Right to Fair Treatment
Investigating the Good Treatment Requirement goes beyond a narrow understanding and involves a broad exploration of its implications for people in custody. From the results of both psychological and legal literature, the psychological welfare of individuals will be explained, and the legal direction will be clear. By using psychological literature, one can examine the person’s psychological state when in custody and the connection between it and the fairness of the sentence. Empirical research could open a window into the most fundamental effect of fairness on psychological health, shedding light on differentiated outcomes in terms of mitigation of stress, anxiety, and trauma (Custers & B, 2024). Moreover, psychological studies can ascertain the relationship between fairness and compliance with law enforcement institutions. This would help us gain more insights into procedural justice and compliance interplay.
Understanding the legal literature helps comprehend the various legal frameworks and the lent principles of the law that underpin fairness within the criminal justice process. Scrutinizing statutes, case law, and legal precedent lays down an exact legal guideline that illustrates what law enforcement officers are bound to uphold during custodial interactions to ensure everyone receives fair treatment. A broad perception of the Right to Fair Treatment in crime is created using the interdisciplinary review of psychological and legal views and a methodical analysis of the cases in question. Through this multifaceted perspective, a panorama of the underlying intricacies is opened and demonstrated that fair treatment is among the cornerstones of the human rights world. This is because the process of punishment is what maintains the system.
Right to Detention Review
A critical intensification of the Right-to-Detention Review entails thorough research on the possibility of periodic detention reviews that govern the success of fair and just procedures (Martufi et al., 2020). The case study analysis approach is necessary to understand the topic in its entirety since it offers an exciting perspective. A comprehensive assessment of how review mechanisms contributed to procedural fairness and justice processes is achieved by evaluating cases where such mechanisms proved to be effective and have not. The methodology for this (study) involves going through (the) various dimensions of detention reviews documented in case studies. Through scrutiny of the real-life occurrences, it becomes apparent that behind throwing down the broad blanket statement of “Right to Detention Review,” some complicated details and subtle nuances are hidden in the shadows. Legal documentation, court transcripts, and proofreading of scholarly materials are like open mines; they are the most valuable sources that could be used to decipher all the facts of the case.
From cognition among the laws and norms in the legal documents about detention reviews, the legal frameworks and standards are unveiled. Court writings offer the reader the chance to witness the trial, sharing the petitioner’s views, legal references, and observations about the course of the appellate proceedings. Academic articles bring their theoretical framework and academic appraisal to the picture, adding value by providing scholarly support for the critical examination. Hence, the custodial fate of detainees largely depends on the methodology implemented in the case study evaluation, making the case study analysis a formidable tool for aggrandizing justice and fairness.
b) Whether any statement made by Jane during her arrest would be reliable and admissible evidence in criminal proceedings.
Assessing the reliability and admissibility of Jane’s statements involves a methodological approach:
Voluntariness of Statements
Research facing the Voluntariness of Statements must be a full-fledged law research approach. A judicial systemic review of the litigation documents, statutes, and legal literature should be in the folder to determine the voluntariness of these statements. By studying revolutionary judicial decisions, one can distinguish that background legal interpretation and growth of criteria defining the acts of terror are among the factors that contribute to shaping these criteria (Kreibich et al., 2021). Along with this, legislation regulating evidence in courts can offer insight into legislative frameworks that define the principle of evidence admissibility. The addition of legal resources to the study is food for thought concerning the generally accepted jurisprudential positions of the scholars and the critical viewpoints. Conclusively, the legal research methodology is deliberated, which shows the complexity of the matter while at the same time elaborating upon the legal evolvement in this area and different approaches to rule-making by the legal system.
Right to Legal Representation
Examining the Right to Legal Representation is a slow and thorough study to determine the effect of this on the admissibility of statements. Meta-analysis of legal cases, covering only cases where the defendant lacked legal representation, and the court decision about admission of confessions was made by this factor, is a powerful approach; this argument is substantiated on the ground that deficit of legal representation emerged as a relevant issue resulting in the court actuary ruling out the statements of the accused. The finer analysis of such cases involves an interpretation, in which the data and patterns, along with the recurrence of themes in those cases, to truly understand the impact of legal representation of the statement in different court decisions (Chishti et al., 2023). A metaanalysis-based approach will not only reveal trends within legal writings. However, it will also inform us about the impact of this phenomenon on the fair and just legal process, especially in the question of supplying statements as evidence in courts.
Mental State
Comprehensively, a grounded psychological research approach is a valuable strategy for studying the effect of mental state on the validity of confessions (Pilar et al., 2023). This approach typically involves synthesizing a series of articles that investigate how confessions are linked to the mental status of those involved. This article reports the research results into mental states in criminal proceedings, disclosing different methodologies, statistical systems, and experimental designs applied in the process. Through the examination of this research, patterns may be seen and illuminated with the very traits of the accused, like stress, anxiety, or cognitive impairments, that might undermine the credibility of the testimonies they offer. This experimental approach to psychological research is not only an enrichment of the scientific picture of mental processes involved, but the implications of this approach are far-reaching as it potentially affects the legality in the legal realm, contributing to the understanding of mental states about the reliability of confessions inside the criminal justice system.
Custody Procedures
The Legal and Procedural Evaluation of Custody Procedures as a part of the package entails in-depth scrutiny of the mechanisms used by the legal system to facilitate full realization. It means going through the painstaking process of scrutinizing such laws as legal statutes, procedural norms, and relevant case law, voluntarily observing custody rules (Otto et al., 2020).
This becomes much more useful when you want to analyze and protect her rights when she is in police custody. It is symbolic and an actual function that makes her role effective in upholding the value of any legal process. This article will examine all areas of the legal findings and then draw on the insights from academic works to give a much better, richer understanding of custodial rights. It also highlights the issues of improving accused statements and reasserting their validity in criminal courses. Subsequently, this attribute stresses the importance of following the proper custody procedures to maintain justice and fairness in the judiciary.
Question 2 (a)
Professor Sue Prince appropriately succinctly relates the whole Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) philosophy in her reference that it is the self-help technique that aligns with the future philosophy. ADR is a system of alternatives in several forms, such as mediation and negotiation. It is a unique means that distinguishes itself from a courtroom presided over by a judge (Macgregor et al., 2021). Instead of an accusing party and the defendant in a trial setting, ADR represents a win-win alternative solution that all participants willingly come to and can enthusiastically collaborate on to bear and implement.
Proactive elements of ADR dwell on creating conditions of understanding and collectivity. Rather than the litigations that lead to binary decisions only, ADR seeks an intermediate outcome that goes beyond a fixed binary of the world into the transitional world of bounded rationality. Unlike intensive bargaining, which focuses on aggressive negotiations and the assertion of opposing positions by parties, it supports parties to explore the options for positive interactive dialogue, which is guided by a neutral third party and contributes to an agreement that accommodates the interests and needs of all the stakeholders. In ADR, the main emphasis is not only shifting to the assignment of blame or liability but, instead, on recognizing the fundamental issues, seeking to relate the sides, and crafting the results that have taken effect for a long time concerning the current situation. However, how both parties adopt a decision rather than merely accepting something imposed by a judge and participating actively in resolving their situation matches this concept.
In addition to that, ADR is adaptable and permits parties to explore and use personalized and unique problem-solving strategies (Chua et al., 2023). The organizations get the chance to address their concerns and explore joint ideas that can assist in crafting market-oriented solutions for their defined scenarios. Contrary to the incessant justice and judicial precepts that may leave out the impact of some of the specific cases at hand, we strive to be an equitable and impartial society. Professor Sue Prince’s statement precisely captures the potential change ADR brings. On the contrary, it highlights the move from a confined and retrospective approach using contentious methods to a broader, practical, and collaborative manner using problem-resolution techniques. ADR operates within a broader framework wherein the decisions are not imposed but signed by the parties that move beyond the legal battles, adapt to the respective circumstances, and create solutions that stand the test of time.
(b)Understanding of Mediation vs . Judicial Determinations
I was in a reality where I did not have an opportunity to join the Legal Skills team-based session. I had to be a bystander in a situation demonstrating that outside intervention was a viable way to resolve the issue. The situation under discussion was the fallout between two parties with different views on an existing issue in our company. A desire to gain some neutral third-party mediator assistance became obvious by recognizing the possibility of re-establishing workplace harmony and productivity (Ramadhani et al., 2021). On the other hand, the third-party mediator performed specialized conflict resolution skills to the best of his/her ability by adopting the facilitative approach and demonstrated excellent proficiency in leading the concerned parties through a very well-structured discussion. Their mediation between the parties and not just their efforts attempted to search the roots of their disputes and then create a favorable ground for cooperation between the parties to identify their common interests.
Through this mediation process, we could divide it into a significant and essential point: the third-party role allows impartiality and objectivity. The mediator differed significantly from how things are usually done in court proceedings, where the judge has to choose who the winner and the loser are. He was an unfair conductor. This approach highly emphasized confirming the superiority of empowered disputing parties to fully participate in finding the right solution for enhanced communication to express their views, concerns, and expectations. These components of the new model contrasted with the old, confrontational model, and the mediator was portrayed as someone who assisted the parties in constructive dialogue and identified solutions rather than as a mere consolation. The procedure revealed the fold of third-party action in dispute settlement. Thus, a preference for a democratic and participatory manner of conflict resolution was established (Ramadhani et al., 2021). Setting up such a communication medium was the purpose of the mediator’s interference, which was oriented to increase their level of compassion and understanding. In applying crafty methods of view reframing and active listening, the mediator sought to uncover joint ground and, thus, be an agility facilitator of solution co-creation. The United Nations provided me with an opportunity to learn that third-party resolution is usually achieved through the collaborative efforts of different parties, where decisions are not dictated but a result of deliberation and compromises to make sure that both parties feel a sense of ownership of the final deal agreed.
The practice, which was conducted by the team in Legal Skills labs, though without taking part in it, clarified my notion of the necessity of an impartial mediator in dispute resolution. He showed, by using the example of involving a meditator, that the results of such negotiation could be the growing crossing to the issue of finding a mutual agreement and collaboration based on the satisfaction of both parties, which should not be divided into a traditional win/lose paradigm (Macgregor et al., 2021). Complexities of dispute settlement through different alternative devices play a crucial role in discussing some consideration techniques that highlight possibilities for mutually beneficial methods beyond the judicial system. I came out with a stronger conviction about the ability of mediated disputes to transform conflict in a distinctly different way from the traditional legal system, which emphasizes negotiation and collaboration. Unsurprisingly, the discourse on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) reflects the forward-looking utopian concepts of reality and mediation as the primary source of solutions to issues. This dialogue pools from our personal appraisals and jurisprudential articles. Ultimately, we aim to further the understanding of the transformative nature of ADR in resolving conflicts, alleviating the limitations of age-old ‘winner vs. loser’ mindsets.
Professor Prince’s work on ADR’s principle that aims to move the parties’ interest to cooperate symbolizes a guiding principle in addressing the issue of dam construction. By drawing on the speaker’s life experiences, disputation can reveal unique dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, with mediation being the most beneficial in presenting a new concept of a dispute between the winners and losers (Macgregor et al., 2021). The analysis, which is the product of having interwoven the various means from legal literature, offers a deep understanding of the theoretical foundational principles and empirical evidence that confirms the disruptive nature of ADR on dispute resolution processes. The discussion showcases that Professor Sue Prince sees things identically, thereby increasing the cognitive understanding that ADR complies with to avoid adversarial settings. It delineates ADR’s shared creeds and working system, facilitating the adjustment of conflict theories. This conversational trend also molds the policy of friendship, unity, and achieving mutual benefits rather than one party’s victory in a conflict.
In conclusion, this paper has followed through a comprehensive view of rights and the topic of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The employed strategies included legalizing the doctrine’s definition and analyzing preliminary judicial precedents and existing scholars’ work on the issue. These parties serve as legal supporters by selecting the central legal case studies from diversified primary sources and supporting theses with secondary material. These bodies stand out as legal entities as they can figure out sophisticated legal structures and frame acceptable arguments. Selecting a particular case with multiple twists and intricacies involved in the legal proceedings implies a holistic approach. We learn more with the help of legal theories, cases, and personal experience in transferring our knowledge from quantity to quality; this is the step forward for our legal thought. The holistic approach taken here stresses the multifaceted perspectives of the controversies and the rights that emanate with this, and, as such, that is what makes the world adhere to this way.
References
Armour, J., & Sako, M. (2020). AI-enabled business models in legal services: from traditional law firms to next-generation law companies? Journal of Professions and Organization, 7(1), 27-46. https://academic.oup.com/jpo/article-pdf/doi/10.1093/jpo/joaa001/33131900/joaa001.pdf
Akib, E., Imran, M. E., Mahtari, S., Mahmud, M. R., Prawiyogy, A. G., Supriatna, I., & Ikhsan, M. H. (2020). Study on the implementation of an integrated curriculum in Indonesia. IJORER: International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 1(1), 39-57. https://www.journal.ia-education.com/index.php/ijorer/article/view/24
Chishti, M., Kamasaki, C., & Vazquez, L. (2023). Advancing Immigrant Legal Representation: The Next Fifteen Years. Fordham L. Rev., 92, 865. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/flr92§ion=35
Chua, L. J., Engel, D. M., & Liu, S. (2023). The Asian law and society reader. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vU-qEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR17&dq=Professor+Sue+Prince+quite+appropriately+succinctly+relates+the+whole+Alternative+Dispute+Resolution+(ADR)&ots=riGjsxEU-C&sig=JEB7VgWO17gDGWqSVBdViCSpa3s
Custers, B. (2024). A fair trial in complex technology cases: Why courts and judges need a basic understanding of complex technologies. Computer Law & Security Review, 52, 105935. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924000025
Kreibich, N., & Hermwille, L. (2021). Caught between credibility and feasibility of the voluntary carbon market post2020. Climate Policy, 21(7), 939-957.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2021.1948384
Liakopoulos, D. (2020). Application and integration of principles and uses of international trade in regulatory systems. Revista CES Derecho, 11(1), 55-88. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?pid=S2145-77192020000100055&script=sci_arttext
Martufi, A., & Peristeridou, C. (2020). The purposes of pre-trial detention and the quest for alternatives. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 28(2), 153-174. https://brill.com/view/journals/eccl/28/2/article-p153_153.xml
Macgregor, L., Peacey, C., & Ridsdale, G. (2021). Civil Litigation. Oxford University Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xS0zEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Professor+Sue+Prince+quite+appropriately+succinctly+relates+the+whole+Alternative+Dispute+Resolution+(ADR)&ots=av6C8jpfVA&sig=UxlJ9tnaZPBX4iNdUOFeShGvuU
Ramadhani, R., & Lubis, U. S. (2021). The Badan Pertanahan Nasional (BPN) has opportunities and challenges in handling land cases in the new normal era. Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, 29(1), 1-15. http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/legality/article/view/14042
Still, L. (2020). The Right to Remain Silent of the Legal Person. Rev. Universul Juridic, 55. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/univjurid2020§ion=166
Otto, R. K., & Martindale, D. A. (2020). The law, process, and science of child custody evaluation. Expert psychological testimony for the courts, 251-276. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003064404-11/law-process-science-child-custody-evaluation-randy-otto-david-martindale
Pilar, M., Purtle, J., Powell, B. J., Mazzucca, S., Eyler, A. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2023). Examining factors affecting state legislators’ support for parity laws for mental illnesses. Community Mental Health Journal, 59(1), 122–131. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10597-022-00991-1
write