Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 362 views

    Defense Opening Statement

    Uploaded by

    Parimal Kashyap
    The defense counsel seeks permission to address three key issues: 1) Whether the accused is guilty of murder charges, 2) Whether the facts of the case should be legally recharacterized, and 3) Whether the accused is guilty of war crimes. Regarding the first issue, the defense will argue that the accused lacked intent to commit the crime. For the second issue, the defense argues that legal recharacterization of facts is not permitted. And for the third issue, the defense will argue that no war crimes were committed as there was no international armed conflict.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Defense Opening Statement

    Uploaded by

    Parimal Kashyap
    362 views2 pages
    The defense counsel seeks permission to address three key issues: 1) Whether the accused is guilty of murder charges, 2) Whether the facts of the case should be legally recharacterized, and 3) Whether the accused is guilty of war crimes. Regarding the first issue, the defense will argue that the accused lacked intent to commit the crime. For the second issue, the defense argues that legal recharacterization of facts is not permitted. And for the third issue, the defense will argue that no war crimes were committed as there was no international armed conflict.

    Original Title

    defense opening statement.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defense counsel seeks permission to address three key issues: 1) Whether the accused is guilty of murder charges, 2) Whether the facts of the case should be legally recharacterized, and 3) Whether the accused is guilty of war crimes. Regarding the first issue, the defense will argue that the accused lacked intent to commit the crime. For the second issue, the defense argues that legal recharacterization of facts is not permitted. And for the third issue, the defense will argue that no war crimes were committed as there was no international armed conflict.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    362 views2 pages

    Defense Opening Statement

    Uploaded by

    Parimal Kashyap
    The defense counsel seeks permission to address three key issues: 1) Whether the accused is guilty of murder charges, 2) Whether the facts of the case should be legally recharacterized, and 3) Whether the accused is guilty of war crimes. Regarding the first issue, the defense will argue that the accused lacked intent to commit the crime. For the second issue, the defense argues that legal recharacterization of facts is not permitted. And for the third issue, the defense will argue that no war crimes were committed as there was no international armed conflict.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Defence Speech

    Counsel would like to seek permission from the bench to approach the Dias.

    This is counsel on the behalf the defence appearing in the matter of prosecutor v chamberlain

    May the cousel have the permission to refer to bench collectively as your Excellencies

    I’ll be dealing with the opening statement and the examination in chief and my co counsel
    will deal with cross examination and closing statement.

    Before coming on to the issues faced by the court it is very imperative to discuss about the
    relevant facts of the case.

    Glador has been an epitome of civil rights model for the entire world. Galador share
    boundaries with Perotia and Gobdidi. Galador and gobidi have hostile relation as gobidi has
    many terrorist links. Because of this fact galador has to spend 3% of its GDP on defence.

    Now we know Galdorian government is very affectionate towards the xula speaking people.
    The situation refrred in the decision of the pre trial chamber pertains to the internal conflict in
    Perotia and the logistical support given by the gladorian government to the members of bell
    dome to fight against the autocratic government. According to a referendum conducted in bell
    town most of the natives wanted to seek asylum in galador. After the skirmishes there was
    mass exodus of people from perotia to galador in search of asylum.

    In order to handle the situation of this mass incoming of refuges the government has to set off
    shore detention centres, as whenever there is influx of huge number of refuges there is a
    threat to national security of the country. Also because of the facts that galador shares border
    with gobidi and the bad relation of the glador with perotia it was imperative on them make
    detention centres with proper verification process.

    Now on 23rd January what happended was, a lone ship was coming to the territory of the
    Galador. Border security even tried to best to communicate to the ship, but all their attempts
    were in vain. After various falied attempt, they got really suspicious the ship and asked mr
    alex chamberlain to assess the situation. Mr alex chamberlain was instructed that there may
    be hostile forces on the ship, chamberlain dispatched his troops as soon was possible and
    when the trrops reached the 40 metre mark from Goliath shot were fired from the goliath
    itself and even barbed wires were thrown at the vessels.. Yielding to the circumstances the
    troops had to retialite and board the ship.

    Now the counsel seeks the permission from the bench to address the issues faced by the
    court. The there major issues are –

    Whether the accused is guilty of cah of murder

    Whether there should be legal re characterisation of facts pursuant to regulation 55


    Whether accused is guilty of crime under Article 8 that is war crime.

    Coming on to the first issue

    1. Not directed against the civilian population


    2. It was not in furtherance of state or organisational policy

    With the help of defence mistake of fact the counsel during the course of trial will
    show that the accused lacked the mens rea element to commit the crime

    Secondly, there should not be any legal recharacterisation of facts

    Not comes under the ambit of routine functioning,

    Rome statue strictly proscribes amenedment of charges

    It also violates the accused right to free trial as accused did not know the specifc counts of
    war crime he is charged with and therefore he canot preprare his defense

    Now dealing with the third issue the accused has committed no war crimes

    No international armed conflict

    You might also like