Bill And Pervez Case Study

1. Material facts
The appellant was riding a “wave rider” Jet Ski in the sea off Weymouth, when he crashed into another jet ski and it caused the other rider grievous facial injuries. He was placed on a life support system and needed a surgical operation on his cheekbone, eye socket and jaw. Thus, the appellant was initially charged under section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for furious driving. However, the Court decided that the appellant should be prosecuted under s 58 (2) (a) of the merchant shipping act which made it a crime for the ‘master of a united kingdom ship’ to negligently causing serious injury to another, contrary to section 58 (2) (a) of the Merchant Shipping Act 2001.
2. The Issues
The legal issue is
9 (1) (b) of the Theft Act 1968. Bill and Pervez can be tried summarily in the magistrates’ court or on indictment.
When deciding to charge and prosecute Bill and Pervez, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyer must refer to the Code of Practice document issued by the Director of Public prosecutions under s. 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, in order to make decisions about prosecuting Bill and Pervez, the prosecutors must follow the guidance set by the code.
The CPS lawyer makes a decision in accordance with the full code test in para 4 of the code to determine whether to prosecute Bill and Pervez or not. The full code test is divided into two stages:
The first test is the ‘evidential test’. At this stage, he CPS lawyer must consider the CPS lawyer must be sure that there is enough evidence for a “realistic prospect of conviction [par. 4.4]. The prosecutor needs to objectively examine the evidence and figure out whether Bill and Pervez would more likely than not to be convicted by the court [para
58 of Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. In conditional fee agreement, the risk will be shared between the lawyer and Clive. If Clive wants to bring his claim under conditional fee agreement, Clive has to provide a solicitor under s. 58 (2) (a) of the Courts and Legal services Act 1990. If Clive wins, he doesn’t have to pay his lawyer, the unsuccessful party has to pay Clive’s lawyer under Rule 44.2 (2). But if he loses, Clive will only pay his lawyer expenses because the lawyer lost. However, Clive has to take a legal insurance policy under s. 58C of the Courts and Legal Services Act be-cause conditional fee agreement don’t cover all cost so that the lawyer expenses will be covered by the will be covered by the legal insurance whether Clive wins or