德语系毕业论文范文（共4页）2500字.docx

德语系毕业论文范文（共4页）2500字.docx

《德语系毕业论文范文（共4页）2500字.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《德语系毕业论文范文（共4页）2500字.docx（3页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

德语系毕业论文范文

　　一名因抢劫被拘留的嫌疑犯及伊斯兰会议组织想要在没有法律代表的状况下尽快进行采访。

监管人员拒绝这一要求，而后一名律师被带到警察局。

在审问过程中，为澄清被访谈者的报告，重复被提问的问题是非常必要的事情。

而律师坚持这是不被允许的。

然后采访稍事休息，重新开始时该律师宣读一份事先准备好的声明。

　　考虑上述段落并特别考虑到立法、判例法及pace实务守则，评论和批判性地评价在什么情况下可以对一名法律代表已被中止的嫌疑犯采访。

其次，律师关于已经提出的问题不能重复的假设是否正确。

第三，危险的辩护中提交预先准备好的声明。

　　以下情况下，犯罪嫌疑人可以在未获得法律意见的情况下接受采访：

　　为了调查犯罪嫌疑人可在延迟法律咨询访问时接受采访的情况，首先必须探讨这种拖延必须满足的准则。

　　circumstancessuspectcanbeinterviewedwithoutlegalrepresentationlawessay

　　introduction

　　asuspectisincustodyforrobberyandtheoicwantstointerviewhimassoonaspossiblewithoutlegalrepresentation.thecustodyofficerdeclinesthisrequestandasolicitorisbroughttothepolicestation.duringquestioningitbecamenecessary,inordertoclarifytheinterviewee'saccount,toposequestionswhichhadalreadybeenasked.thesolicitorarguedthatthisisnotpermitted.thereisthenabreakintheinterviewandwhenitisre-commencedthesolicitorreadsoutapre-preparedstatement.

　　considertheaboveparagraphandpayingparticularregardtolegislation,caselawandthepacecodesofpracticecommentandcriticallyevaluateunderwhatcircumstancescanasuspectbeinterviewedwhenlegalrepresentationhasbeenwithheld.secondlywhetherthesolicitoriscorrectinhisassumptionthatquestionswhichhavealreadybeenposedcannotberepeated.thirdlythedangersforthedefenceinsubmittingapre-preparedstatements.

　　circumstancesunderwhichasuspectcanbeinterviewedwhenaccesstolegaladviceiswithheld:

　　inordertolookintocircumstancesinwhichasuspectcanbeinterviewedinthemidstofdelayedlegaladviceaccess,thecriteriawhichmustbemettomakethisdelaymustfirstbeexplored.therelevantlegislationwhichgovernsthedelayoflegaladvicecomesfroms.58ofthepoliceandcriminalevidenceactXXXX年（pace）,inparticularpart（6）ofthesection,whichstates;

　　equally,abreachofs.58pacedoesnotalwaysresultinaquashedconviction.inrvalliadice[7],thegroundsforrefusaloflegaladviceforaninterviewincludedtheworrythatthesolicitormayinadvertentlywarnotherpersonslinkedwiththeoffence.theappealagainstconvictionwasrefused,asalthoughtherewasapoordecisiononthepartoftheofficerfordelayingadvice,itwasatthejudge’sdiscretiontoreversetheconviction.thejudgedecidedagainstexcludingtheevidenceunders.78pace,asthedefendantwasawareofhisrights,exercisedthem（includingtherighttosilence）,andassuchthepresenceoflegaladvicewouldnothavechangedtheoutco