Scribd
Upload
1 views

CASP_2004 Genre 2

The document is an assignment by Julie Ann Camilleri for the CASP study-unit CSP2004, focusing on the case of State V. Foster, where Foster's actions during a confrontation with a suspected criminal are analyzed for negligence. It argues that Foster's decision to confront and physically assault a man based on a description, without formal identification, constitutes negligence and makes him an accessory to a negligent homicide. The assignment aims to provide insights for judges and the general public to understand the implications of the case and the importance of lawful conduct.

Uploaded by

juju010504
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1 views

CASP_2004 Genre 2

The document is an assignment by Julie Ann Camilleri for the CASP study-unit CSP2004, focusing on the case of State V. Foster, where Foster's actions during a confrontation with a suspected criminal are analyzed for negligence. It argues that Foster's decision to confront and physically assault a man based on a description, without formal identification, constitutes negligence and makes him an accessory to a negligent homicide. The assignment aims to provide insights for judges and the general public to understand the implications of the case and the importance of lawful conduct.

Uploaded by

juju010504
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

CASP study-unit: CSP2004

Academic Year: 2024 / 2025


Semester: Semester 1
Assignment type: Genre 2

Name Julie Ann

Surname Camilleri

ID Number 148104L

Faculty Faculty of Law

Course name Bachelor of Laws (Honors)

Number of Words Case Study: 463 Justification:185

For office use only


Final Mark Click here to enter text.

I hereby declare that I am the legitimate author of this assignment and that it is my
original work. No portion of this work has been submitted in support of an application
for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or institution of
learning.

Julie Ann Camilleri 01/12/2024


Signature Date
Topic: State V. Foster; Was Foster's plea logical?
Audience: Judges or magistrates who are deciding for a final verdict. Common individuals
who wish to dig deeper and discern such a criminal case.
Role: A legal professional shedding light on a case, indicating what should be kept in mind
when evaluating such a case to ensure a fair sentence.
Purpose: to aid decision-makers in finalizing a just and transparent verdict. To help decision-
makers formulate an unbiased judgment that encapsulates every aspect of the case. This
includes people who aren’t well-versed in the law, yet still have a say in the case.

Case Study:

On the 2nd of December 1986, Michael Foster claimed that it was logically impossible for
him to be accused of being an accessory to a criminal act of a negligent nature. Michael
Foster's girlfriend was robbed and raped, with a blade held against her neck threatening her
life. Foster obtained a detailed description of the perpetrator from his girlfriend and, on
identifying a person of a similar description on the street, Mr. Middleton, Mr. Foster decided
to take action against the person who he believed committed such a heinous crime. In the
confrontation, the man negated any involvement with the crime and tried to escape. Michael
Foster physically beat the man, who was not formally identified as the perpetrator, and
proceeded to hand Mr. Canon a knife to keep watch of Mr. Middleton while he brought his
girlfriend to identify her perpetrator formally. It is crucial to keep in mind that Mr. Foster
confronted and beat the man without any formal certainty as to whether he did commit the
crime (without any sound evidence; before his girlfriend’s confirmation) which indicates
negligence. Why give Mr. Canon a knife if there is no intention of harming the other
individual? Could it have only been provided to Mr. Canon solely for his protection?

If I were to give a person matches to light a fire for warmth, but instead, the person decides to
set a fire inside the house, I, the person who provided the matches, would be held accountable
for providing the tool with which harm was caused. In such a case, it is illogical for Mr.
Foster to claim that he cannot be classified as an accessory to a negligent homicide; if the
knife weren't provided by him, Mr. Canon would have used physical force to avoid Mr.
Middleton’s attack which, most likely, would not have resulted in Mr. Middleton’s death. One
cannot provide a tool with an intended use and ignore the potential consequences of the tool’s
misuse. This failure to exercise cautious reason in your actions and decisions, undeniable
negligence, cannot be overlooked and should be punished. While one can sympathize with
the suffering Mr. Foster endured upon learning of his girlfriend’s brutal rape, such anguish,
though deeply human, cannot excuse or justify confronting a man and beating him up merely
because he fit a description. This irrational action, although executed in hot blood, could have
endangered the life of an innocent man (simply because he had a similar description); it was
by chance that Mr. Foster confronted Mr. Middleton, who truly sexually assaulted his partner.
Even when the guilty party is confirmed, taking the law into one's own hands leads to chaos
and undermines the very purpose of the legal system. Such actions should also be subject to
punishment.

Justification:

I first described the actions that are crucial to the case to provide the readers a solid
foundation to fully grasp the recommendations and implications mentioned further on in the
second and final paragraph. The paragraphs involve the reader through the use of questions,
urging the reader to formulate their own unbiased opinion and maybe even generate new
implications. I also made use of an analogy to put the case into perspective, making it simpler
for readers unfamiliar with legal concepts to grasp the case and understand the
recommendations.
The title of the case study was answered in the second paragraph and was paired with the
recommendations. The use of modal verbs, such as ‘could’ and ‘should’, along with words
like ‘although’ ‘most likely’ and ‘maybe’, ensured that the recommendations and implications
were written in a diplomatic tone to emphasize clarity and fairness (neutral yet empathetic
language).
I intentionally avoided overly technical jargon, ensuring the text remains accessible to a
general audience while maintaining the subject's integrity. This also provides clarity for law
professionals who may use the insights presented to help finalize a verdict.

You might also like