The document provides a case brief for the prosecution of Alex and Peter. It analyzes the charges that could be brought against them based on the legislation. For Alex, the key charges are possession and sale of drugs under the Drugs Act 1981, assault of a police officer under the Crimes Act 1958, and resisting arrest. Peter may claim he was merely present. The case would be tried in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. Alex faces higher penalties than Peter if convicted.

1. LAWS2030 Criminal Law And Procedure
Answer:
Prosecution Case Study: Case Briefing
In the case study as has been referred to herein, a case brief shall be prepared. The case
brief so prepared shall indicate the prosecution case and the charges against the accused
which the prosecution proposes to try against the accused in the present case. The issues
that shall be dealt with in this case basically and primarily relates to the identification of the
appropriate court in which the matter of prosecution and the trial proceedings of the
accused might be carried within. The issues shall also assess and discuss certain other legal
factors and parameters which are stated herein. The legality of the charges against the
accused as impleaded by the prosecution, the requirement of the material evidences for the
purposes of supporting or refuting the charges so imposed by the prosecution, the probable
and possible defenses that might be raised by the alleged accused during the trial
proceedings before the appropriate court of law having the due jurisdiction for trying with
the substance of the case.
Legislation
The legislation that shall be considered herein for the purposes of deciding the probable
charges against the accused and the co-accused, as the content of the present case indicate
namely Alex and Peter is referred to as Drugs, Poison and Controlled Substances Act, 1981.
The relationship which these two individuals being the co-accused share is a cordial friend
relationship since childhood. The other legislation apart from the Drugs Act that shall be
material in the present context shall be the Crimes Act, 1958. This act would facilitate the
prosecution in charging the accused for those offenses which directly come under the
jurisdiction of criminal violations and aggressions apart from possession and selling of
drugs that is punishable under the Drugs Act of 1981 as has been stated in the above
statements. The legislations provides for a complete mechanism and procedure of
punishment of illegal possession and further and subsequent selling of drugs and also
entails provisions for poison and controlled substances and prescribes punishments
therefore in accordance to the gravity and nature of the offence so committed.
The sections that shall be considered relevant in the present context for the purposes of

2. determining the guilt of both the accused named as Peter and Alex as the prosecution
wishes to implead and convict before the court of law deal with all the actions of the
accused that is the unlawful actions of injuring people, resisting lawful arrest search and
seizure procedure by the police officials, possession and selling of drugs under the banned
and illegal list, assaulting the officials and other people so present in the premises where
their actions so suspected by the search officers on regular duty and the absolute refusal on
the part of Alex to provide the officers with the names and address of their location of the
place at where they ordinarily reside.
Sentencing Act 1991 shall also be a material and relevant legislation that shall be
considered herein for the purposes of supplementing the charges upon the accused for their
wrongful and unlawful actions towards the law enforcement officials as well as the public so
present in the party where the offense is alleged to have been committed by the accused. As
far as the charges are concerned, commencing from the jurisdiction of the Drugs act 1981,
the charge that shall be certainly made out against both the accused is the Voluntarily and
willful sale of psychoactive substances as defined under the Drugs Act 1981 which is an
offence under Section 56E of the Drugs Act 1981 under discussion and the trial shall
proceed in accordance to the same being one of the most important and crucial charge as
against both the accused.
The fact as has been presented in the case study so given that they did resort to selling of
Marijuana and Methamphetamine for the purposes of getting margins in the party premises
and the possession of same in the backpack so found by the police officials and also at the
house of Alex shall be sufficient to determine the guilt of both the accused as for the offence
mentioned herein and the charge so stated.
Considering other legislations under which the charge shall follow upon both the accused
relates to the negligent and reckless acts of unlawfully resisting the police officials from
conducting search and seizure and injuring the people present in the party by act of evading
the due process of law and arrest procedures therefore. The sections that shall be
considered relevant in this regard shall flow from the subsequent statutes so stated herein
and discussed herein primarily, Crimes Act of 1958 and the Sentencing Act of 1991.
Relevancy Of Charges So Framed Against The Accused Peter And Alex And Possible
Litigation
The relevant sections in this regard shall be Section 17, Section 31, Section 341, Section 29A,
Section 30, Section 464ZC of the Crimes Act 1958. These are the charges for which the
accused have been impleaded by the prosecution the purposes of commencement of trial
procedures and conviction. This section shall basically deal with the admissibility and the
lawfulness of the charges so framed and proceeded with against the accused by the police
officials on the basis of investigation for the offenses so alleged to be committed as has been
indicative and reflective in the prosecution case study and the story.

3. The charge under Section 17 shall be relevant and lawful as against Alex and not peter. The
reason for charging only Alex for the offence under this section is the wrongful and unlawful
conduct of running from the place where suspected with the possession of marijuana and
methamphetamine. The offence under section 17 is deemed to have been completed as
against the aggressor and the offender when negligently and recklessly causes serious
injury to the custodial officer on duty or any other emergency worker shall be liable for the
offence under Section 17 of the Crimes Act 1958, so operative in Australian Jurisdiction and
punished under the provisions and terms given therein.
The conduct of running from the crime scene badly hitting and injuring the police official
and also another person in the halfway while running is evident of the fact of reckless
actions from Alex and it shall be absolutely lawful to frame a charge against the accused
under Section 17 of the Code under discussion. The offence under Section 31 of the Code
under discussion shall also be considered lawful for the purposes of prosecuting the
accused, but the same shall follow only against the Alex and not against the peter. The act of
assaulting an on duty custodial officer shall be considered sufficient for attributing liability
under Section 31 of the Crime Act of 1958 and the punishment upon the accused shall be
imposed accordingly.
The other sections that have been imposed upon the accused shall be attributable to the
accused concerned herein for the sole purposes for their attempts to evade lawful arrest
and conduct of search by the police officials. By the virtue of Sentencing Act and the Crimes
Act it shall be lawful for the police officials to conduct search without a search warrant
when the authority and officials so feel prima facie that an offence has been committed
which has been the result in this case, A reasonable suspicion in this case has been raised
against the accused specifically Alex for unlawfully possessing in excess Marijuana and
other banned drug and a voluntary and willful attempt to evade he due process of law when
asked by the police officials on duty to submit to search shall be enough to impose the
liabilities under the sections so concerned in the above referred paragraphs.
Jurisdiction Of The Court
The Court within which the matter shall be dealt with and the trial of the accused shall take
place in this case would be the Magistrate Court of Victoria being the Court of First Instance.
The court shall have requisite jurisdiction to deal with the offenses and charges stated
herein and would be considered by Virtue of the Criminal Procedure code and legislation of
Australia to refer both the accused to remand or judicial custody until and unless the
charges are finally decided and the judgment of acquittal or conviction is passed therefore.
The right of appeal of both the accused shall hold good and no order restricting the right of
appeal shall be passed by any court of law, primarily court of first instance for the purposes
of depriving the accused of their legal rights to be heard in superior courts in case of their
un satisfaction with the order so passed by the court of first instance.

4. Evidences For Prosecution
The evidences which shall be considered material in this case for prosecution to prove for
the purposes of conducting effective trial against the accused shall basically proving beyond
reasonable doubt the possession of drugs and illegal substances by the accused voluntarily
and willfully, criminal intent to deprive the public of their rightly entitled legal interest,
criminal intent to deprive the custodial officer of their legally entitled right to arrest and
search the accused, the act of assaulting and injuring the personnel so stated and referred to
herein for the purposes of evading the due process of law. The evidences in reference to
these actions and conduct shall be proved by prosecution in order to try the accused and
substantiate and facilitate the court of law to frame a formal charge against the accused
based on the investigation report of the police officials and pass an order of conviction
therefore.
Possible Defenses
The defenses shall also be considered in these cases which can be raised by the accused as
has been referred to Peter and Alex in this very case under discussion. Considering and
viewing the facts of the case It can be reasonably inferred and deduced that the weight of
defenses shall lie in the favor of peter and would not support Alex much as far as his actions,
guilty mind and conduct is concerned. The possible defense that Peter might raise during
the trial or at a pre trial stage before the Magistrate court of law shall basically be the
absence of any wrongful and misconduct in the part of Peter to prevent or evade any due
process of law.
The presence of Peter at wrong time and wrong place shall be the defense which would be
raised by the accused herein “Peter” as far as the attribution of charges and imposing the
penalties similar to Alex is considered and concerned. The absence of any material abused
drugs or illegal substances and lack of any refusal to submit to search and seizure shall be
considered material by the court in inferring the criminal guilt and guilt of the accused and
therefore he shall be either discharged or acquitted for the charges so framed against him.
Although, in this case the Peter shall only be required to create a doubt in the mind of
magistrate for the purposes of proving the point and not beyond reasonable doubt as it is
the general rule of criminal law which says that the benefit of doubt shall lie with defense
and the prosecution requires to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Possible Penalties
The possible penalties upon Alex and Peter shall vary in accordance to the discretion of the
Court and the conclusions derived upon by referring to the material evidences and
submission of prosecution and defense therefore. It is evident from consideration of the
facts of the case and the evidences on record that the weight of penalty shall be high as

5. against the Alex for the charges so specifically framed against Alex as compared to Peter but
this consideration shall be completely dependent upon the trial proceedings of both the
accused.
Maximum Penalty
The maximum penalty with which the prime suspect and accused herein referred to as Alex
can be charged is for 5 years under section 31 of the Crimes Act of 1981. The concurrent
sentences can be passed against the accused herein Alex and Peter depending upon the due
examination of witnesses and viewing of evidences placed for its kind perusal. The
possibility of going into jail of Alex is quite high as compared to that of Peter.
References
Content.Legislation.Vic.Gov.Au (Webpage, 2022)
https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-06/81-
9719aa129%20authorised.pdf
(Webpage, 2022)
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s464zc.html
"Sentencing Act 1991", Classic.Austlii.Edu.Au (Webpage, 2022)
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/sa1991121/
"Sentencing Act 1991", Legislation.Vic.Gov.Au (Webpage, 2022)
https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/sentencing-act-1991/219
"Crimes Act 1958", Legislation.Vic.Gov.Au (Webpage, 2022)
https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/crimes-act-1958/292
"Barnet Jade - Find Recent Australian Legal Decisions, Judgments, Case Summaries For
Legal Professionals (Judgments And Decisions Enhanced)", Jade.Io (Webpage, 2022)
https://jade.io/j/?a=outline&id=281802
"Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) Reprints | The Law Library Of
Victoria", Lawlibrary.Vic.Gov.Au (Webpage, 2022)