Crime 1 Assignment

  A number of commercial operators are working on developing self-driving cars. There is a significant body of learning about the real and hypothetical levels of independence of these vehicles from human control, which might provide useful background but is not really the focus of this assignment. Researching the technical details of the specific vehicle mentioned below might be interesting for you, but that too is not the focus of this assignment. Currently, the vehicles at their current state of development are being tested on roads in the US and elsewhere. Recently, a self-driving vehicle was involved in a collision with a cyclist who was pushing her pushbike across the street on which the self-driving vehicle was proceeding. The cyclist was killed in the collision. You can see images of the event here. Be warned that they are disturbing. You should NOT assume that the images accurately reflects the lighting available or the visibility of the cyclist to the driver had the driver been keeping a proper lookout. Ignore speculation by the poster of the video and any commenters. Assume that the driver was a “check driver”, whose job was generally to let the vehicle drive itself, but to override the automated system and re-take control of the vehicle in the event that a dangerous situation arose that was not being addressed by the car’s automated system. Assume he had been trained in his job and had had instruction as to the vehicles design parameters. Assume no issue of intoxication arises with respect to the driver or the cyclist. You may assume that the vehicle was designed to be self-driving, and that this included a system designed to automatically detect and avoid obstructions (obviously, it failed). Assume that the driver was an experienced check driver, that he had driven this particular vehicle on many occasions in a wide range of conditions, and that nothing like this had happened before. Questions arise as to the criminal culpability of the driver if the events had occurred in Queensland. If a similar situation arose in Queensland, discuss the criminal liability of the driver for the offences of manslaughter, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle simpliciter. In order to do this, you will need to consider almost all the elements of the respective offences because of the relative novelty of this situation. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the question of causation arises (which is linked to the question of any causal contribution made by the cyclist). Questions of what amounts to “operation” arise. Questions of whether, given the design parameters of the vehicle, the driver behaved “dangerously” arise. Questions about the driver’s legal duty arise. In addition, does it make a difference if the vehicle’s automated system to detect and avoid objects broke, as opposed to the system’s being inadequately sophisticated to address the situation that arose? If so, why? Do any issues under Chapter V of the Criminal Code (ss 22-36) arise? There are many other issues for you to find. Your assignment should focus on an elemental dissection of the offences you are to consider, and an analysis of whether, on the facts as you know them, any element might or might not be capable of being established and the difficulties that might emerge in such a case. While you should refer to the facts in the case, the important questions of law that arise are likely to take up the bulk of your paper, as opposed to microscopic attempts at analysis of the video frame-by-frame. As previously indicated, the word limit for this assignment is 2500 words. Your due date is 7 May 2018 at 9pm. The requirements in the primary assignment from the heading “Supplementary Requirements and Observations” on p6 until (but not including) “Court Etiquette” on p10 still apply, obviously with such adaptations as are necessary to reflect that no court attendance is required in the present assignment. For example, the lodgment details and the requirement to include the word count prominently at the beginning still apply, among other matters of that order. Word count You must indicate the word count prominently at the beginning of your assignment. There is a 10% leeway available for students with respect to the 2500 word limit. There is no penalty for going below the limit, except that too brief an assignment may not adequately address the issues. If the assignment goes too long (beyond the 10% leeway) then a student risks being penalised for prolixity in line with the marking criteria guide. Coversheets and bibliography For some assignments, it is valuable to add a bibliography of readings at the end, and this is a common academic requirement. However for this assignment, it is not necessary. You must, nevertheless, appropriately comply with academic integrity requirements by footnoting or referencing your sources as required. The assignment is to be lodged via Turnitin. You do not get a second chance to upload your final submission if you accidentally upload the wrong document at the final submission lodgement point. Be very careful. Structure There is no particular structure that you are required to follow in your assignment. Some students find this difficult if they are used to having been provided with templates in their earlier educational career, but you are now well beyond that point in your education. You are free to choose any way of setting out the material you write about, as long as it is logical and comprehensible. It is for you to make the judgement decisions about the best way to do it. You will be marked accordingly. By the time you write the assignment, you will have become familiar with the IRAC model of writing, but remember that model is only a guideline and can become difficult to follow where multiple issues require discussion. Use your own best judgment. Before the assignment is due, a number of examples of prior work by students will be made available to illustrate what good work looks like, but do not slavishly follow their structure in the belief that there is some magic formula to follow. What the earlier students did might not fit your case very well, and clumsy structure cobbled together from another case is not desirable. You should think hard about how best to lay out the ideas you wish to discuss and in what order. Your goals should be clarity, completeness and conciseness. Remember that what markers want to see is analysis of the law, not a simple reproduction of the relevant statutory section. Chewing up your word count by unnecessarily reproducing hundreds of words from a section of the Criminal Code will do you no favours. You will deprive yourself of enough words to demonstrate you actually understand the issues generated by the section if you waste space simply cutting and pasting the section in. You will need to demonstrate how the statutory law might have been amplified by case authority. What is necessary is a complete expression of the law on the point you have chosen, but it is also necessary to focus - a rambling discourse with extraneous material of marginal importance inserted “just in case” shows poor powers of discrimination. As to the facts, what is necessary is not just a general narrative of the case. Your paper should contain crisp focus on the specific points of the evidence that are relevant to the determination of the issue you of law you chose. You should evaluate that evidence for and against each of the parties, describing the overall strength or weakness of the parties’ positions as the evidence reveals it to be on the point you have chosen. If it happens that you know the verdict, feel free to mention it. But as noted above, it is not necessary to know the result in order to undertake the sort of analysis under discussion. So you need to do the following things: Isolate an issue of law relevant to this course from among all the issues of law likely to be discussed at the trial, and explain the law on that point to the marker. Isolate from all the evidence in the case those parts that relate to the issue of law you have isolated. A mere recitation of everything you know about the case will not do well because there is no indication of the discrimination necessary to tease apart the relevant evidence from the irrelevant. Of course, it may be necessary to briefly include some background material to put the critical evidence in context, but that is different from an aimless discourse that just reproduces without analysis a jumble of evidence. Attempt to determine what the outcome will be. This involves an analysis of the facts, rather than the law, as you undertook earlier. Your attempt at a conclusion on the jury’s verdict on the facts is not something that will be marked right or wrong, but will be marked according to how well you present your reasons for your view. Reasonable minds can differ as to the result, but if you explain your reasons with clarity and conciseness, you will impress. Of course, your prediction can only be expressed in probabilistic terms or in terms of likelihoods of conviction or acquittal on the issue you have chosen – no-one can be definitive about these things. If it happens that you know the result, you must still analyse the facts and indicate if you agree with the known verdict. The order in which you deal with these things is up to you, but it must be logical.