Posted: April 17th, 2015

Hamiltonshire Police

 

 

FZ2045 Essay Assignment Brief

 

Hamiltonshire Police

 

Assignment Details

 

The work will take the form of an essay on the following:

 

A suspect is in custody for robbery and the OIC wants to interview him as soon as possible without legal representation. The custody officer declines this request and a solicitor is brought to the police station. During questioning it became necessary, in order to clarify the interviewee’s account, to pose questions which had already been asked. The solicitor argued that this is not permitted. There is then a break in the interview and when it is re-commenced the solicitor reads out a pre-prepared statement.

 

Consider the above paragraph and paying particular regard to legislation, case law and the PACE Codes of Practice, comment and critically evaluate under what circumstances can a suspect be interviewed when legal representation has been withheld. Secondly whether the solicitor is correct in his assumption that questions which have already been posed cannot be repeated. Thirdly the dangers for the defence in submitting pre-prepared statements.

 

The word limit is 2,500 words (+/-10%). This excludes footnotes, but includes quotations. The word count must be printed on the top right hand corner of your work.

 

Remember:

 

• You must answer the question set
• You must keep to the word limit of 2,500 words
• You must demonstrate that you have met the learning outcomes
• As you construct and present your work, consider the assessment criteria

 

Presentation Instructions

 

It is your responsibility to ensure that your work is neatly and accurately presented.

 

The work must be:

• Word-processed
• Single sided
• 5 or double line spaced
• Ariel 12 point font
• Justified
• Page numbered
• On A4 paper
• Margins left and right 3cm
• Attached to a cover sheet.

 

Marks may be deducted for failure to follow these instructions. Please look at the Student Guide to Assessment for more information.

 

Referencing

 

Any piece of written work must be referenced. That means citing the literature to say where you got that piece of information and to enable the reader to go to the original source. All citations and references must be in the format laid down in the Oxford Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities (see Blackboard web links and Useful information). If you do not do this you will unnecessarily lose marks.

 

Plagiarism

 

The use of work produced for another purpose by you, working alone or with others, must be acknowledged.

 

Copying from the works of another person (including Internet sources) constitutes plagiarism, which is an offence within the University’s regulations. Brief quotations from the published or unpublished works of another person, suitably attributed, are acceptable. You must always use your own words except when using properly referenced quotations.

 

You are advised when taking notes from books or other sources to make notes in your own words, in a selective and critical way.

 

Submission

 

Your work must be submitted with:

• a front cover sheet (detailing the module code and title, coursework title, module name and student name, word count, date submitted).

 

• a fully completed School Assessment Cover Sheet.

 

The assignment should be submitted into the year two posting box (JBF203) before 4.00pm on the given submission date and electronically via Turnitin (a guide to submitting work via Turnitin can be found on Blackboard).

 

The deadline for submission is 4.00pm Monday 27^th April 2015

 

Every attempt will be made to ensure that the work will be marked and available for collection by Tuesday 19^th may 2015.

The essay is worth 50% of the total module assessment

 

 

Learning Outcomes

 

This assessment will test your ability to meet the learning outcomes as described in your module booklet, specifically:

 

1. Review interview strategies and procedures
2. Describe and discuss the relevance of statute and case law which applies to evidence obtained by interview
3. Evaluate a suspect interview
4. Plan, prepare and conduct interviews with witness and suspects

 

Assessment Criteria

 

The work should demonstrate research and reference to relevant legislation, Home Office guidelines and best practice.

 

For more information please see the marking guide at Appendix 1

 

 

Finally – does your essay cover all the points in the checklist below?

 

• Have you completed and attached the Assessment Coversheet?
• Do you directly answer all aspects of the question?
• Is there an informative introduction?
• Is the content accurate and relevant?
• Do you cover all main points, and in sufficient depth?
• Is the material logically arranged?
• Is the essay the correct length?
• Is it clearly written and easily readable?
• Is each main point support by examples and/or argument?
• Is there a clear distinction between your own ideas and those of the authors of your source material?
• Have you commented on the source material?
• Does your essay have a conclusion? Is it supported by evidence?
• Have you acknowledged all sources and references?
• Have you included a bibliography (including a case list and a statute list in date order?
• Is your referencing compliant with OSCOLA?
• Have you checked for errors in spelling and syntax?
• Have you proof-read your essay?

Appendix 1

School of Forensic and Investigative Sciences

Assessment Criteria/Marking Proforma: Essays/Dissertations

 

Name………………………………………………… Module…………………………..

 

General Criteria

 

In grading your work we will be assessing the extent to which it matches the criteria attached. The criteria are not of equal importance, but it is not possible to ascribe an exact weighting to each. What follows is intended as a general guide to the standards.

 

 

1. Severe weakness in understanding the issues/arguments/theory is likely to result in a mark of less than 40%.
2. Thorough coverage of the relevant material, with statements supported by data, evidence, literature or examples, is necessary to gain 52% or above.
3. Work which is disorganised with points randomly ordered is unlikely to gain more than 48%.
4. A logical, well-explained argument, combined with other good characteristics is usually necessary to obtain 75%.
5. Fluent grammatical expression is important for expressing ideas clearly. Errors in this area are likely to lead to a reduction in marks.

 

General Comments:

Overall Grade Markers Signature………………….Moderation Signature……………

 

 

Academic Level 5                                           Student……………………………………………

 

Classification	Grade	Relevance	Knowledge	Analysis	Argument & Structure	Originality	Presentation
		25%	20%	10%	20%	10%	15%
Outstanding	75 – 100%	Directly relevant to case. Able to address the implications, assumptions and nuances of the case.   Relevance to practice is thoroughly and explicitly addressed.	Makes effective use of a comprehensive range of theory and practice knowledge.   Is able to manipulate and transfer some material to demonstrate a grasp of some of the themes, questions and issues in both theory and practice.	Adequate analysis of the material resulting in clear and logical conclusions.	Coherent and logically structured, making use of an appropriate mode of argument and/or theoretical model.	Contains some distinctive or independent thinking. Beginning to formulate an independent position.	Well written with standard spelling and syntax.   Style is lucid utilising an appropriate and error free format and bibliographical apparatus.
Good	64-74%	Directly relevant to case.   Is able to demonstrate effective practice relevance.	Makes good use of ample knowledge of a fair range of relevant theoretical and practice related material.   Evidence of an appreciation of its significance is apparent.	Adequate analytical treatment, with occasional descriptive or narrative passages which lack clear analytical purpose.   Conclusions are clear.	Generally coherent and logically constructed.   Uses an appropriate mode of argument or theoretical model.	Sound work that expresses a personal position, often in broad terms.   Some attempt to challenge standard views and engage with alternative views.	Competently written with only minor lapses from standard syntax and spelling.   Style is readable with acceptable and generally error-free format and bibliographical apparatus.
Above Average	57-63%	Generally addresses the case, sometimes addresses irrelevant issues.   Relevance to practice effectively addressed, may be implicit in places.	Ample knowledge of a fair range of relevant theoretical and practice related material.   Intermittent evidence of an appreciation of its significance.	Intermittent evidence of sound analytical ability.   Some description and narrative but still able to draw clear and logical conclusions in the main.	Adequate attempt to construct a coherent argument, but may suffer loss of focus and consistency.   Issues at stake may lack clarity.	Generally sound work that expresses a personal position, often in broad terms and tends towards uncritical conformity to one or more standard views of the topic.	Generally competent writing.   Intermittent lapses from standard spelling and syntax.   Presentation is generally acceptable as is the format and bibliographical status.
Average	50-56%	Generally addresses the case, sometimes addresses irrelevant issues.   Demonstrates the ability to consider issues effectively, although does not always do so.   Relevance to practice is addressed, but may be implicit in places.	Adequate knowledge of a limited range of relevant theoretical and practice related material with intermittent evidence of an appreciation of its significance.	Some evidence of analytical ability.   Intermittent passages of descriptive or narrative material, which lacks clear analytical purpose. Conclusions are not always clear and logical.	Reasonable to attempt to construct an argument is evident.   Occasionally lacks clarity and coherence.	Largely derivative.   Attempts to present a personal view, but only in broad terms.   Is largely uncritical and conforms to one or more standard views.	Generally competent writing although intermittent lapses from standard syntax and spelling and pose occasional obstacles for the reader.   Format and bibliography is generally error free and acceptable.
Below Average	41-49%	Some degree of irrelevance to the case.   Superficial consideration of the issues.   Relevance to practice tends towards superficiality and largely implicit.	Basic understanding of a limited range of relevant theoretical and practice related material.   Little appreciation of its significance	Largely descriptive or narrative in style with limited evidence of analytical capability.   Conclusions are not always clear or logical   .	Some attempt to construct an argument is evident but it lacks in sufficient clarity and coherence.   Issues at stake are only vaguely stated.	Almost wholly derivative.   No personal view is adequately formulated   Wholly uncritical and conforming to one or more standard views.	Style of presentation, syntax, spelling and format all pose obstacles for the reader.   Nevertheless, meaning is clear and bibliographical apparatus acceptable.
Bare Pass	40%	Some significant degree of irrelevance to the case is common.   Only the most obvious issues are addressed at a superficial level and in unchallenging terms.   Relevance to practice is superficially addressed and rarely made explicit.	A limited understanding of a narrow range of relevant theoretical and practice related material.   Little appreciation of its significance to practice.   Clearly lacks awareness of the significance of knowledge.	Heavy dependence on description and/or narrative.   Paraphrase is common.   Analysis is superficial and sparse.   Clear and logical conclusions are sparse	A basic argument is evident but tends to be supported by assertion and lacks proper development.   Coherence and clarity are evident only intermittently.	Almost wholly derivative.   The writer’s contribution rarely goes beyond simplifying paraphrase.   No evidence of personal thought.	Style of presentation makes reading difficult.   Deficiencies in spelling, syntax of format impact significantly upon clarity.   Bibliographical apparatus is acceptable.
Fail	0-39%	Relevance to the case is intermittent or missing.   The topic is reduced to its vaguest and least challenging terms.   Relevance to practice is barely considered or not at all.	Lack of basic knowledge in either or both theory and practice necessary for an understanding of the topic.	Inadequate and/or often inaccurate description and paraphrase.   Evidence of analysis is lacking.	Little evidence of coherent argument.   There is a lack of development and the work may be repetitive and/or thin.	No evidence of personal thought.   Cursory paraphrase or quotation of others.	Poorly written with numerous deficiencies in syntax, spelling, expression and presentation.   The writer may achieve clarity (if at all) only by using simplistic or repetitious style.   Bibliographical apparatus is unacceptable.