Health and Safety Act, 1997 Health and Safety Act, 1997 provides for a duty of care for the police. Employers should ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of their officers as they are responsible for the operational decisions and the day-to-day running of their force Police operations, especially emergency response, can be dangerous, there is often a residual risk which may well be significant. Appropriate training should be provided to police officers who make risk-benefit decisions in the context of operational policing. There are circumstances where there are foreseeable risks. For example, intervening to protect the public in hazardous situations such as armed robbery or hostage taking. Not all agents can be trained for each scenario. However, they can be recognized as skills which vary according to their grade. For example, a skill on the immediacy of the threat, on operational advice or even knowing how to analyze information. The law states that the police must ensure that the risks associated with these activities are reduced as far as is reasonably possible. Managing risks to the extent reasonably possible means that risks must be balanced with the benefits. Here, there was a foreseeable risk that was important: a hostage price and a violent man who threatened a person and who could kill this person at any time. The measures and precautions taken were insufficient in relation to the risks. The chief knew there was a risk created by the hostage price. But there was no warning or instruction to Janet about the hostage price situation. The leader should have sent an entire team from the start of the intervention. The police chief forgot his son when he interviewed a suspect and did not send a police team to help him. I think that a chef is able to face different situations at the same time. He could have taken care of the person in crisis and sent a team to help Janet, or even let his subordinates take care of the person in crisis, and leave himself at the bank with other police officers. She stayed 15 minutes in front of the bank, then talked for 5 minutes with the robber, finally the police arrived 10 minutes after the murder. This means that the intervention arrived 30 minutes after the call, while the bank was in the same area as the police station. Compared to a reasonable person in the same situation, with the steps he could take and the responsibility he had for Janet, the chief of police failed in his duty of care.

Smith v Hughes (1960) In 1959, two prostitutes are standing on a balcony or behind the windows of their house to be seen by the public. They solicited men who were passing in the street by attracting their attention by tapping on the balcony railing with some metal object and hissing at them as they passed in the street. After having attracted them, they talk with them and invite them to come inside the premises. But the Street Offences Act prohibits prostitution in public places. The prostitutes claimed that the balcony was not "in a street" within the meaning of section 1 of the 1959 Street Offenses Act and that accordingly no offence had been committed.Why does the judge interpret the rule of the mishief rule? In fact, he avoided a literal interpretation that would have allowed prostitutes to avoid a conviction. Considering it is a public place, it allowed to condemn them and to respect the spirit, the idea of the law to put an end to the harassment on the part of prostitutes.

how do we know if we should say : "Saw" or "Seen" ?

Closing argument by Defendant’s attorney (2/2) All right, now i’m going tell you this story. And the story is about, you have probably heard about this before, it was famous man, In a hotel in New York, a rich businessman sexually assaults a housekeeper. Hotel staff call the police. People stop the French politician aboard a plane preparing to take off for Paris. The case ends with a financial transaction to the housekeeper. Who would have thought this woman victim? everyone said she was a liar. Do not make this mistake. Please. You know what I think ? I’m going to tell you. Olivia Johnson is the real victim. The real victim is a woman, a woman alone in front of a man, rich, powerful, above the law. Also, given these facts, I think it is certainly unlikely that the complainant will now maintain his charges. For these reasons, your Honor, I ask you to relax my client.

Closing argument by Defendant’s attorney The attorney explained that my client was "identified" as the thief, but in fact, this supposed eyewitness is a woman who has held grudges against my client for a long time, and she has made many inconsistent statements about the case. I hear, "we found the footprints of your client". For real ?! But my client is working here, she's a housekeeper, it's normal to have her fingerprints. Third. Pictures of the car thief taken at the time of the facts and far from the scene of the burglary. For security photos, they are fuzzy, identification is impossible. I could add that my client does not know anything about art. Then, if she was lunch break, and the window was broken, so he is someone who comes from outside. Finally, the testimony of the receiver is misleading in order to reduce his sentence.

It is correct ? :) (Closing argument by Defendant’s attorney) The attorney explained that my client was "identified" as the thief, but in fact, this supposed eyewitness is a woman who has held grudges against my client for a long time, and she has made many inconsistent statements about the case. I hear, "we found the footprints of your client". For real ?! But my client is working here, she's a housekeeper, it's normal to have her fingerprints. Third. Pictures of the car thief taken at the time of the facts and far from the scene of the burglary. For security photos, they are fuzzy, identification is impossible. I could add that my client does not know anything about art. Then, if she was lunch break, and the window was broken, so he is someone who comes from outside. Finally, the testimony of the receiver is misleading in order to reduce his sentence.

It is correct ? :) (Opening statement by defendant’s attorney) Your Honour, members of the jury, my name is Jim Rohn and I have the privilege to represent Mrs. Johnson in this case before you today. I intend to prove the not guilt of my client. Two words first, if I may, Your honour, ladies and gentlemen from the jury. Two words of explanation before considering the defense of this woman whom I have the great honor of assured today before you. I can treat Olivia Johnson patronized and say that finally this woman is only a housekeeper. But, I can also say, we can also tell ourselves, if I had lived what he lived, what would I come? Are not you ladies and gentlemen, fruit of our history ? What is wrong with my client? He is accused of stealing a painting from a rich collector during his absence. OK ! Well, I'm going to show you, throughout the trial, proof that my client is the real victim. At the conclusion of this trial, it is my hope, that in the interests of justice you will find that the defendant is not responsable for burglary. Thanks you.

Quel est le titre de la première chanson de cette video ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah_a5-oU7gM