1 | P a g e

Before the Court of Appeal

Of

The Republic of Polkraine

Dr. Ibrahimovic

(Appelant)

Vs.

The Republic AND Polkrainian Times & Others

(Respondents)

K.K Luthra Moot 2012 Trials

Szabist

Memorial for the Respondent

(Councels on behalf of the Respondent)

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………. 3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………….4

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………...4

STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………….5

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………….6

WRITTEN PLEADINGS……………………………………………………………7

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………...10

3 | P a g e

Index of Authorities

Case Law1. Cundy v LeCocq (1884) 13 QBD 207, Queen’s Bench Division2. Warner v MPC (1968) 2 All ER 356, House of Lords3. R v McNarma (1988) 87 Cr App R 246, Court of Appeal, Criminal Division4. R v Cunnigham (1957) 2 All ER 412, (1957) 2 QB 3965. R v Tosti and White (1997) Crim LR 7466. R v Gullefer (1990) 3 All ER 882 Court of Appeal , Criminal Division7. R v Jones (Kenneth) (1990) 3 All ER 886, Court of Appeal, Criminal Division8. R v Shivpuri (1986) 2 All ER 334, House of Lords9. R v Siracusa (1989) Court of Appeal, Criminal Division

Books and Academic Writing10.Consultation Paper No 183, Conspiracy and Attempt (2007)11.Stephen’s Digest of the Criminal Law (5th edn, 1894) art 5012.Criminal Code Bill cl 2013.A.Semster (ed) , Appraising Strict Liability (2005)

Legislation (Statutes)1. Schedule I to the Narcotic Drugs Act, 20062. 321. Attempt ANNEXURE C THE POLKRAINIAN PENAL CODE, 20063. Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 19644. THE CONSTITUTION OF POLKRAINE,CHAPTER IV- BILL OF RIGHTS5. 322. 1(A) and 1(B) Attempt ANNEXURE C THE POLKRAINIAN PENAL CODE,

20066. Misuse of Drugs Act 19717. The Licensing Act 1872 (35 and 36 Vict c 94), s13

4 | P a g e

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONThe Appellants humbly approach the Honourable Court of Appeal under section 385(1AA and 2A) of The Polkrainian Criminal Procedure, 2006 and Article 34 of The Constitution of Polkraine. The Respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

Statement of Facts

Dr. lbrahimovic, a chemist of repute who has not only developed new organic compounds to combat ailments affecting the sinuses, nasal passage and respiratory system, but has developed novel methods for mass-producing generic drugs. His patents have ma.de him a wealthy man, over the years, and he is well known among the informed citizenry of Polkraine. The only black mark in this illustrious career has been an internal inquiry conducted in 2009 by Breathewell, the company which funds his research and provides him with laboratory space, in respect of allegations regarding use and possession ofmarijuana in the workplace

Polkranian Independence Day was celebrated on 20th January each year and, on the night of 19th January, 2012, Dr. lbrahimovic threw a lavish party at his suburban villa on the outskirts of Torresnik. The "swish set" of Torresnik, from industrialists to entertainers to politicians, were all invited to this event. Unknown to lbrahimovic, however, an undercover journalist from Torresnik Today had slipped into the party, armed with a hidden camera concealed in the button of his blazer. In the course of the evening, this journalist happened to engage Dr.lbrahimovic in conversation. Other guests noticed a man unknown to them having a fortyfive minute conversation with Dr. lbrahimovic at a secluded spot near the swimming pool. The video also shows a famous model nasally inhaling cocaine.

On 21 January 2012, however, at 10:30 AM, the police raided Dr. lbrahimovic's laboratory at Breathewell's premises. The police personnel were accompanied by a video journalist from Torresnik Today, and a chemicals expert attached to the police department. They found lbrahimovic at his workbench, where he seemed to be working with red phosphorus. In addition, they found that a nearby vat contained the ingredients for the production of pseudoephedrine, through yeast fermentation of dextrose in the presence of benzaldehyde. The chemicals expert concluded that the process had been initiated half an hour earlier. Dr.lbrahimovic was arrested by the police on the spot. When he asked the officer conducting the investigation as to why he had been arrested, he was told that the CEO of Polkranian Times Inc. had informed them the previous day that Dr. lbrahimovic was involved in the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine in its crystalline form ("crystal meth"), a prohibited substance, and had sent the police video clips of alleged conversations which demonstrated this. They also stated that they had been constrained to arrest him as he had been found with ingredients used in the production of crystal meth, clearly demonstrating that he was going to synthesize the controlled substance in question.

The evening news on Torresnik Today contained the "video clips" that the police hadreferred to. In an explosive news segment titled "lbrahimovic: Meth Man", the channelshowed grainy footage pieced together in sequence. It began with a shot of what appeared

5 | P a g e

to be Dr. lbrahimovic's villa, decked with lights. The next clip was of a well-known fashionmodel, nasally inhaling cocaine from a 100$ currency note while sitting on the bonnet of acar in the driveway. The following clip was of a party with loud music, with Mr. lbrahimovicsocializing with guests. The final clip, which was about 28 minutes long, was clearly anisolated conversation between two individuals, one of whom was the bearer of the camera.The face of the second intermittently came into the frame, and was identifiable as the faceof Dr. lbrahimovic. Fifteen minutes of the conversation was idle banter about the politicalclimate of Polkraine, after which the conversation took a different turn. The relevant portionis transcribed below:-Journalist- "So ... that inquiry. Did you really smoke grass in office?"lbrahimovic - "Haha .. No. Someone just saw it lying in my drawer. Obviously, I cleanedeverything out when stuff hit the fan."Journalist- "I'm really more of a meth man myself."lbrahimovic- "Yeah? I haven't tried it."Journalist- "NO WAY! II don't believe you."lbrahimovic- "I'm not lying."Journalist- "But are you telling me that you've never come in contact with the stuff? You'venever been tempted?"lbrahimovic - "No, I've never been tempted ... [AUDIO IS UNCLEAR FOR 30 SECONDS] ...know where you can get some.Journalist- "Could you get me some? I'm willing to pay good money. I mean a LOTI Becausemy friends do it as well."lbrahimovic- "Let me see and get back to you."

In his statement to the police made during custodial interrogation, and on being shown the"video clips", Dr. lbrahimovic admitted to the fact that he was, in fact, the second personwhose face intermittently came into focus. He also admitted that it was, in fact, his voicewhich could be heard, answering the questions of the journalist.

The trial court convicted the accused of attempt to manufacture and sell acontrolled substance, and sentenced him to 9 years imprisonment. In addition, a fine offorty thousand Polkrainian dollars was imposed on Dr. lbrahimovic. He also dismissed theapplication for initiating contempt of court proceedings against the Polkrainian Times Inc. asbeing "without basis or substance".

Statement of Issues

1. That Dr. Ibrahimovic’s conviction for attempting to manufacture and sell a controlled substance should be upheld.

Dr. Ibrahimovic’s actions were more than merely prepatory. It was accompanied by the requisite mens rea, and even if the this

honorable court finds otherwise, it can be argued that it is an offence of strict liability because of the wider public policy implications.

2. That Dr. Ibrahimovic’s application for contempt of court charges against the Polkrainian Times is without ‘basis and judgement’ and in violation of

6 | P a g e

Article 16 and 32 of the Chapter IV of the Bill of Rigths of the Constitution of Polkraine.

Summary of Arguments

3. That Dr. Ibrahimovic’s conviction for attempting to manufacture and sell a controlled substance should be upheld.

Dr. Ibrahimovic’s actions were more than merely prepatory and It was accompanied by the requisite mens rea. (I argue that it is also an offence of strict liability)

- On the night of 19th January, Dr. Ibrahimovic had fortyfive minute conversation with an undercover journalist, which in my opinion is enogh proof for attempting to sell a controlled substance, as Dr. Ibrahimovic has already been subject to an enquiry on this, and he himself in the sting video has admitted that there was a controlled substance in his drawer and that is the reason the enquiry was held. Another fact to note, should be the model that was sniffing cocaine at the party, this shows that drugs indeed were used at Dr. Ibrahimovic’s premises and party that night. On 21 January 2012, at 10:30 AM, the police raided Dr. lbrahimovic's laboratory at Breathewell's premises. They found lbrahimovic at his workbench, where he seemed to be working with red phosphorus., which can lead to the chemical formation of Methamphetamine.

4. That Dr. Ibrahimovic’s application for contempt of court charges against the Polkrainian Times is without ‘basis and judgement’ and in violation of Article 16 and 32 of the Chapter IV of the Bill of Rigths of the Constitution of Polkraine, i.e, The articles of Freedom of Speech and Access to Information.

7 | P a g e

Written Pleadings

Methamphetamine is highly addictive. While the withdrawal itself may not be dangerous, withdrawal symptoms are common with heavy use and relapse is common.Methamphetamine-induced hyperstimulation of pleasure pathways can lead to anhedonia months after use has been discontinued.Methamphetamine users and addicts may lose their teeth abnormally quickly, a condition informally known as meth mouth.Short-term exposure to high concentrations of chemical vapors that may exist in methamphetamine laboratories can cause severe health problems or even result in death. Exposure to these substances can occur from volatile air emissions, spills, fires, and explosions. This is one of the reasons that the Polkraine Parliament has legislated for Crystal Meth ( Methamphetamine ) to be graded as an A grade controlled substance.1 Under the statute it is expressed that anyone who manufactures, or sells will be guilty of an offence and is indictable upto 20 years imprisonment, and twenty thousand Polkrainian dollars.2 Dr. Ibrahimovic was sentenced to 9 years of imprisonment, which is less than the half of the offence, and as the statute provides for the same level of fine as the actual offence, forty thousand Polkrainian dollars were fined, on two counts, one of illegaly manufacturing the controlled and dangerous substance which was discovered when the police raided the premises of Dr. Ibrahimovic on the 21st of January 2012 and on the other count of procuring and attemting to sell a controlled substance which was captured on the footage of a sting operation by a reporter. I therby request this court to uphold the conviction, and if the court deems fit, to enhance the sentence to at least twenty years imprisonment, on the two counts of attempting to manufacture and sell the controlled substance.

In Cundy v Le Cocq3, there was a statute4 which was similar in nature to the THE NARCOTIC

DRUGS ACT, 2006, s.29, in that no mens rea element was provided in the statute, and the Queen’s

Bench Division in that case upheld the conviction. Similarly Lord Ried, in Warner v MPC5, suggested that

where an offence of public and health and safety was concerned, the defendant’s beleief, intention or

state of mind are irrelevant, and thus it was held to be an absolute offence under the staute6, which is

very similar to the statute under which I as a councel of the republic demand for the conviction to be

upheld by this honorable Court of appeal. Similarly in R v McNarma7 it was upheld that where drugs are

1 Schedule I to the Narcotic Drugs Act, 2006.2 321. AttemptANNEXURE CTHE POLKRAINIAN PENAL CODE, 20063 (1884) 13 QBD 207, Queen’s Bench Division4 The Licensing Act 1872 (35 and 36 Vict c 94), s135 (1968) 2 All ER 356, House of Lords6 Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 19647 (1988) 87 Cr App R 246, Court of Appeal, Criminal Division

8 | P a g e

and public safety is concerned, and the statute8 does not provide for an element of mens rea, the court

should convict.

Furthermore, some academics have argued, that an offence that is dangerous to public health and safety,

should not be critisized for being offences of strict liability.9 The reform10 proposals in England provides

that where the Parliament does not intend to an offence to be of strict liabilty but leaves open the question

of mens rea, Cunnigham11 recklesness would suffice , and even under that broad an interpretation Dr.

Ibrahimovic, will in my opinion, be convicted, because anyone reasonably prudent person would know the risk of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine.

So, now that some authorities have been cited, to prove the requisite mens rea, I would like to proceed

further to try and prove that an attempt has thus been made, of both manufacturing and selling a

controlled substance. The statute12 provides that the conduct must be more than merely prepatory and

should be immediately and remotely connected with the comission of the offence. The ingredients

required to manufacture crystal meth, a drug for recreational purposes, but very dangerous, were found

on the premises of Dr. Ibrahimovic on 21st January 2012, it was more than merely prepatory to the full

comission of the offence, just like examining a door for burglary was held to be13. So on the charge of

attempting to sell a controlled substance, as is evident, from the sting operation, and the defendant has

already admitted that he was the person in the video, ‘an attempt to commit a crime is an act done with

intent to commit that crime, and forming part of a series of acts ehich would constitute it’s actual

commision if it were not interrupted’14. So precisely, I argue as councel for the republic that the conviction

to sell a controlled substance should also be uplheld. The literal meaning of proximate (in this case,

remote) is nearest , next , before or after (in place, order, time, connection of thought , causation etc.)15

Thus it can be argued that in both the cases Dr. Ibrahimovic was immediately and remotly connected,

when procuring to sell and when attempting to manufacture.The Law Commission of England has

published a consultation paper16 , looking for reform in the area where the defendant is trying to commit

an offence and is designed to encompass earlier prepatory acts, for the need for effective intervention by

police and the desirability of imposing criminal liability in relation to conduct associated with a sufficiently

vivid danger of intentional harm, harm which I believe is much similar to the harm that Dr. Ibrahimovic

could cause by the manufacturing and selling of methamphetamine. The request the honorable court to

note this reform which is being implemented in England. The honorable court may please also note that

impossibility is not a defence to attempt17.

8 Misuse of Drugs Act 19719 A.Semster (ed) , Appraising Strict Liability (2005)10 Criminal Code Bill cl 2011 R v Cunnigham (1957) 2 All ER 412, (1957) 2 QB 39612 322. 1(A) and 1(B) Attempt ANNEXURE CTHE POLKRAINIAN PENAL CODE, 200613 R v Tosti and White (1997) Crim LR 74614 Stephen’s Digest of the Criminal Law (5th edn, 1894) art 50 (obiter in R v Gullefer (1990) 3 All ER 882 Court of Appeal , Criminal Division)15 R v Jones (Kenneth) (1990) 3 All ER 886, Court of Appeal, Criminal Division16 Consultation Paper No 183, Conspiracy and Attempt (2007)17 R v Shivpuri (1986) 2 All ER 334, House of Lords

9 | P a g e

I would also like to point out to the honorable court, that the offence of conspiracy at common law is still

open, specially when A grade drugs and public health is at issue, both of which is a part of the

prosecutions case. Per O’Connor LJ, ‘Participation in a conspiracy is infinetly variable: it can be active or

passive.’18

Contempt of court is essentially seen as a form of disturbance that may impede the functionality of the

court. The judge may impose fines and/or jail time upon any person committing contempt of court. The

person is usually let out upon his agreement to fulfill the wishes of the court. Civil contempt can involve

acts of omission. The judge will make use of warnings in most situations that may lead to a person being

charged with contempt. It is relatively rare that a person is charged for contempt without first receiving at

least one warning from the judge. Constructive contempt, also called consequential contempt is when a

person fails to fulfill the will of the court as it applies to outside obligations of the person. In most cases,

constructive contempt is considered to be in the realm of civil contempt because of its passive nature.

I as a councel for the Polkrainian Times contend, that in Pakistan, a common law jurisdiction, the CJ was

manhadled by a senior police official in Islamabad, the kicked him and pulled his hair on the orders of a

militiary dictator, but the judiciary showed judicial restrain, and actually held a prime minister for contempt

for not obeying the courts order, so basically I argue that the contempt of court is used to implement the

court’s order, and in this case there is no such order. Further I contend that my client has the fundamental

rights of Access to Information under Art 3219, the people of Polkraine are entitled to such information,

and my client has just presented them with it, also my client has protection under Art 1620, that is the

Freedom of Expression.

PRAYERWHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it ismost humbly and respectfully requested that this Honourable Court may adjudge and declarethat:1. Dr. Ibrahimovic is guilty of attempting to manufacture and sell a controlled substance, upholding the verdict of the trial court.

18 R v Siracusa (1989) Court of Appeal, Criminal Division19 THE CONSTITUTION OF POLKRAINE,CHAPTER IV- BILL OF RIGHTS20 THE CONSTITUTION OF POLKRAINE,CHAPTER IV- BILL OF RIGHTS

10 | P a g e

2. The contempt of court application against Polkrainian times is without basis and substance, upholding the judgment of the trial court.The Court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Honourable Court( maydeem fit in light of justice, equity and good conscience.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of which is most humbly prayedCounsel .for the "Respondent"