Module name: Legal skills

Respondent skeleton argument

Introduction

This skeleton argument is fulfilled as a representative of Ludvik Guraj against the court of appeal. This document involves submissions that are disagree with appeal.
Background:
The respondent Ludvik Guraj was proven guilty of involving about 1.5 kg of heroin, some amphetamine and some cocaine on 11 June 2012. Besides, respondent hid equipment hydraulic press and cutting agents, which process the drugs, in his house and garage. Moreover, it found out that he had been providing drugs eventually and had the significant amount of cash in his house. On 16 July 2012 Ludvik Guraj was decided to sentence to imprisonment for five years and four months for the purposes of Proceeds of Crime Act 2002¹⁴ and 27 section of the Misuse of drugs Act 1971¹⁵. The judge made a confiscation of respondent’s property such as a car, a laptop, five mobile phones, some scales, the press and money-counting machines under the section of 143 of the Powers of Criminal Court (Sentencing) Act 2000¹⁶.¹⁷

Submissions

The respondent claimed that two statuary provisions were contravened.

1. 
   The confiscation order should not be applied in this case owing to section 15 (2). According to section 15 (2) the judge must not impose a fine on defendant for crime while sentencing him.¹⁸
   
2. 
   The failure of the section 14 (8), in which the Crown should have prolonged the period of postponement as section 14 (8) indicates, may be a serious mistake in jurisdiction of the court. Because a year was spent for nothing owing to initial postponement’s end in July 2012.¹⁹
   

Conclusion

Considering the arguments written above, the Respondent asked from court to dismiss the appeal.