Team Name: Jurix
SUNNYDALE
MOCK TRIAL 2025
R
(Prosecution)
v.
Zhang
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Table of Contents……………………………………………………………2
II. Index of Authorities…………………………………………………………2
III. Statement of Issues…………………………………………………………3
IV. Summary of Arguments…………………………………………………….3
V. Pleadings……………………………………………………………………4
II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES OF ENGLAND AND WALES MENTIONED
● Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60
Referenced: Pages 3–4
● Human Rights Act 1998
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42
Referenced: Page 3
● Sexual Offences Act 2003
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42
Referenced: Pages 3–4
● Common Law Offences
(No statutory link, as common law is based on judicial precedent)
Referenced: Throughout Memorial
CASES MENTIONED
● R v R [1991] UKHL 12
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1991/12.html
Referenced: Pages 3, 4
● R v Dytham [1979] QB 722
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1979/3.html
Referenced: Page 3
III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1:
Whether Alexander Morgan, a public officer, committed Misconduct in Public Office by failing
to properly investigate and record a report of marital rape in 1992.
ISSUE 2:
Whether Morgan’s actions in discarding a written complaint and falsely marking the incident as
resolved amount to Perverting the Course of Justice.
ISSUE 3:
Whether, considering legal developments post-R v R [1991], Morgan had a legal duty to treat the
victim’s allegations as criminal and act accordingly under the law.
IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. The defendant committed Misconduct in Public Office by failing to investigate or act upon a
rape complaint.
● Under R v Dytham [1979] QB 722, a public officer who knowingly neglects to perform
their duties may be held criminally liable. The test is whether the officer acted in bad
faith or with deliberate indifference to their responsibilities, both of which are present
here.
● Officer Morgan failed to carry out basic and mandatory procedures when faced with the
alleged rape: he did not separate the complainant from the suspect, allowing potential
collusion or intimidation; he ignored clear signs of trauma, such as distress or fear visibly
displayed by the victim; and he neglected to take or formally log a witness statement, a
fundamental element in preserving the integrity of investigations under police protocol.
● By dismissing the claimant's account as “a lover’s spat,” Morgan demonstrated a
prejudgment, indicating a lack of impartiality and a breach of his duty to investigate all
allegations objectively. Such behavior falls far below the standards required of a public
officer and therefore constitutes Misconduct in Public Office under common law,
misconduct that is wilful, against duty, and unlawful.
2. The defendant perverted the course of justice by destroying a formal complaint.
● This directly obstructed justice by preventing a valid prosecution at the time. The letter
written in 1992 contained serious allegations, and had it been properly documented and
investigated, it could have led to a timely prosecution. Its later recovery during an
internal audit, and its consistency with the 2010 complaint, strongly supports the
credibility of both reports. By failing to act on the 1992 complaint, critical evidence was
lost, witnesses may have become unavailable, and justice was delayed.
● Morgan’s act of discarding the letter and marking the matter as “domestic, no further
action” was an intentional act to misrepresent facts and suppress evidence.
This was not a clerical error or a procedural oversight. It was a deliberate decision that
mischaracterised a serious criminal allegation as a private matter. By doing so, Morgan
effectively removed the possibility of an investigation and prosecution, amounting to
suppression of evidence. Such conduct falls squarely within the legal definition of
Misconduct in Public Office, as it represents a knowing abuse of authority for improper
purposes, in violation of the duty to act with honesty and impartiality.
3. Morgan’s failure occurred after the House of Lords judgment in R v R [1991], which
established that marital rape is a criminal offence.
● The legal context had changed, and the police had a duty to respond to reports of sexual
assault within marriage.
● The fact that the victim reported this just hours after learning about R v R implies
genuine intent to seek justice.
● Morgan’s refusal to act was not legally excusable, especially given his experience and
role.
4. Testimonies and evidence establish Morgan’s liability.
● Witness Coby Wood confirms the mishandling and failure to log evidence.
● Therapist Dr. Ambrose affirms Charlotte’s consistent trauma symptoms, congruent with
long-term abuse.
● Morgan’s “reasonable discretion” defense is negated by the deliberate suppression of
evidence and subsequent professional rise without accountability.
V. PLEADINGS
In light of the arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Prosecution respectfully prays that
this Honourable Court:
1. Hold the Defendant, Alexander Morgan, criminally liable for:
○ Misconduct in Public Office
○ Perverting the Course of Justice
in relation to his mishandling of Charlotte Ann-Young’s 1992 complaint and the suppression of
key evidence;
2. Affirm the seriousness of dereliction of duty within police conduct, particularly in cases
involving vulnerable victims and sexual violence;
3. Establish that no discretionary powers permit the willful abandonment of legal duty or
silencing of victims in a post-R v R legal framework.
On behalf of the Prosecution
Jurix
Counsels for the Crown
