Urn 2167P

XX THE KK LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2024
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER
URN 2167
XX KK LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2024
Before
THE SUPEREME COURT OF KRET
W.P.(Crl.) 4/2024
J.J CROOK…………………………………………………… APPLICANT
v.
UNION OF KRET……………………………………………..RESPONDENT
Page | 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................... 6
ISSUES RAISED...................................................................................................................... 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................ 10
ISSUE 1: MR. J.J. CROOK IS NOT ENTITLED TO DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY . 10
[1.1] Ferrwa and Kret are Signatories to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations of 1961. ............................................................................................................ 10
[1.2] The Applicant is a Diplomatic Entity and thus Entitled to Diplomatic
Immunity ......................................................................................................................... 11
[1.3] Alleged Acts Done by Mr. J.J. Crook were in Self-Defense and Official
Capacity. .......................................................................................................................... 12
ISSUE 2: THE D.I. COULD NOT HAVE CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION
INTO THE OFFENSES COMMITTED INSIDE THE PREMISES OF THE
FERRWAN EMBASSY WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE FERRWAN
AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................................. 13
[2.1] Prior Consent of the Ambassador is Essential for Entry into the Embassy
Premises. .......................................................................................................................... 14
[2.2] Investigation Conducted by the DI without Prior Consent is Inadmissible. .... 15
ISSUE 3. THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE D.I. FROM THE EMBASSY,
INCLUDING CCTV FOOTAGE, IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION
BY THE MAGISTRATE, BEING ILLEGALLY OBTAINED. ..................................... 17
[3.1] Principle of Inviolability Grossly Violated in the Present Case ......................... 17
[3.2] Evidence Illegally Obtained, thus Inadmissible .................................................. 18
ISSUE 4. THE FURTHER RECOVERIES MADE, INCLUDING THE REMAINS
OF MRS. WATS, ARE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED AND EXCLUDED FROM
RELIANCE BY POLICE ON ACCOUNT OF OBJECTIONS AS TO THE ILLEGAL
SEARCH AT THE EMBASSY AND THE ARREST OF MR. J. J. CROOK. .............. 20
[4.1] Entry into the Embassy Constitutes a Serious Breach ....................................... 20
[4.2] Further Recoveries Made Create Prejudice Against the Accused ..................... 21
[4.3] Confessional Statement is Inadmissible ............................................................... 23
PRAYER.............................................................................................................................. 25
Page | 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM
& and
§ Section
¶ Paragraph
Art. Article
ASI Additional Sub-Inspector
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
DI Detective Inspector
Hon’ble Honorable
ICJ International Court of Justice
Moot Prop Moot Proposition
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
US United States of America
VCCR Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
VCDR Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
v. Versus
Page | 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore v. Union of India, AIR 2008 SC 632. ..................................... 10
Bai Radha v. State of Gujarat, 1970 AIR 1396,1969 SCR (2) 799. ...................................... 23
Beckford v. The Queen, (1988) AC 130 Privy Council......................................................... 13
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275. ....................................................................................... 10
Deepti Kapur v. Kunal Julka, AIR 2020 Delhi 157. .............................................................. 23
DRC v. Belgium (2002) ICJ Rep 3. ....................................................................................... 12
E.D.F. v. Romania, ICSID CASE NO. ARB/05/13. .............................................................. 16
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960).......................................................................... 23
Island of Palmas, (1928) II RIAA 839 .................................................................................. 15
Island of Palmas, (1928) II RIAA 839. .................................................................................. 15
Johnson v. United States, 228 U.S. 457, 458 (1913). ............................................................. 19
Mathanex v. United States, (2005) 44 ILM 1345 (Other Reference). .................................. 16
Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939). ..................................................................... 18
Portugal v. Germany, vol.2 RIAA (1928), ILR 526. ............................................................. 18
R v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, (2018) UKSC 3............... 16
R. v. Fulling, (1987) EWCA Crim J2017-1 .......................................................................... 24
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172.............................................................. 19
State v. Miclau Jr., 167 Ohio St. 38 (Ohio 1957). ................................................................. 23
T.N. Govarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 2 SCC 267............................... 10
Ukha Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra, 1963 AIR 1531, SCR (1) 926. ................................... 19
United States of America v. Douglas Barry Kent, (2006) No. 04-56703. .............................. 12
United States of America v. Islamic Republic of Iran, (1980) ICJ Rep 3. ........................... 15
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011. ............................................................. 10
STATUTES/ LEGISLATIONS
The Constitution of India, 1950
Constitution of the United States, 1787
Diplomatic Relations Act, 1978 (U.S.)
Page | 4
Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1948 (U.K.)
TREATIES/ CONVENTIONS
European Convention on Human Rights, 1953
Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, 1998
Statute of International Court of Justice, 1945
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969
ONLINE SOURCES
EBC Reader
Hein Online
JSTOR
Lexis Nexus
SCC Online
Page | 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Located in the heart of Europe, Kret, is a historically and culturally rich country, which
follows the Westminster style of parliamentary government. It’s common law system
is based upon the Common Law Legal System. Every year, 3rd of January is celebrated
as Kret’s Establishment Day with a large parade that runs through the High Street in
Emerald City. On the other hand, situated in the northern region of Africa, Ferrwa is a
vibrant and a diverse country with a troublesome history of a long-standing border
dispute with the Libyan militia and terrorist groups.
2. King Hassan of Ferrwa is the guest of honour at this year’s Establishment Day Parade
in Kret, in whose anticipation, the Ferrwan Embassy, in coordination with the local
police of Kret, had been making security arrangements.
3. On 24.12.2023, one Mr. Sean Wats filed a complaint with the local police, reporting
his missing wife, Mrs. Penny Wats, who works as the secretary to the ambassador at
the Ferrwan Embassy. The investigation of the same had been assigned to Mr. P.V.
Bain, the Detective Inspector of the largest police station in Emerald City, Ferrwa.
Upon being denied entry into the premises of the Ferrwan Embassy, the D.I. and his
team arranged to gain entry, concerned about the safety of the occupants of the building
from a fire breakout and also to prevent any evidence from being destroyed.
4. In the investigation report submitted by the D.I., Mr. J.J. Crook, the bodyguard to the
Ambassador of the Ferrwan Embassy, Mr. Kamrun Hadwan, has been alleged to have
murdered Mrs. Wats during the confrontation that took place on 23.12.2023, wherein
Mrs. Wats was questioned about her role in planning the assassination of King Hassan
in collaboration with a Libyan terrorist outfit. Following the investigation, Mr. Crook
continues to remain in custody. A police investigation report has been filed, and a case
under sections 202, 103, and 88 of the K.P.C. has been made out. Some of the results
of the investigation are still awaited.
5. The documents on record, viz., the crime report, arrest note, statement of Mrs. Prich
Voshra, Statement of Q.T. Lembongan, search and seizure memos, site plans of the
ambassador’s room and the dump yard, confessional statement of Mr. J.J. Crook,
seizure memo from the dump yard, have been submitted.
6. In the meantime, Mr. Crook has moved the Superior Court of Kret by way of a writ
petition inter alia seeking his immediate release and challenging the proceedings
pending against him.
Page | 6
ISSUES RAISED
-Issue-I-
IS MR. J.J. CROOK ENTITLED TO DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY?
-Issue-II-
COULD THE D.I. HAVE CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE OFFENSES
COMMITTED INSIDE THE PREMISES OF THE FERRWAN EMBASSY WITHOUT THE
PRIOR CONSENT OF THE FERRWAN AUTHORITIES?
-Issue-III-
WAS THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE D.I. FROM THE EMBASSY, INCLUDING
CCTV FOOTAGE, TO BE EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION BY THE
MAGISTRATE, BEING ILLEGALLY OBTAINED?
-Issue-IV-
WERE THE FURTHER RECOVERIES MADE, INCLUDING THE REMAINS OF MRS.

WATS, LIABLE TO BE REJECTED AND EXCLUDED FROM RELIANCE BY POLICE ON
ACCOUNT OF OBJECTIONS AS TO THE ILLEGAL SEARCH AT THE EMBASSY AND
THE ARREST OF MR. J. J. CROOK?
Page | 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1: MR. J.J. CROOK IS ENTITLED TO DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY IN THE

PRESENT CASE.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Mr. J.J. Crook is entitled to diplomatic
immunity in the present case. It is to be noted that both Ferrwa and Kret are Signatories to the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and under the same, Mr. J.J. Crook is a
Diplomatic Entity, being a staff member of the Ferrwan Embassy. Furthermore, the applicant
is not liable to be prosecuted as the impugned act was done in self-defense and an official
capacity.
ISSUE 2: THE D.I. COULD NOT HAVE CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO

THE OFFENSES COMMITTED INSIDE THE FERRWAN EMBASSY'S PREMISES
WITHOUT THE FERRWAN AUTHORITIES' PRIOR CONSENT.
It is humbly submitted that the D.I. could not have investigated without prior permission
because obtaining prior consent of the Ferrwan authorities was essential in the present case.
Thus, the Embassy officials' consent was a pre-requisite in the present case. Therefore,
investigation made without prior consent is inadmissible in the present case.
ISSUE 3: THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE D.I. FROM THE EMBASSY,

BY THE MAGISTRATE SINCE IT HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY OBTAINED.
It is humbly submitted that the evidence collected in the present case must be excluded from
consideration. This is because the internationally recognized rule of the principle of
inviolability has been grossly violated in obtaining the said evidence. Due to this, the evidence
collected is inadmissible and liable to rejected by the Magistrate.
Page | 8
ISSUE 4: THE FURTHER RECOVERIES MADE, INCLUDING THE REMAINS OF

MRS. WATS, ARE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED AND EXCLUDED FROM RELIANCE
BY POLICE ON ACCOUNT OF OBJECTIONS AS TO THE ILLEGAL SEARCH AT
THE EMBASSY AND THE ARREST OF MR. J. J. CROOK.
It is humbly submitted that the further recoveries, including the remains of Mrs. Wats, are liable
to be rejected as in the present case, the entry into the Embassy premises constitutes a serious
breach of Ferrwa’s sovereignty. Moreover, it has to be noted that these further recoveries create
prejudice against the accused. Lastly, it is also submitted that the confessional statement
recorded in the present case is also inadmissible given the illegal manner in recording the same.
Page | 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: MR. J.J. CROOK IS NOT ENTITLED TO DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Mr. J.J. Crook is entitled to
diplomatic immunity in the present case.
[1.1] Ferrwa and Kret are Signatories to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations of 1961.
1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that both countries, Ferrwa and Kret,
are the founding members of the United Nations. Moreover, they are both signatories
to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1963, which codifies the
principles of customary international law1.
2. Though Ferrwa and Kret are not legally bound by the said convention, being
signatories to it, they have a duty to act in good faith and not to defeat the object and
purpose of the treaty in line with Article 182 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties.
3. In reference to this, it is pertinent to note that in several Indian case, Aban Loyd Chiles
Offshore v. Union of India3, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan4, and T.N. Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India5 the courts have held that in absence of codified law,
international treaties can be looked into. The courts have gone as far as holding that
treaties not contrary to municipal law are deemed to be incorporated within it.
4. Furthermore, the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 26)
provides that treaties are part of the “Supreme law of the land,” similar to federal law.
This essentially means that they may pre-empt conflicting state laws, as held in the case
of Chy Lung v. Freeman7.
1
Moot Prop., ¶ 10, pg. 3.
2
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, art. 18.
3
Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore v. Union of India, AIR 2008 SC 632.
4
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011.
5
T.N. Govarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, AIR 1997 2 SCC 267.
6
Constitution of the United States, art. 6, cl. 2, 1955.
7
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275.
Page | 10
5. It is most humbly submitted that since Kret follows the Common Law Legal System8,
these judicial precedents have considerable bearing in the present case.
[1.2] The Applicant is a Diplomatic Entity and thus Entitled to Diplomatic Immunity
6. It is humbly submitted that Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic

Relations defines a member of the mission as the head of the mission and members of
the staff of the mission, including diplomatic, administrative, technical, and service
staff. Clause h10 of the same also defines a “private servant” as a person who is in the
domestic service of a member of the mission and who is not an employee of the
receiving state.
7. It is submitted that the category of the members of the administrative and technical staff
of the mission, which included those persons who perform sophisticated and often
sensitive duties but serve primarily in support of the activities of diplomatic agents.
This category included secretaries, certain clerical personnel, office managers, and
certain professional security personnel.
8. It is submitted that it is imperative to note that the members of a mission play a crucial
role in its functioning. They are the primary communication link between the host and
sending countries. Hence, providing these staff members with the highest immunity in
the receiving State is very important. This purpose is served by Articles 2911 and 3712
of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
9. The importance of such mission members can be further realized by taking note of the
various legislations in different common law system countries. In the United States, for
example, the Diplomatic Relations Act of 197813 specifies that a diplomatic agent,
including any member of the administrative and technical staff, cannot be arrested,
detained or 10. subpoenaed as witness.
10. Thus, Mr. J.J. Crook, being a member of administrative and technical staff of the
mission of the Ferrwan Embassy, the applicant must be accorded with Diplomatic
Immunity to preserve the sovereignty of Ferrwa.
8
9
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, art. 1.
10
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, art. 1, cl. h.
11
12
13
Diplomatic Relations Act, 1978, Acts of Parliament (U.S.).
Page | 11
11. However, if it is argued that Mr. J.J. Crook, instead of being a staff member, is a private
servant within the meaning of Article 1, even then, he would have to be accorded
immunity from prosecution. This is in line with Article 3814 of the VCDR. It explicitly
provides that diplomatic agents, members of staff, and private servants who are
nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State shall also enjoy immunity
from jurisdiction and inviolability in respect of official acts performed. It further states
that the receiving State shall exercise its jurisdiction over such persons in only such a
manner as not to interfere unduly with the performance of the functions of the mission.
12. However, in the present case, by making an illegal entry into the Ferrwan embassy
despite explicit disapproval, illegally detaining Mr. J.J. Crook on superficial grounds,
and subjecting him to an unlawful investigation, Mr. P.V. Bain has violated the said
Article.
[1.3] Alleged Acts Done by Mr. J.J. Crook were in Self-Defense and Official Capacity.
13. Article 38 VCDR clarifies that additional privileges and immunities granted by the
receiving State to a diplomatic agent who is a national or permanent resident of that
state shall only enjoy immunity from jurisdiction and inviolability, in respect of official
acts performed in the exercise of his functions.
14. The position is better understood by reference to the Douglas Kent case15, wherein the
American Consul General to Russia was involved in a car accident that left a young
man disabled. It was argued that under the Vienna Convention, diplomatic immunity
does not apply to civil actions relating to vehicular accidents. However, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, while rejecting the plea, held that since
the vehicle was being used for consular purposes, it fell within the definition of official
acts.
15. The ICJ ruled that diplomatic immunity will be applied to the person who is acting in
his official capacity. 16
16. On a similar construction, in the present case, since the investigation report itself
discloses the need for protecting Mr. Kamrun’s life from Mrs. Wats aggressive outburst
when confronted on the evening of 23.12.202317, Mr. J.J. Crook should be accorded
14
15
United States of America v. Douglas Barry Kent, (2006) No. 04-56703.
16
DRC v. Belgium (2002) ICJ Rep 3.
17
Moot Prop., Investigation Report, ¶ 5, pg. 11.
Page | 12
diplomatic immunity as his acts fall within the scope of his official functions, i.e.,
serving as the bodyguard to his master.
17. Moreover, Mr. Crook’s act falls within the exception of self-defence (Section 200,
KPC18), thereby, making him immune to criminal liability.
18. In light of this, as held in the English case of Beckford v. The Queen19, a defendant is
entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself and others, for whom he is responsible
and his property. It is in this context it is submitted that the force in question was
reasonable, owing to Mrs, Penny Wats’ exceptional skills- being a black belt in
Karate20.
19. Thus, considering the arguments advanced above, Mr. Crook shall be accorded with
diplomatic immunity.
ISSUE 2: THE D.I. COULD NOT HAVE CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO

THE OFFENSES COMMITTED INSIDE THE PREMISES OF THE FERRWAN
EMBASSY WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE FERRWAN AUTHORITIES.
20. It is submitted that both the nations, i.e., Kret and Ferrwa, are the founding members
and signatories to various treaties and conventions, including the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of
196321.
21. It is to be noted that under international law, security forces are not allowed to enter an
embassy without the express prior permission of the ambassador.22
22. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of
1963 grant diplomatic immunity to foreign embassies and their premises, and it is a
widely accepted principle of international law that the premises of an embassy are
inviolable.
23. It is submitted that under the laws of various commonwealth countries, India in
particular, it is the state's fundamental duty to endeavor to foster respect for
18
Moot Prop., Investigation Report, pg. 6.
19
Beckford v. The Queen, (1988) AC 130 Privy Council.
20
Id. at 45.
21
22
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, art. 22
Page | 13
international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one
another (Article 51)23.
24. It is humbly submitted that despite having ratified the treaties, the Kretan authorities
failed to act in accordance with the rules framed and entered the premises of the mission
without the consent of the head of the mission, and the premises of the mission shall be
inviolable.
[2.1] Prior Consent of the Ambassador is Essential for Entry into the Embassy Premises.
25. It is pertinent to note that the principle of the inviolability of diplomatic premises,
including embassies, is a well-established norm in international law.
26. According to Article 2224 of the Vienna Convention, the premises of the mission shall
be inviolable, and agents of the receiving state may not enter them without the consent
of the head of the mission. Moreover, it is a special duty of the receiving state to take
all appropriate measures to protect the mission premises against any intrusion or
damage and to prevent any disturbance of peace.
27. However, in the instant case, the respondents, instead of protecting the mission
premises and respecting the convention signed by them, entered the mission premises
illegally, despite the express denial of their request to do so25. Not only did they illegally
enter the mission premises, but they also collected the CCTV footage despite protests
of sovereignty.26
28. It is humbly submitted that no circumstances existed that required prompt protective
action on the part of the Kretan authorities.
29. Their forced entry on the pretext of a fire in the Embassy premises prompted by the
hearing of electrical sparking27 is highly baseless and dubious since the same could
have been a result of normal day-to-day work being carried out by the Embassy staff.
30. It is further submitted that as per Article 3128 of the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations, the furnishings and other property of the mission shall be immune from
23
India Const., art. 51.
24
25
26
27
Moot Prop., Investigation Report, ¶ 8, 9, pg. 11, 12.
28
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, art. 31.
Page | 14
search, requisition, attachment, or execution.. However, the same has been grossly
violated in the instant case.
31. The eminence of the rule of consular inviolability becomes apparent upon considering
the International Court’s observations and actions in the case of United States of
America v. Iran29, wherein the United States brought before the court an application
concerning the occupation of its embassy in Tehran by Iranian militants in 1979 and
the capture and holding as hostages of its diplomatic and consular staff. In this case, it
was strongly emphasized and underscored that there was no more fundamental
prerequisite for relations between States than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and
embassies. In the said case, the Court indicated provisional measures for ensuring the
immediate restoration to the United States of the Embassy premises and the release of
the hostages.
32. It is, therefore, submitted that prior consent is always required to enter the mission
premises and access the documents.
[2.2] Investigation Conducted by the DI without Prior Consent is Inadmissible.
33. It is humbly submitted that the well-established principle of good faith has generally
been considered to instruct the states to adhere to “trust, honesty, conscientiousness,
and loyalty” in the conduct of international obligations.30
34. The VCDR is a fundamental treaty governing diplomatic relations between states. It
establishes the rules and principles that must be followed when dealing with diplomatic
missions and their staff.
35. Article 22 of the same, as previously mentioned, underscores the inviolability of the
embassy's premises and the requirement for prior consent to enter these premises.
36. It is submitted that the evidence has been illegally obtained, as has clearly been
mentioned in the statement of ASI Q.T. Lembongan that the team broke into the server
room on the instructions of the D.I. and gained access to the computer system by
inserting a hacking code31.
37. It is humbly submitted that the specific value of the principle of good faith in the
context of admissibility of evidence was recognized in the Mathanex v. United
29
United States of America v. Islamic Republic of Iran, (1980) ICJ Rep 3.
30
Island of Palmas, (1928) II RIAA 839.
31
Moot Prop., pg. 18.
Page | 15
States32, wherein the tribunal excluded the evidence, which it confirmed as having been
obtained by “deliberately trespassing onto private property and rummaging through
dumpsters inside the office-building for other persons’ documentation.”
38. It is submitted that the D.I. entered the mission premises on the pretext of preventing
fire and, on entering the premises, persuaded his team to collect the CCTV footage33,
thereby trespassing the mission premises. This is also indicative of the fact that their
true intent was to investigate the Embassy premises illegally.
39. Here, it is crucial to take note of the observations made in the case of E.D.F. v.
Romania34, wherein the tribunal excluded an audio-tape meant to prove an allegation
of corruption, primarily on the basis of a lack of authenticity. Similarly, the evidence
produced should be excluded due to lack of authentication as it was obtained without
prior consent.
40. On the same lines, the English Court of Appeal reached a similar conclusion when
faced with WikiLeaks documents in Bancoult III.35 The evidence was challenged based
on the inviolability of the documents under Articles 2436 and 2737, paragraph 2, of the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Court confirmed in principle that
such inviolability “extends to make it impermissible to use such documents or copies
in a domestic court of the host country38.”
41. It is also humbly submitted that this conclusion would support the relevance of another
general principle in this context, the principle of ex iniuria jus non oritur. Accordingly,
it could be argued that evidence obtained through breaches of international law
constitutes a wrong-doing from which the responsible party should be unable to take
advantage or receive rights.
42. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the D.I. could not have entered the Ferrwan
embassy without prior permission of the Ferrwan authorities. Hence, the impugned
evidence collected is liable to rejected.
32
Mathanex v. United States, (2005) 44 ILM 1345 (Other Reference).
33
34
E.D.F. v. Romania, ICSID CASE NO. ARB/05/13.
35
R v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, (2018) UKSC 3.
36
37
38
Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945, art. 38(1).
Page | 16
43. Detective Inspector P.V. Bain's investigation within the Ferrwan Embassy without prior
consent of Ferrwan authorities constitutes a grave breach of the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
ISSUE 3: THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE D.I. FROM THE EMBASSY,

BY THE MAGISTRATE, BEING ILLEGALLY OBTAINED.
44. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the evidence collected by the D.I.
from the Embassy, including CCTV footage, is to be excluded from consideration by
the Magistrate since it has been illegally obtained.
[3.1] Principle of Inviolability Grossly Violated in the Present Case
45. In illegally entering the Embassy premises despite the express disapproval and denial
of the same39, the D.I. grossly violated the internationally recognized principle of
inviolability of diplomatic premises.40
46. Article 2241 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, expressly
provides that the premises of a diplomatic mission shall be inviolable and the agents of
the receiving State shall not enter, except with the consent of the head of the mission,
which was outrightly denied in the present case.
47. It is imperative to note here that whilst formulating the said Article, any and every
proposal giving permission to enter into the diplomatic premises of other States in cases
of even an emergency was outrightly rejected by the International Law Commission
(ILC) at the time, stating that such a move would cause controversies rather than solve
any problems.42 Hence, even if the defense counsel claims its entry into the Embassy
premises on account of urgency, their plea deserves to be put aside.
48. Here, regard must be paid to the case of United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff
in Tehran43. In this case, the ICJ held that the intrusion of the US Embassy by Iranian
39
40
41
42
Eileen Denza, Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Oxford 126,127 (2016),
file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Avnee%20Docs/Competitions/KK%20luthra%20moot,%202024/Eileen%20De
nza%20-
%20Diplomatic%20Law_%20Commentary%20on%20the%20Vienna%20Convention%20on%20Diplomatic%2
0Relations-Oxford%20University%20Press,%20USA%20(2016).pdf.
43
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), ICJ Rep 3.
Page | 17
students was violative of the principle of inviolability of person under Article 2944 and
of diplomatic premises under Article 22 of the Vienna Convention.45 The result of this
was strained relations between the US and Iran and a grave violation of sovereignty of
the US for which only money reparation was granted, thereby, highlighting the
seriousness and ineffective remedy of the issue at hand.
49. It is humbly submitted that the Permanent Court of International Justice held that crimes
committed inside an embassy could not be the basis for extradition and the embassy's
inviolability must be respected.46
50. It is, therefore, vital for the court to consider the seriousness of the matter. By refusing
to consider evidence that has been illegally obtained in the present case, this Hon’ble
Court has the opportunity to set a strong precedent with respect to the violation of the
principle of inviolability since no amount of money can make good the damage caused
to a States’ sovereignty and the strained diplomatic relations which necessarily follow.
[3.2] Evidence Illegally Obtained, thus Inadmissible
51. Secondly, it is humbly submitted that because the evidence was collected by violating
the principle of inviolability, it is illegal, and, therefore, inadmissible before the
Hon’ble Court.
52. Here, it is pertinent to consider the exclusionary rule of common law. According to this
legal rule, evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional
rights must be refrained from being used in a court of law. This rule is referred to as the
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine as laid down in the U.S. case of Nardone v. The
United States47.
53. This doctrine, is aimed at discouraging police and other law enforcement agents from
obtaining evidence illegally. Thus, it prevents the State or any other person from
presenting evidence in trials gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s48
protection against illegal search and seizure.
54. Since in the case at hand, the evidence collected against Mr. J.J. Crook illegally, if
admitted, would constitute a grave violation of his right against unreasonable search
and seizures, it is liable to be rejected.
44
45
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, art. 22.
46
Portugal v. Germany, vol.2 RIAA (1928), ILR 526.
47
Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939).
48
Constitution of the United States, 4th amendment, 1955.
Page | 18
55. The point can be further elaborated by referring to the Indian case of Ukha Kolhe v.
State of Maharashtra49, wherein the Court underscored that proper procedures must be
followed in gathering evidence.
56. Similarly, in another Indian case, State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh50, the Court opined
that the “legitimacy of the judicial process” could be questioned if the court condones
“acts of lawlessness” by investigating authorities. Admitting evidence obtained
unlawfully would provide the investigating agency complete immunity, and a possible
greater conviction rate may encourage the use of illegal evidence-collection tactics.
57. Furthermore, it is also imperative to note that the possibility of the use of force and
deceit by the Kretan authorities in recording the confessional statement of Mr. J.J.
Crook cannot be ruled out.
58. To illustrate, Section 76(2)51 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of the U.K.,
directs the court to exclude confession evidence obtained by oppression in
circumstances likely to make the confession unreliable.
59. Similar has been the position in the English case of A and others v. Secretary of State
for the Home Department52, wherein it was held that if, on a balance of probabilities, it
seems as if evidence was obtained in violation of Article 353 of the ECHR (i.e., by
torture), then it should be excluded. If oppression was used on the accused by the way
of which anything said or done rendered unreliable, then the evidence is automatically
excluded.
60. It is also crucial to consider that the confessional statement of Mr. J.J. Crook on record
is not, in any way, in line with the statements made in the investigation report. Instead,
the said confessional statement seems incomplete, vague, and uncertain with respect to
Mr. Crooks's guilt.
61. Further, as held in the case of Johnson v. United States54, a person has the privilege
from producing evidence that could be self-incriminating.
62. However, in the present case, the fact that the investigating officer, Mr. P.V. Bain, has
a history of harassment and corruption allegations, with respect to his position as the
49
Ukha Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra, 1963 AIR 1531, SCR (1) 926.
50
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172.
51
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, § 76(2), Acts of Parliament (U.K.).
52
A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (2004) UKHL 56.
53
European Convention on Human Rights, 1953, art. 3.
54
Johnson v. United States, 228 U.S. 457, 458 (1913).
Page | 19
detective,55 the possibility of the use force and deceit in recording the present
confessional statement cannot be ruled out.
63. Thus, for the above reasons, the evidence collected is liable to be rejected.
ISSUE 4: THE FURTHER RECOVERIES MADE, INCLUDING THE REMAINS OF

MRS. WATS, ARE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED AND EXCLUDED FROM RELIANCE
BY POLICE ON ACCOUNT OF OBJECTIONS AS TO THE ILLEGAL SEARCH AT
THE EMBASSY AND THE ARREST OF MR. J. J. CROOK.
64. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the further recoveries made,
including the remains of Mrs. Wats, are liable to be rejected and excluded from reliance
by the police on account of objections as to the illegal search at the Embassy and the
arrest of Mr. J.J. Crook.
[4.1] Entry into the Embassy Constitutes a Serious Breach
65. It is to be noted that Article 2256 of the Vienna Convention provides that the premises
of a diplomatic mission shall be inviolable. Article 1(i)57 defines the premises of the
mission as “the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto,
irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission, including the residence
of the head of the mission”.
66. Further, Articles 2558 and 2659 of the convention provide that the receiving state “shall
accord full facilities for the performance of the functions of the mission,” and that
subject to legal restrictions established for reasons of national security, the receiving
state “shall ensure to all members of the mission freedom of movement and travel in its
territory.”
67. In addition, the official correspondence of the mission shall also be inviolable. Official
correspondence means all correspondence relating to the mission and its functions.
Since the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations establishes the inviolability of
the premises of a diplomatic mission, it is evident that a violation of any fraction of
55
56
57
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, art. 1(i).
58
59
Page | 20
these immunities and privileges constitutes a severe breach and, indeed, a violation of
International Law.
68. It is worth noting that a necessary consequence of the establishment and functioning of
a mission is the protection of the premises from external interference. In many capitals,
diplomatic missions are regarded in law as portions of the territory of the sending state
and, therefore, benefit from the immunity of the sending state per se. Although the term
"inviolability," which appears very often in the Vienna Convention, is "not particularly
precise," it implies immunity from all interference, whether under color of law or
otherwise, and connotes a special duty of protection, whether from such interferences
or mere insult, on part of the receiving state.
69. Lastly, Article 22(1)60 does not contain any proviso relating to cases of “extreme
emergency”, for example, situations in which the premises present an imminent danger
to the surrounding district because of a fire outbreak or when there is an imminent
danger that a violent crime is about to be perpetrated on the premises.
70. The fact is that various amendments to the original draft of Article 22(2)61, which
would have permitted law enforcement agents of the receiving state entry into the
premises of the mission in periods of grave emergency endangering public safety, were
drawn during debates on the matter before the International Court Commission and
Vienna Conference on Diplomatic Relations. A result of this was the decision of the
International Law Commission, which deemed that diplomatic privileges and
immunities had risen to the level of a rule of International Law. It rejected the older
theory of extraterritoriality and adopted the theory of "functional necessity" while
bearing in mind the representative character of the head of the mission and of the
mission itself.
71. Thus, Article 22 of the conferences leaves absolute the inviolability of the mission's
premises.
[4.2] Further Recoveries Made Create Prejudice Against the Accused

72. It is a well-settled rule in most Common Law Systems of the world that evidence
obtained illegally shall be inadmissible before a court of law. The rationale behind this
rule is that law enforcement officers will refrain from engaging in unlawful evidence-
60
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, art. 22(1).
61
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, art. 22(2).
Page | 21
gathering techniques. Thus, this rule plays a vital role in establishing a balance between
individual rights and preventing the abuse of power by authorities.
73. Article 69(7)62 of the Rome Statute, it may be considered, stipulates that the
International Criminal Court shall not deem evidence admissible that was obtained by
means of a violation of internationally recognized human rights.
74. Clause b63 of the same prevents the admission of evidence that would be antithetical to
and would seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings.
75. Here, it is pertinent to take into consideration that all evidence collected and further
recoveries made in the Embassy premises create prejudice against the accused in the
following ways:
Firstly, the illegal entry into the Embassy premises on the pretext of a fire when all one
could hear was electrical sparking64, which could have been a result of normal day-to-
day repair being carried out, casts a serious doubt on the investigation team’s
credibility.
Secondly, given the Detective Inspector, Mr. P.V. Bain’s record of unnecessary
harassment of vendors, allegations of corruption, and false implication of opponents65,
makes the investigation carried out by him dubious and bereft of any credibility.
Thirdly, there is a discrepancy between Mrs. Voshra's statement in the investigation
report and the statement recorded by the D.I.. The investigation report talks of Mrs.
Voshra having witnessed “all the events,” which unfolded on 23.12.2023. On the other
hand, her recorded statement only talks of her seeing Mrs. Wats enter the Embassy
premises and not seeing her leave the same. Further, her allegations of murder of the
victim by Mr. Crook are based only on information that she claims to have received
from her “confidential sources.66” Such claims, therefore, lack any concrete proof
capable of convicting the accused.
Fourthly, the D.I.’s claims of having witnessed Mr. Crook cleaning the furniture with
a wet wipe67 is also not conclusive enough to point to his guilt. Such an act could, in
fact, have been a result of normal day-to-day tasks of the Embassy officials.
62
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998, art. 69(7).
63
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998, art. 69(7), cl. b.
64
65
66
Moot Prop., pg. 17.
67
Page | 22
Lastly, Mr. Crook’s confessional statement also does not match with the claims
mentioned in the investigation report. Where the report mentions Mr. Crook to have
admitted his guilt in killing and burning the body of the victim68, his recorded statement
very vaguely, only talks of something “unspeakable69” happening that night.
76. In light of this, the observations made in the Indian case of Bai Radha v. State of
Gujarat70 are imperative. The court explicitly held that non-compliance with the
procedures of collecting evidence would not be admissible as long as they create
prejudice against the accused.
77. In the present case, the recoveries made by the D.I. upon an illegal entry into the
Ferrwan Embassy premises severely lack credibility for the reasons recorded above.
78. Further, in the case of Deepti Kapur v. Kunal Julka71, the court has held that merely
because rules of evidence favor a liberal approach for its admission, it should not be
taken as approval to adopt illegal means to collect evidence. Such a move can set a
dangerous precedent, severely violating the rules of natural justice.
79. Similar was the position in the U.S. case of State v. Miclau, Jr.,72 wherein the trial
court's judgment was reversed because of an error in admitting evidence obtained by
unlawful means.
80. The United States courts automatically exclude at the trial state evidence that is tainted
with any kind of illegality. In the United States, the exclusionary rule has been
developed by the U.S. Supreme Court as a corollary to the protection against illegal
searches and seizures granted in the Fourth Amendment73 to the Constitution.
81. In Elkins v. United States,74 the Court abandoned the" silver platter" doctrine which had
allowed the federal courts to use evidence even though it had been unconstitutionally
obtained by state officers.
[4.3] Confessional Statement is Inadmissible
82. Lastly, it is also humbly submitted that Mr. Crook's confessional statement has been
recorded illegally and is, therefore, not admissible.
68
69
Moot Prop., pg. 22.
70
Bai Radha v. State of Gujarat, 1970 AIR 1396,1969 SCR (2) 799.
71
Deepti Kapur v. Kunal Julka, AIR 2020 Delhi 157.
72
State v. Miclau Jr., 167 Ohio St. 38 (Ohio 1957).
73
U.S. Consti., 4th amendment, 1791.
74
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960).
Page | 23
83. As per the English Legal System, the general rule says that a confession must be
excluded under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 198475. Moreover, it must
necessarily be excluded if it was obtained by oppression or as a result of anything said
or done, which would likely render it sunreliable in the circumstances existing at the
time.
84. In the English case of Rv. Fulling76, it has been held that failure to record accurately
ehat was said would make the confession inadmissible. Similarly, owing to the
discrepancy in the recorded statement and the investigation report, as pointed out above,
the use of force, oppression, and mental harassment on part of the D.I. cannot be ruled
out. Mr. Crook’s confession is, therefore, unreliable and must be rejected.
75
Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, Acts of Parliament (U.K.).
76
R. v. Fulling, (1987) EWCA Crim J2017-1.
Page | 24
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED, AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED AND
IMPLORED BEFORE THE COURT, THAT IT MAY BE GRACIOUSLY PLEASED TO
ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT:
1. Mr. J.J. Crook is entitled to diplomatic immunity, and the proceedings against him be
dropped, and he be released;
2. The investigation conducted by the D.I. into the offenses committed inside the Ferrwan
Embassy's premises without the Ferrwan authorities' prior consent is illegal;
3. The evidence collected by the D.I. from the Embassy, including CCTV footage is
inadmissible and, thus, be excluded from consideration by the Magistrate; and,
4. The further recoveries made, including the remains of Mrs. Wats, be rejected and
excluded from reliance by the police on account of the illegal search.
and/or
ALSO, PASS ANY ORDER THAT THE HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN FAVOR
OF THE APPLICANT TO MEET THE ENDS OF EQUITY, JUSTICE, AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.
All of which is humbly prayed,

COUNSELS for the PETITIONER
Page | 25

Urn 2167P

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urn 2167P

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

XX THE KK LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2024

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER

XX KK LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2024

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. 3

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

ASI Additional Sub-Inspector

CCTV Closed Circuit Television

ICJ International Court of Justice

Moot Prop Moot Proposition

US United States of America

VCCR Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

VCDR Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1948 (U.K.)

WERE THE FURTHER RECOVERIES MADE, INCLUDING THE REMAINS OF MRS.

ISSUE 1: MR. J.J. CROOK IS ENTITLED TO DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY IN THE

ISSUE 2: THE D.I. COULD NOT HAVE CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO

ISSUE 3: THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE D.I. FROM THE EMBASSY,

ISSUE 4: THE FURTHER RECOVERIES MADE, INCLUDING THE REMAINS OF

ISSUE 1: MR. J.J. CROOK IS NOT ENTITLED TO DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY

6. It is humbly submitted that Article 19 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic

ISSUE 2: THE D.I. COULD NOT HAVE CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO

[2.2] Investigation Conducted by the DI without Prior Consent is Inadmissible.

ISSUE 3: THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE D.I. FROM THE EMBASSY,

[3.1] Principle of Inviolability Grossly Violated in the Present Case

[3.2] Evidence Illegally Obtained, thus Inadmissible

ISSUE 4: THE FURTHER RECOVERIES MADE, INCLUDING THE REMAINS OF

[4.1] Entry into the Embassy Constitutes a Serious Breach

[4.2] Further Recoveries Made Create Prejudice Against the Accused

[4.3] Confessional Statement is Inadmissible

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ARGUMENTS

All of which is humbly prayed,

You might also like