Urn 2167R-1

XX THE K.K.
LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2024 1

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
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
XX THE K.K. LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2024 2
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] MR. J.J. CROOK IS A PRIVATE SERVANT ..................................................... 10
[1.2] DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY ONLY AVAILABLE TO DIPLOMATS AND
NON-NATIONAL MEMBERS OF A MISSION ......................................................... 10
[1.3] ALLEGATIONS LEVELED AGAINST MR. CROOK FALL OUTSIDE THE
EXERCISE OF HIS OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS........................................................... 11
[1.4] SIGNATORIES TO INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS ARE NOT
LEGALLY BOUND BY THEM .................................................................................... 12
ISSUE 2: THE D.I. HAD ALL THE RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE INTO THE
OFFENSES COMMITTED INSIDE THE PREMISES OF THE FERRWAN
EMBASSY WITHOUT THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE FERRWAN
AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................................. 12
[2.1] PRIOR CONSENT OF THE EMBASSY WAS NOT NECESSARY ................ 13
[2.2] INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED IS ADMISSIBLE ........................................ 14
ISSUE 3: THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE D.I. FROM THE EMBASSY,
INCLUDING CCTV FOOTAGE, MUST NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM
CONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE, BEING ILLEGALLY OBTAINED. .. 15
[3.1] EVIDENCE NOT OBTAINED ILLEGALLY .................................................... 15
[3.2] EVEN IF ILLEGALLY OBTAINED, THE EVIDENCE IS STILL
ADMISSIBLE ................................................................................................................. 18
ISSUE 4: THE FURTHER RECOVERIES MADE, INCLUDING THE REMAINS OF
MRS. WATS, MUST NOT 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. ...................................... 18
[4.1] EXISTING CIRCUMSTANCES POINT TO THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED
.......................................................................................................................................... 18
[4.2] CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE PRESENT
CASE................................................................................................................................ 19
[4.3] EVEN ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE ........................ 20
PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 22
Page| 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS FULLFORM
& and
§ Section
¶ Paragraph
Art. Article
ASI Additional Sub-Inspector
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
DI Detective Inspector
Ho’nble Honourable
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 Vienne Convention on Diplomatic Relations
v. Versus
Page| 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, Appeal (crl.) 921 of 2000. .................................... 20
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586. ......................................................................................... 18
Johnson v. United States, 288 U.S. 457, 458 (1913)................................................................ 17
Kadir v. The Queen, S160/2019. .............................................................................................. 18
Kuruma v. The Queen, (1955) 119 AC197 ............................................................................... 20
Murray v. Mabrouk, (2021) EWHC 3461 (QB). ...................................................................... 17
Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection of Income Tax, 1974 AIR 348, SCR (2) 704. ............... 18
Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 446. ................................................................ 20
R. v. Exall, (2012) EWCA Civ 334. ......................................................................................... 20
R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, 1973AIR 157, SCR (2) 417....................................... 18
Reyes v. Al-Malki, (2017) UKSC- 61. ...................................................................................... 11
Singh v. Singh, (1971) EWCA Civ 10. ..................................................................................... 21
Soering v United Kingdom 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989). ................................................ 11
Swarna v. Al Awadi, 06 Civ. 4880 (PKC). ............................................................................... 11
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America, 1986 I.C.J. 14. ......................... 19
STATUTES/ LEGISLATIONS
The Constitution of India, 1950
Constitution of United States, 1787
Diplomatic Relations Act, 1978 (U.S.)
TREATIES/ CONVENTIONS
Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001
European Convention on Human Rights, 1953
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976
Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, 1998
Page| 4
Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961
ONLINE SOURCES
Diplomatic and Consular Immunity: Guidance for Law Enforcement and Judicial Authorities, United
States Department of State Office of Foreign Affairs, 11 (2018)
EBC Reader
Hein Online
JSTOR
Lexis Nexis
SCC Online
Page| 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Located in the heart of Europe, Kret, a historically and culturally rich country, following the
Westminster style of Parliamentary Government. Its 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.
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.
On 24.12.2023, one Mr. Sean Wats filed a complaint with the local police, reporting his missing
wife, Mrs. Penny Wats, who works 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.
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.
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.
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 NOT ENTITLED TO DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY IN
THE PRESENT CASE.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Mr. J.J. Crook is not entitled to diplomatic
immunity in the present case because he is a private servant and diplomatic immunity is only
available to diplomats and non-national members of a mission. It is to be noted that the
allegations leveled against Mr. Crook fall outside the exercise of his official functions in the
present case. Moreover, since signatories to international conventions are not legally bound by
them, Mr. Crook cannot claim immunity even if he were entitled to it.
ISSUE 2: THE D.I. COULD VERY WELL 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. had all the rights to investigate without prior permission
because prior consent was not essential in the present case. Since, the Embassy officials'
consent was not a pre-requisite in the present case, therefore, investigation made without prior
consent is admissible before the Hon’ble Court.
ISSUE3: THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE D.I. FROM THE EMBASSY,

INCLUDING CCTV FOOTAGE, IS NOT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM
CONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE SINCE IT HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY
OBTAINED.
It is humbly submitted that the evidence collected in the present case must not be excluded
from consideration. This is because in the present case, the evidence was not obtained illegally.
Moreover, even if it were true that the evidence was, in fact, collected illegally, it would still
be admissible.

Page| 8
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 made, including the remains of Mrs. Wats,
must not be rejected as in the present case the existing circumstances point to the guilt of the
accused. It is to be noted that such circumstantial evidence is admissible before the court.
Lastly, it is also worth noting that even illegally obtained evidence is admissible.
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 not entitled to
diplomatic immunity in the present case.
[1.1] Mr. J.J. Crook is a Private Servant
2. As per Article 1 Clause h1of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations [VCDR
hereinafter], a person who is in the domestic service of a member of the mission and who is
not an employee of the sending State is known as a private servant.
3. In the present case, Mr. J.J. Crook is a Kretan national2, personally employed by the Ferwwan
Ambassador, Mr. Kamrun Hadwan3. Therefore, Mr. Crook falls under the definition of a private
servant and thus is not a diplomatic entity.
4. Providing such a distinction ensures that the principle of diplomatic inviolability-, as

enshrined in Article 29 is not misused or abused. Thus, for example, the United States’
Diplomatic Relations Act of 19784 specifies that a diplomatic agent, including any member
of the administrative and technical staff, cannot be arrested, detained or subpoenaed as a
witness. However, it denies explicitly any such protection to a private servant.
[1.2] Diplomatic Immunity Only Available to Diplomats and Non-National Members of

a Mission
5. Further, per Article 295 of the Vienna Convention, personal inviolability only applies to
diplomatic agents. As defined in Clause e6 of the same, these diplomatic agents are the
members of the diplomatic staff of the mission or its head. However, Mr. J.J. Crook does not
fall into either category due to him being a private servant.
1
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, art. 1, cl. h.
2
Moot Prop., Investigation Report, ¶ 10, pg. 12.
3
4
Diplomatic Relations Act, 1978, Acts of Parliament (U.S.).
5
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, art. 29.
6
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, art. 29, cl. e.
Page| 10
6. Moreover, Article 38(2)7of the VCDR and Article 718 of the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations [VCCR hereinafter] both provide that a member of a mission, other than a
diplomatic agent, “permanent resident” in the receiving State enjoys no privileges and
immunities pursuant to it.
7. Thus, in the case of Reyes v. Al-Malki9, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that
in case of diplomats and staff members who are national of or permanently resident in the
receiving State, along with such consular officers and employees, cannot be granted any
immunity in relation to their acts.
8. The position can be further elucidated by reading Article 3710 of the said Convention. This
Article makes it explicitly clear that every person, other than being a diplomatic agent, can only
enjoy the immunities and privileges mentioned in Articles 29 to 36 as long as they are not
nationals or permanent residents of the receiving State. In the present case, however, Mr. Crook
is a Kretan national.
9. Additionally, Articles 37 and 38 also state that such servants may only enjoy privileges and
immunities admitted by the receiving State.
10. 1In the grave and urgent circumstances of the present case, the Kretan authorities have the
power to arrest and detain Mr. Crook.
[1.3] Allegations Levelled against Mr. Crook Fall Outside the Exercise of his Official
Functions
11. Article 38 also 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.11
12. For example, in the case of Swarna v. Al Awadi12, the appeals court in the United States of
America, while denying diplomatic immunity to Al- Awadi, held that human trafficking is a
commercial activity engaged in for personal profit, thereby falling outside the scope of a
diplomat’s official functions.
7
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, art. 38(2).
8
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, art. 71.
9
Reyes v. Al-Malki, (2017) UKSC- 61.
10
11
Soering v United Kingdom 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989).
12
Swarna v. Al Awadi, 06 Civ. 4880 (PKC).
Page| 11
13. On a similar construction, in the present case, Mr. Crooks's act of taking the law into his
own hands by instantaneously killing Mrs. Watts during unofficial hours is an activity engaged
in for personal motive, i.e., revenge, thereby making it unofficial as well.
14. Therefore, Mr Crook’s Acts do not fall within his official functions in the present case.
15. It is worth noting that as per the US State Department’s Guide to Diplomatic
Immunity13, no law enforcement officer, diplomatic mission, or consulate is authorized to
determine whether a given set of circumstances constitutes an official act. This issue may only
be resolved by a court with subject matter jurisdiction over the alleged crime. Thus, a person
enjoying official acts immunity from criminal jurisdiction may be charged with a crime and
may, in this regard, always be required to appear in court.
[1.4] Signatories to International Conventions are not Legally Bound by them

16. Lastly, it is a well-settled principle of International Law that signatories to International
Conventions are not legally bound to follow them. Since in the present case, both countries,
Kret and Ferrwa are only signatories to the Vienna Convention, they are not legally bound to
abide by the same.
17. As held in the case of S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey)14, a nation may exert its jurisdiction in
any subject inside its territory, even if no express rule of international law allows it to do so.
18. Thus, in light of the issues raised and arguments advanced henceforth, the Kretan
authorities have all the powers to arrest and detain Mr. Crook.
ISSUE 2: THE D.I. HAD ALL THE RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE INTO THE OFFENSES
COMMITTED INSIDE THE PREMISES OF THE FERRWAN EMBASSY WITHOUT
THE PRIOR CONSENT OF THE FERRWAN AUTHORITIES.
19. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that D.I. had the authority to conduct an
investigation into the offenses committed inside the Ferrwan Embassy premises without the
Ferrwan authorities' prior consent.
20. It is humbly submitted that both Ferrwa and Kret are signatories to the VCDR and the
VCCR15, which accord a duty on the host country to protect the mission premises from any
sort of danger.
13
Diplomatic and Consular Immunity: Guidance for Law Enforcement and Judicial Authorities, United States
Department of State Office of Foreign Affairs, 11 (2018).
14
The Case of S.S. “Lotus” (France v. Turkey), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10.
15
Moot Prop., ¶ 10, pg. 3.
Page| 12
Furthermore, as much as the respondent is responsible for protecting the mission premises, it
also has a duty to protect its citizens.
[2.1] Prior Consent of the embassy was not Necessary.
21. It is pertinent to note that in addition to respecting the inviolability of the mission premises,
the state must also protect its citizens.
22. In light of this, it is essential to consider that the Kretan police had received a complaint
about one of their citizens, Mrs. Penny Wats, a Kretan national16, missing from the Ferrwan
Embassy17. They also had a reasonable suspicion of her being killed inside the embassy.
23. Moreover, the D.I. and his team were prompted to enter the Ferrwan Embassy upon a grave
suspicion of a fire that, on closer inspection, seemed to have broken out within its premises18.
Thus, their primary motive for entry was to safeguard the lives of the people working in the
Embassy, mainly the various Kretan nationals, such as Mr. J.J. Crook and Mrs. Penny Wats,
who could have then been present in the embassy premises. The same is evident from the
investigation report on record and the statement of ASI Q.T. Lembongan19.
24. It is to be noted that such a move is in line with Art 22(2)20 of the VCDR, which provides
that the receiving state is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the
mission's premises against any damage.
25. Further, as per Art 31(2)21of the VCCR, the consent of the head of the consular post is
assumed in case of fire or other disaster requiring prompt protective action.
26. Thus, situations may arise where it may become imperative to protect lives and respond to
emergencies while temporarily overriding the need for prior permission from the ambassador
or head of the diplomatic mission.
27. It is also submitted that there have been cases wherein foreign troops entered embassy
premises without prior permission to address emergencies, including fires or other disasters.
16
Moot Prop., ¶ 9, pg. 3.
17
Moot Prop., Investigation Report, pg. 10.
18
Moot Prop., Investigation Report, ¶ 8,9, pg. 11.
19
Moot Prop., pg.18.
20
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, art. 22(2).
21
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, art. 31(2).
Page| 13
Reference may be made to the incident in April 1980, when the Iranian embassy was seized by
armed gunmen who had taken hostages. This prompted the British government, in coordination
with the Special Air Service (SAS), to conduct a military operation to rescue the hostages
without the prior consent of the Iranian ambassador.
28. In addition, it must also be noted that the D.I. asked for permission to enter the mission
premises but was denied the same22. The D.I. had no intention to enter the mission premises
without prior permission, but for the circumstances that prompted it to do so. It is, therefore,
submitted that the D.I. entered the mission premises without any prior consent because-
Firstly, there was an apprehension of fire in the mission premises;
Secondly, it is the responsibility of the receiving state to protect the mission premises;
and,
Thirdly, in case of fire, the consent of the head of the mission was assumed to have
been obtained.
[2.2] Investigation Conducted is Admissible
29. It is humbly submitted that no immunity applies to consular personnel who are nationals or
permanent residents of the host country, except that honorary consuls enjoy immunity for acts
performed in connection with their official functions.
30. It is submitted that the petitioner is not liable to diplomatic immunity as has already been
established. Also, the evidence acquired from the embassy has not been conclusively relied
upon in accusing the petitioner.
31. It is humbly submitted that in addition to the CCTV footage from the embassy, four other
corroborative pieces of evidence have been found, which direct towards the petitioner being
the accused,
Firstly, the accused was found in possession of a wet wipe with stains on it.23
22
23
Page| 14
Secondly, the accused gave a voluntary confessional statement which is supportive of

the evidence obtained in the embassy24.
Thirdly, a half skull, some teeth, and a few bones were obtained from the parking lot25.
32. Similar to the instant case, in one high-profile example, the deputy ambassador to the
United States from the Republic of Georgia had killed a 16-year-old girl from Maryland while
driving drunk in 1997. Accordingly, Georgia waived his immunity. Tried and convicted of
manslaughter, the diplomat served three years in a North Carolina prison before returning to
Georgia.
33. Furthermore, it is humbly submitted that the receiving country always has jurisdiction;
diplomatic immunity and inviolability do not remove the jurisdiction. The sending country may
or may not have laws that apply extraterritorially to its diplomatic missions or corps, but that
does not prevent it from exercising its jurisdiction.
34. It is worth noting that the petitioner is a national of the same country. Thus, the respondent
hasall the right and authority to punish him. Moreover, the investigation conducted led to the
recovery of several crucial pieces of evidence, including the body of the deceased.
35. Therefore, for the reasons recorded above, it is humbly submitted that no error was
committed in conducting the investigation, and the investigation conducted is admissible and
liable to set forth a ground for prosecuting the petitioner.
ISSUE 3: THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE D.I. FROM THE EMBASSY,

INCLUDING CCTV FOOTAGE, MUST NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM
CONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE, BEING ILLEGALLY OBTAINED.
36. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the evidence collected by the D.I.
from the Embassy, including CCTV footage, is not to be excluded from consideration by the
Magistrate since it has not been illegally obtained.
[3.1] Evidence Not Obtained Illegally

37. It is humbly submitted that the investigation was carried out only after an official
communication and formal request were sent by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the
Ministry of Internal Affairs of Kret to the Ambassador, even though the same was denied.
24
25
Page| 15
However, upon subsequent persuasion, the D.I. was successful in its initiative, thereby
implying the consent of the Embassy officials26.
38. Though the Ambassador was well within position to deny the same, the point to be
emphasized here is that considering the grave nature of the crime and the eminent life it sought
to put at risk, the denial of a timely investigation was thus made with an intent to erase all
possible evidence and to hinder the discovery of the same, strengthened further by the fact that
the Ambassador’s bodyguard was found using a wet wipe to clean furniture in the room27.
39. In light of this, reference is to be made to Article 628of International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and Article 229of European Convention on Human Rights, both of which seek
to protect every human life. By way of these two provisions, the Kretan Authorities had an
obligation to protect the life of every consular officer and diplomatic staff, thus making the
need for an investigation just and urgent.
40. In addition to this, Article 4130 of the VCDR makes it explicitly clear that it is the duty of
all persons enjoying certain privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of
the receiving State. Furthermore, it also states that the mission's premises must not be used in
any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present
Convention or by other rules of general international law.
41. However, owing to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it could not be ruled out
that the Embassy was being used for activities in derogation of the laws and regulations of both
the receiving and the sending countries.
42. It is also to be noted that the doctrine of harmonious construction is to be applied in every
case where a conflict arises between two established laws. Applying the same to the present
case would thus involve a liberal interpretation of Article 2231 of the Vienna Convention to
suit the interests of both countries. Thus, in cases of extreme emergency, for example, when
necessary to protect human life, mission premises may be entered by the receiving State even
against the express will of the sending State.
26
27
28
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976, art. 6.
29
European Convention on Human Rights, 1953, art. 2.
30
31
Page| 16
43. To elaborate further, as held in the Genocide Convention Case32, a State’s capacity to
influence may vary depending on its particular legal position vis-a-vis the situations and
persons facing the danger or the reality of genocide. Thus, its application would also depend
upon the particular facts and circumstances unique to each case. Therefore, considering the
eminent position of King Hassan and the slain officer, which sits at crossroads between the
political stability and diplomatic relations among the three States involved, Article 22 would
have to be logically constructed.
44. On similar grounds, in the UK’s case of WPC Yvonne Fletcher33, it was argued that
questioning and search of Libyan diplomats were done in furtherance of their fundamental right
to self-defense under international and domestic law, even though it constituted a violation of
the rule of personal inviolability. The present case also calls for the same since diplomatic
relations and national security are at stake.
45. It is also worth noting that the case at hand constitutes necessity as per Article 2534 of the
Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts because it is the only way
for the State to safeguard its interests against grave and imminent peril.
46. Lastly, even the ICJ in the Tehran case35 has held that the observance of the inviolability
rule does not mean that a diplomatic agent caught in the act of committing an assault or other
offense may not, on occasion, be briefly arrested by the police of the receiving state to prevent
the commission of a particular crime.
47. This decision is in line with Article 4136 of the VCCR, which provides for the arrest and
detention of consular officers in case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by a competent
judicial authority, both of which were satisfied in the present case.
48. Concerning the confession recorded, it is to be noted that in the case of Johnson v. United
States37, it has been held that a person only has the privilege from producing the evidence and
not from its production. Thus, the evidence obtained must be admitted.
49. In light of the above, the evidence procured is not by way of illegal means.
32
Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, General List No. 91.
33
Murray v. Mabrouk, (2021) EWHC 3461 (QB).
34
Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001, art. 25.
35
Case Concerning the United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran),
(1980) ICJ Rep 3.
36
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, art. 41.
37
Johnson v. United States, 288 U.S. 457, 458 (1913).
Page| 17
[3.2] Even if Illegally Obtained, the Evidence is Still Admissible

50. Secondly, even if it is argued that the evidence procured has been done illegally, quod non
it would still be admissible and relevant.
51. To elucidate this, the Australian authority of Kadir v. The Queen38 may be considered. The
High Court, in this case, held that in cases where the evidence is at risk of imminent loss or
destruction, doing away with the legal requirements may be permissible.
52. Similarly, in the Indian case of Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection of Income Tax39, the
Supreme Court declined to issue a writ of prohibition in restraint of the use of evidence, holding
relevancy to be the only test of admissibility of evidence.
53. On illegality, in another case of R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra40, the court held that
evidence in the form of tape-recorded evidence of a telephonic conversation without the
consent of the accused was admissible and that illegality in gathering such evidence did not
affect its admissibility.
54. Similarly, in Hudson v. Michigan41, it has been underscored that suppression of evidence is
always the last resort and not the first impulse.
55. Considering the authorities cited above, the evidence, even if illegally obtained, would still
be admissible in the court of law.

POLICE ON ACCOUNT OF OBJECTIONS AS TO THE ILLEGAL SEARCH AT THE
EMBASSY AND THE ARREST OF MR. J.J. CROOK.
56. It is humbly submitted that the further recoveries made, including the remains of Mrs. Wats,
must not be rejected or 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.
[4.1] Existing Circumstances Point to the Guilt of the Accused

57. It is to be noted that immediately after the alleged incident of Mrs. Wats's murder, the
Ferrwan Ambassador, Mr. H.E. Kamrun Hadwan had left Kret on a chartered flight from a
38
Kadir v. The Queen, S160/2019.
39
Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection of Income Tax, 1974 AIR 348, SCR (2) 704.
40
R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, 1973AIR 157, SCR (2) 417.
41
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586.
Page| 18
private airstrip located outside Emerald City without any explanation for the same, thereby
implying illicit conduct on his part42.
58. Upon reaching the designated spot for investigation on 24.12.2023, the D.I., while waiting
outside, heard unexplained sounds of electrical sparking emanating from inside the Embassy
premises43. On further inspection, the D.I. confronted Mr. J.J. Crook for cleaning the furniture
in the room, an act untypical of bodyguards. Upon seeing the D.I., Mr. Crook immediately put
the wet wipe in his pocket while his face flushed with fear44.
59. Upon reaching the area recorded in Mr. Crook’s voluntarily administered confessional
statement admitting his guilt45, the investigation team found charred remains of a human body,
which were immediately sent for forensic analysis, the report of which is much awaited46.
60. Lastly, the statements made by the eyewitness47, Ms, Voshra, must also be given supreme
importance since, as per her recorded statement48, she did not see Mrs. Wats leave the Embassy
premises that night. Further, her claims against Mr. Crook, through her confidential sources,
also corroborate Mr. Crook’s guilt.
[4.2] Circumstantial Evidence is Admissible in the Present Case.

61. The counsel humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court that circumstantial evidence is
admissible in a court of law.
62. It is imperative to consider that as per the rule laid down by the International Court of
Justice in the Nicaragua Case49, in dealing with questions of evidence, the Court proceeds upon
the basis that its decision will be based upon the facts concerning each case.
63. The general provisions and the principle of admissibility of evidence in the court are, thus,
determined by the court itself based on the uniqueness and circumstances of each case through
which the relevancy of direct and circumstantial evidence can be proved.
42
43
Moot Prop., Investigation Report, ¶ 8, pgs. 11, 12.
44
45
46
Moot Prop., Investigation Report, ¶ 12, 14, pg. 12.
47
48
Moot Prop., pg. 17.
49
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America, 1986 I.C.J. 14.
Page| 19
64. This is in line with Article 4850 of the statute by the International Law of Justice, which
provides that the court shall make all arrangements connected with the taking of evidence.
65. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled rule is that the circumstances from
which the conclusion of the guilt can be drawn should be conclusive in nature.
66. Thus, in the English case of R v. Exall51,it has been held in the following terms that “One
strand of a cord might be insufficient to sustain the weight, but three-stranded together may be
quite sufficient of strength. Thus, it may be circumstantial evidence – there may be a
combination of circumstances no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction or more
than mere suspicion, but the whole, taken together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt, that
is, with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of.”
67. In this respect, the observations made in the Indian case of Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and
Kashmir52 must be considered, wherein the court took note of the essentials in taking recourse
to circumstantial evidence. Thus, similar to the court's observations in the said case, the
circumstances in the present situation also point to Mr. Crook's guilt in so far as it is consistent,
conclusive, and exclusive of any other hypothesis for the moment.
68. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled rule is that the circumstances from
which the conclusion of the guilt can be drawn should be conclusive, as per the observations
made in the case of Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab.53 Thus, as mentioned above, a chain of
events conclusively pointing to Mr. Crook’s guilt also exists in the present scenario.
[4.3] Even Illegally Obtained Evidence Admissible

69. As per English Jurisprudence, evidence, even if improperly or illegally obtained- such as
evidence obtained through searches or covert listening devices is reliable in so far as its
admission would not adversely affect the trial’s fairness. This is evident from the Privy
Council’s decision in the case of Kuruma v. The Queen54, wherein it held that the evidence of
the accused’s unlawful possession of ammunition, discovered in consequence of an illegal
search, was admissible.
50
Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945, art. 48.
51
R. v. Exall, (2012) EWCA Civ 334.
52
Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, Appeal (crl.) 921 of 2000.
53
Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 446.
54
Kuruma v. The Queen, (1955) 119 AC197.
Page| 20
70. The same has been reiterated in another English case of Singh v. Singh55, where it was held
that there is no absolute prohibition on the use of illegal or covertly obtained evidence and that
the courts must allow such evidence to be presented, if it is particularly relevant.
71. Applying the same in the present instance, thus, the evidence collected against Mr. Crook,
even if obtained illegally, quod non would not affect its relevancy or admissibility.
55
Singh v. Singh, (1971) EWCA Civ 10.
Page| 21
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 not entitled to diplomatic immunity and his release be set aside;
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 valid;
3. the evidence collected by the D.I. from the Embassy, including CCTV footage is
admissible and, thus, not be excluded from consideration by the Magistrate;
4. the further recoveries made, including the remains of Mrs. Wats, not 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 RESPONDENT to
meet the ends of equity, justice, and good conscience.
COUNSELS for the Respondent
Page| 22

Urn 2167R-1

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 2167R-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

XX THE K.K.

LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2024 1

XX KK LUTHRA MEMORIAL MOOT COURT, 2024

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

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 Vienne Convention on Diplomatic Relations

The Constitution of India, 1950

Constitution of United States, 1787

Diplomatic Relations Act, 1978 (U.S.)

Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001

European Convention on Human Rights, 1953

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976

Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, 1998

Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961

COULD THE D.I. HAVE CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE OFFENSES

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

ISSUE 2: THE D.I. COULD VERY WELL HAVE CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION

ISSUE3: THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE D.I. FROM THE EMBASSY,

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

POLICE ON ACCOUNT OF OBJECTIONS AS TO THE ILLEGAL SEARCH AT THE

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

[1.1] Mr. J.J. Crook is a Private Servant

4. Providing such a distinction ensures that the principle of diplomatic inviolability-, as

[1.2] Diplomatic Immunity Only Available to Diplomats and Non-National Members of

[1.4] Signatories to International Conventions are not Legally Bound by them

[2.1] Prior Consent of the embassy was not Necessary.

Firstly, there was an apprehension of fire in the mission premises;

[2.2] Investigation Conducted is Admissible

Secondly, the accused gave a voluntary confessional statement which is supportive of

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

[3.1] Evidence Not Obtained Illegally

[3.2] Even if Illegally Obtained, the Evidence is Still Admissible

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

[4.1] Existing Circumstances Point to the Guilt of the Accused

[4.2] Circumstantial Evidence is Admissible in the Present Case.

[4.3] Even Illegally Obtained Evidence Admissible

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS STATED, ARGUMENTS

COUNSELS for the Respondent

You might also like