To measure if justice was achieved, the case must be reviewed with the three main characteristics of justice, Was it fair? Was it equal? Did both parties have equal access? with further analysis of the back story, charges and both parties cases considered with the characteristics of Justice an educated decision can be made whether the case R v Loveridge [2013] NSWSC 1638, achieved Justice Kieran Loveridge was convicted by the courts for an unprovoked attack on 18- year old Thomas Kelly at Kings Cross and assaults on Rhyse Saliba, Aden Gazi, Marco Compagnoni and Matthew Serrao. Kieran Loveridge was also found as intoxicated through the process of the assaults although there is no legitimate proof on how much Kieran Loveridge consumed, but …show more content…
The judge had to consider various factors before sentencing Kieran Loveridge such as social disadvantage, with his upbringing being exposed to crime, physical and verbal abuse and drug and alcohol abuse and his difficulty during his education due to his juvenile activities. The courts also discussed various factors like that Kieran Loveridge did not intend to kill Thomas Kelly, the intoxication state of Kieran Loveridge although his is not a mitigating factor and that it is very unlikely that with rehabilitation Kieran Loveridge will commit another similar crime. Using these factors and a discount of 25% for the guilty plea the judge produced his sentence of 7 years and two months and a non-parole period of 5 years and 2 months. Although for amount of counts of assault and a count of manslaughter the sentence is particularly short considering the discount as well although also considering Loveridge’s social disadvantage due to being exposed to heavy amounts of violence this behaviour does not come as ‘surprising’ although this does not condemn his actions it just merely shows the courts, his need for rehabilitation. In this situation with deep analysis the decisions and sentencing upon Kieran Loveridge were fair, thus achieving justice through
Case Law Assignment: Barker v. Wingo A) Case Name and Citation: Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) B) Summary of the Facts: On a murder case of two elderly people in 1958, Willie Barker and Silas Manning were arrested and awaited their trial. The Commonwealth’s tactic was to convict Manning first prior to convicting Barker, due to the lack of evidence against him, assuring a testimony against Barker there after. Manning’s prosecution was not an easy one accounting for six total trials and delaying Barkers.
Whereas the Crown concentrated on disproving the defence’s insanity plea finding a contradiction in one of the defence’s psychiatrists, Dr. Clarke’s testimony, as Macmaster found Dr. Clarke had used his description of a criminal to describe the term moral imbecile, used to describe Shortis (Friedland, 1986, p.105). On 3 November 1895, the jury found Valentine Shortis guilty for the murders and was sentenced to death by hanging on 3 January 1896 (Friedland, 1986, p.115-117). Although the sentence was to be carried out, Greenshields made a statement stating, “(T)he only thing we now intend doing is to petition the Minister if Justice for commutation of sentence from the death penalty to imprisonment for life” (Friedland, 1986, p.119). Before the sentence was carried out, George Foster, the defence’s solicitor, went to present the petition in Ottawa to the minister of justice, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper (Friedland, 1986, p.122). A cabinet meeting was held to discuss the petition of Valentine Shortis, a vote was to be made from ten cabinet members on whether to sentence was to be execution or life in prison.
Children have been found to experience much higher levels of communication difficulty in the criminal justice system and this diminishes their ability to give evidence with the coherence desired by the court to facilitate prosecution of crime. In the case of R-v- Green youth court, the court held that There was no absolute right for a defendant to be allowed to face his accusers. Special measures to protect a vulnerable or intimidated witness from the accused would not normally be applicable to a defendant witness, but other means were available to a court to assist a defendant in ensuring that where he had communication difficulties, his case was put across properly. The court had an obligation to achieve fairness in each particular case, and that requirement was met by the system. This application was dismissed but the ruling gave critical understanding that a child under 17 years qualifies to be a vulnerable witness if they have communication difficulty and vulnerability was more circumstantial than mere age
Sentencing Remarks Case Study 1: CHRISTALL, Daniel Ian 1. On the charges of theft and assault Mr Christall was sentenced to twenty one months imprisonment with a non-parole period of thirteen months despite the appropriate single sentence being described as one year and four months. The sentence was reduced from one year and four months on account of the guilty plea entered by Mr Christall. This sentence was later suspended on account of the accused’s apparent determination to beat his drug problem, evidenced by the fact that he had voluntarily sought treatment. The stable environment he has around him, his mental health issues, supported by a professional psychiatrist and the circumstances under which the crime was committed.
Some people might think he is an expert of criminology because of the way he wrote the article. For this reason, it was easier for me to take his opinion more seriously. He understands the need to express himself in a manner that is easy to read and understand. By writing in this way, he can easily persuade someone to his point of view. Jacoby’s description of prison life was a very persuasive emotional appeal.
Jeffery was previously imprisoned for firearms offences. This time he was not even guilty on his crimes, thus Judge decided to slam him for his conduct by giving him a life sentence. The barbaric person should not roam in public as his a threat to their life and
In the novel More Joy in Heaven by Morley Callaghan, Kip Caley has a taste of what being a free man is like. Upon release, he wants to lead a quiet life, mind his own business and live a righteous law-abiding life. However, after being in prison and coming accustom to society and the powers of the public eye it might be too much for him. The mix of love, friendship and his want for acceptance from his family and friends is too great for him. The pressure from society is too much and the fallout of Kip is ultimately his own fault along with Judge Ford for rejecting him as well as, Foley his only friend and not believing in him how Kip needed.
Theodore Earl Butler (1861-1936) was best known for his work during the American Impressionism movement. He was famous for his paintings, specifically watercolor. In 1861, Butler was born in Columbus, Ohio, where his father was a wealthy businessman. But unlike his father, Butler was not interested in a business career.
Introduction In the matter of R v Francis , the defendant (Glen Reginald Francis) was being tried for the attempted murder of Timothy Udris. On 8th June 2014, Glenn Francis (‘Francis’) attacked Timothy Udris (‘Udris’), who was hit at least two times with a claw hammer to the skull. The Crown submitted that Francis had attempted to murder Udris, under s306 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).
The formation of the NSW Parliamentary Select Committee on the Partial Defence of Provocation in 2012, along with the introduction of the Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Act in 2014, are excellent examples in demonstrating how the NSW Criminal Justice System continues to reform and adhere to the needs and values of society, further more, it epitomises law reform and the changes taking place in regards to provocation being used as a defence to murder. Provocation falls under section 23 of the NSW Crimes Act 1900. It is the defence where the defendant claims that their actions were a direct result of another person’s actions, which caused them to lose control of their own actions. The NSW Criminal Justice system, prior the findings of the
When taking into consideration of prison sentences or punishment in general, sentencing committees have the moral duty to consider the criminal’s desires, motives, free will, and moral responsibility. In addition, they should look into whether their decisions are incompliance with consequentialist or retributive jurisdiction and if they are compatible with utilitarianism and if it truly maximizes utility in order to benefit the society. Thus, upon their views, this leaves the discretion of the group to either the maximum and minimum limits there should be to the conviction and the need to place emphasis on justification and punishment when considering offenses. In order to determine a person’s sentencing, there is reason to look into how
What is equity? In layman’s terms equity is the term used to describe fairness and justice. The legal term is more strictly defined in that they must obey the rules of precedent and its development appears to be more inflexible and rigid. However there is an element of discretion on the part of the judges in that they have some flexibility.
Europe had long established the Legal Aid and Advice Act since 1949, therefore the justice system played fairly to all citizens not just the rich (Byrne, 2015). There was no fear of favouring in her case. She read about the involvement of the commission in a different case and eventually when they reviewed the views of the Irish government they agreed to provide legal aid to pursue her case further (The Irish Times, 2002). A young solicitor, Brendan Walsh, volunteered to deal with her case and Josie suggested that Mary Robinson be her barrister. Ireland as usual seems to be one step behind.
This essay will aim to answer the question of whether the judicial system in the UK should approach cases with a legal positivist
Bourhill v Young (1943) AC 92 is a Scottish delict case which emphasize on how extensive an individual duty to ensure others are not harmed by their actions or activities, this case has established on how the scope of recovery for bystanders or who are uninvolved with physical harm. This case centers around an incident where Mrs Bourhill claimed that she suffered shock due to the fact that Mr young had a collision with a car around 50 ft away from her while she was exiting a tram car. To be exact, this case took place on the 11 October 1938 where Mr Young was negligently riding his motorcycle along the road, and happen to have a collision with a car fatally injuring him, Mrs Bourhill was leaving a tram car while the collision took place.