The Top Five
Canada (Justice) v. Khadr
Do you think the charter should always apply to the activities of the Canadian government officials exercising functions outside Canada? I concur with the Federal court's findings in that, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were created to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens in Canada. Outside of Canada, citizens are protected by international laws between sovereign states. Therefore, crimes committed in other judicial sanctions should be dealt with by their own court of law, without interference of other countries sovereignty. The case of R. v. Cook is an exception; Canadian authorities interrogated Cook, a Canadian citizen, outside of Canada. The authorities abide by the charters therefore infringing on Cooks right when they neglected to inform him of his right to counsel until after questioning.
Should Canadian police carry out or participate in a search that is legal in the foreign country where an investigation is being carried out if a similar search would not be legal in Canada? No, as Canadian police are in international jurisdiction they are not recognized as police; therefore, assisting in the conducted search would be unlawful. Besides, evidence would by unlawfully obtained; therefore, is would unrecognized by the Canadian judicial system.
…show more content…
Cook and R.v. Hape. I think the legal argument in the case of R.v. Cook is more prevalent than the grounds in R.v.Hape; therefore, I agree with the Cook test. Khadr was questioned by United States interrogators along with Canadian interrogators, and for that reason he should have had his rights recognized under the Charter. Whereas, in the Hape test the Supreme Court decided: if the Charter interfered with the sovereignty of another country within their borders, it does not apply. Ultimately, the court recognized the Hape test with regards to Khadr and I believe that was an oversight made by our legal
Illinois v. Cabelles In 1998 Roy Caballes was pulled over for speeding, the police officers were entirely within the law and their jurisdiction, however, when they hindered the stop and preformed a sniff search they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The officer Gillette proceeds as he does in all traffic stops and requested Caballes for his license, registration, and insurance and if he had any warrants, Caballes stated he did not, in addition if he had ever been arrested before in which Caballes stated he had not. The officer’s last request to search Caballes vehicle, Caballes kindly stated no. Upon returning to his police cruiser to run a want and warrants check on Caballes, Officer Gillette found out that Caballes had been arrested
Citation: Morgan v Sate, 537 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1989) Facts: James A. Morgan, the appellant, who at sixteen was diagnosed as organically brain-damaged and brain-impaired, murdered the elderly woman with whom he was employed to perform manual labor. Morgan is described as a teenage alcoholic, who since the age of four sniffed gasoline on a regular basis.
Brady v. United States 397 U.S. 742 (1970) Intro: The Petitioner plead guilty to kidnapping after his co-defendant decided to confess and testify against him. Whether Brady’s (the petitioner) plea was made voluntarily was the issue. Relevant Law: “Just because a defendant discovers that the State would have had a weaker case or that they were not going to impose the maximum punishment does not mean that the defendant is allowed by law to disown his statements made in open court.” Facts: The Petitioner, in 1959, was charged with kidnapping.
Ronald Watts, 48 years old, a District tactical sergeant, and a patrol officer named Kallatt Mohammed, 47 years old, were both parts of the 2nd District tactical team in the Chicago Police Department. On the eve of February 13, 2012, both officers were formally charged in the U.S. District Court of Chicago by the Northern District of Illinois United State Attorney, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, with government funds theft. Mr. Watts was an 18-year police veteran and Mr. Mohammed was with the Chicago PD for 14 years. Their arrest was due to unseal complaints of police criminal misconduct by two whistleblower officers, Shannon Spalding and Daniel Echeverria , followed by a thorough investigation of, special of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert D. Grant and the police department’s Internal Affairs Division.
Marsh v. Chambers Saul, 1 Marsh v. Chambers; Use of chaplaincy in the court Comment by Crystal G. DeLong: Court cases are ALWAYS italicized Comment by Crystal G. DeLong: : Zachary Saul Liberty High School AP US Government, 2A The Supreme Court case of Marsh v. Chambers all started as a rather small affair in Nebraska, and quickly became case with far-reaching consequences. Ernest Chambers, the current representative on Nebraska 's 11th district in the Nebraska State Senate, argued in 1983, that the use of a tax-funded chaplaincy in Nebraska 's court was against the Establishment Clause of the United States Bill of Rights. In the Nebraska Circuit court case, it was ruled that while the use of a chaplain in the court
The landmark law case is Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. , Westchester City. v. Rowley (Oyez, n.d.) Furnace Woods School refused to provide deaf student Amy Rowley with a sign language interpreter.
After reviewing Justice Brennan’s dissenting opinion, I cannot agree with his argument that a conducting a protective sweep surpasses the purpose of the Terry v. Ohio decision. Justice Brennan agreed that a protective sweep was not a full-blown search, but it was much more intrusive than a limited pat down for weapons or the frisk of an automobile (Sifferlen, 1991). Also, Justice Brennan also stated he believed officers’ should possess probable cause to initiate a protective sweep of a home (Sifferlen, 1991). The Terry v. Ohio decision permits law enforcement officers to perform a pat down of the outer clothing, when the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the subject he or she is dealing with, is armed and dangerous (Hall, 2015). The main purpose of Terry v. Ohio decision is to locate weapons that may be used to hurt the
When the Constitution Act was patriated, the role of courts in Canada changed significantly. The job of making sure that laws affecting individual rights are in accordance with the Charter now falls to them, and ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada. Governments cannot pass laws that do not agree with the constitution - known as unconstitutional laws - because they can be stopped from ever coming into effect or getting ‘striked down’ by the courts. PM Trudeau had been a voice for a new Constitution since his first election campaign in 1965, in which he said, “I believe a constitution can permit the coexistence of several cultures and ethnic groups within a single state.” The Constitution Act of 1982 was also dedicated to shaping Canada’s independence.
Canada is a diverse country, which consists of many ethnic groups and religions. The Canadian justice system does not abide too any religion or specific culture but too all. The Canadian justice system is one of the greatest in the world and consists of many different aspects, including public law and private law. The Canadian justice system is not the only system in the world but also one of the youngest systems when looking at code of Hammurabi. Code of Hammurabi is the earliest written laws in the world.
MILLERSBURG — Despite a plea for leniency expressed by the victim, a Sugarcreek man was unable to overcome a long history of criminal convictions and a bond violation when a Holmes County judge on Wednesday sentenced him to prison for making unwanted phone calls and threats to several members of a family over a period of months. David Lamar Schrock, 43, of 2578 State Route 39, previously pleaded guilty in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to two counts of telephone harassment and one count of menacing by stalking. In exchange for his guilty plea, the state agreed to dismiss two additional counts of telephone harassment and three counts of menacing by stalking. The charges are made more serious because Schrock was convicted, in January 2016,
Richard Bruno Hauptmann Incorrectly Convicted: The Unjust Reasons and Influences Behind This Court Decision Madelyn M. Von Wald Department of English, Harrisburg High School Composition 250 Mrs. Jessica Berg May 19, 2023 Richard Bruno Hauptmann Incorrectly Convicted: The Unjust Reasons and Influences Behind This Court Decision A jury condemned an innocent man to his death eighty-six years ago and his guilt still comes into question to this day.
The standard of living is one of the highest in the world, it welcomes new immigrants, and there are many personal freedoms which are questioned in other parts of the world. Here, there is a Charter of Rights and Freedom that protects our individual rights. This charter, which came to be in 1982, is the basis of our Canadian society. It lays down the law, so that the limitations can be seen. Other countries also have similar documents, but Canada's has some unique qualities.
Case Brief Case Information The United States Supreme Court decided Missouri v. Galin E. Frye on March 21, 2012. Case Facts In August of 2007, defendant Galin E. Frye was charged with driving with a revoked license; he had already been convicted three times for the same offense and Missouri charged him with a class D felony, which carries a maximum prison term of four years.
In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.
Before the Charter, many people may argue that Canada was a free and democratic country. Canadians had the freedom of expression, equality and the principles of fundamental justice. What changed with the creation of the Charter was that rights and freedoms were given constitutional status, and judges were given the power to strike down laws that infringed on them. In 1982, most Canadians agreed that the introduction of the Charter was going to monumental. But on the contrary, over 30 years later, numerous laws have been struck down by interpretation of the charter and remedial techniques that have been developed by courts.