Step 2: research –roach v. electoral commissioner (2007) Questions Q1. The individual or group that had their rights infringed-who were they? Individuals who had their rights infringed were prisoners who served more than 3 years in prison.
Although the New England Indians felt that law and justice were, “a personal and clam mater and did not involve a third party of an impersonal public institution or ‘state’” (p. 67), the law of England defined murder as, “an offence against the state, not a private matter between two groups of people” (p. 70), thus the jurisdiction of the General Court was fair to the defendant’s case.
You Will Be The Judge Facts: The case involves a 12 year old child named Griffin Grimbly who told the teacher that he was beaten with a clothesline by his father Mr.Gimli. In court, the Mr.Gimli argued that he was devoted to Christian and was following the Biblical injunction on child rearing, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, as well as arguing that s 43 of the criminal code gives parents the right to use “reasonable force” in disciplining their children. Issue: Is Mr. Grimbly is guilty of or not guilty of assault ? Held: Mr.Grimbly is guilty of assault.
However, the main affect this decision has on today’s society is the way justice must be carried out in the court of law and the way a person’s rights should be protected even if they’re guilty or
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
Inmates praise Vickie Lee Roach as she regains their right to vote Roach’s right to vote was infringed due to the 2006 amendments to commonwealth electoral act 1918 (cmwth act) which states that any prisoner serving a full time sentence at any length. The legislation breached her constitutional rights to vote. The constitutional phrase parliament is ‘directly chosen by the people’ implies the right to Australian citizens to vote and states only those that don’t have the mental capacity are exempt, and despite so, Vickie Lee Roach and all prisoners were still denied the right to vote Roach wasn’t pressured into this case by anyone but herself as she has legal standing due to being directly affected by it.
In the case of Tara Brown’s murder, various groups of individuals are affected. As well as maintaining principles of fair punishment and deterrence, the criminal justice system has to consider perceptions of the victim’s family (secondary victim), the community’s demand for crime prevention, and the offender’s rights to a fair court hearing. The most likely outcome is imprisonment for Lionel John Patea due to committing an indictable offence. It is important to note that if this was only a case of domestic abuse without murder, it would utilise more time, effort and expenses to come to a resolution. This is due to the different circumstances and degree of abuse that the judge has to assess.
In July 1979, Gary Dotson was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and rape of a young woman in 1977. He was sentenced to not less than twenty-five and not more than fifty years. Many years after Dotson’s conviction, the victim recanted her testimony because she didn’t want anyone to know about a sexual encounter with her boyfriend so she fabricated the rape. Once the victim recanted her testimony, Dotson contended that the recantation constituted grounds to vacate the original sentence and he should be awarded a new trial. In 1987, the governor agreed to grant Dotson his last chance at parole.
I vividly recall my mother’s astonishment that I, as a 10 year-old, would be glued to the television set. The Casey Anthony case was aired for years, I was fascinated by how the law worked and the new facts that were discovered that threw the case to one side or another; I felt connected to this case because it was in my home state. My mom never grows tired of telling this story, and with every year passing I know she becomes more and more proud of the little girl who admired the men in blue suits on the screen and decided then she wanted to be a lawyer. I remember watching my mom gaze at me with an amazed look in her eye that I have now grown so fond of.
A rape case happened during 2014, but the verdict was overturned on appeal and had a new trial scheduled for this month of November. It has been scheduled to A Canadian judge has stated his opinion and said some controversial things. He is pushing the blame on the woman because she was unable to prevent the assault and got raped. The woman claimed that she was raped over a bathroom sink, during a house party. The judge in charge of this case was Judge Robin Camp.
This objection states that the guidance that lex provides is often wrong as it requires the state to be responsible for inflicting the same deeds on criminals which ultimately compromises the morality of law enforcement (186). This objection is relatively easy to support, however, there is potential to highlight the shortcomings within its argument. For example, it can be argued that there are rare situations in which rape can be justified and therefore not a punishable offence. The claim that there is a situation that rape could ever be considered a feasible action is preposterous in today's society, however, it is a situation in which this objection could be
In R v Mokrecovas, a case of rape in which consent was a defence, the issue was if it was open to the defence under section 41 (3) (a) to cross examine the complainant about an allegation that she had consensual sexual relations with the accused’s brother on two occasions during 12 hours before alleged rape. It was held that the cross examination about sexual intercourse with the accused’s brother would add nothing to these grounds for allegation. The subsections (3)(b) and (c) were enacted to reverse what was decided in R v Riley. In most of the cases, the jury would most likely infer such behaviour by virtue of the other evidence in the case.
(2) A person sentenced to imprisonment to life for the crime of murder is to serve that sentence for the term of that person’s natural life. The fact that Katherine Knight was sentence to life imprisonment for the murder of John Price reflects society’s standards in that nobody should get away with taking somebody else’s life, especially in the way in which Katherine did. 6 THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN ACHIEVING JUSTICE Once Katherine Knight pleaded guilty to the murder of John Price, the court was able to sentence her quite efficiently once all evidence was heard. The efficiency of this case and also the fact that Katherine Knight received the harshest penalty possible in Australia for her horrific crime shows how justice was achieved.
Starmer contends that, any debate about victims’ rights in a criminal justice context has to start with the criminal law itself. To him, unless the law ‘adequately and effectively’ protects the rights of victims, there can be no question of a criminal investigation and prosecution. This fundamental proposition was accepted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) when it found a violation of the rights of a 16-year-old rape victim where her mental handicap was such that she was unable to make a personal complaint and her father was not authorised to file one on her behalf. The Court ruled that civil remedies were not an adequate response to serious wrongdoing, thus effectively creating a right of access to criminal
The question requires one to discuss as to what extent has the “Presumption of Innocence” as articulated by Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935] , has changed in light of Human Rights Act [HRA] 1998. Woolmington v DPP is a landmark House of Lords [ HOL] case where the Presumption of Innocence was first articulated # . In delivering his judgement for a unanimous Court, Viscount Sankey made his famous "Golden thread’ speech . ‘Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to... the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt,
