ipl-logo

What Is Dp V Jones Case Brief

514 Words3 Pages

Case Brief: DPP v Jones (1999)

Facts

On 1st June 1995 a group of over twenty people were assembled on the verge of the A344, which was adjacent to Stonehenge. Prior to this an order had been made under section 14A(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 which prohibited the holding of all "trespassory assemblies" in the specified area. The group was not being obstructive or hindering the public from using the road, however, the appellants Jones and Lloyd, refused to leave and were subsequently arrested and convicted for "taking part in a trespassory assembly" under section 14B (2) of the Public Order Act 1986. They appealed to Salisbury Crown Court and their conviction was quashed as the court deemed that they were reasonably using the highway . The Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) appealed to the Divisional Court who reinstated the defendants' convictions. Jones and Lloyd then appealed to the House of Lords.

Issues The court had to decide what the limits are relating to the public's right of access to the public highway. What the "particular purpose" for which the public has a right to use the public highway. Whether the public has the right of …show more content…

The judges decided that there is a right to reasonable activities on the highway , not just the right of passage. It was decided that reasonable activities included peaceful, non-obstructive assembly on the highway in certain cases, such as this one. The judges agreed that defining what consisted of a reasonable activity depended on the facts of each individual situation and in some cases a demonstration may be seen as trespassory if was not deemed to be reasonable. The judges also believed that the law could be extended , which would fit with the advancement of the country . Lord Hutton argued that common law recognises a right for members of the public to assemble together to express views and this is one of the fundamental rights of a democracy

Show More
Related
406 Words | 2 Pages

To: Junior Associate From: Supervising Attorney Re: DC v. Blake Mr. Jonathan Blake, a new client of the firm, recently requested our legal services in a criminal matter. Mr. Blake was recently arrested for possession of a controlled substance by the Metropolitan Police Department. According to Mr. Blake, the facts are as follows: Jessie Smith and his wife are the co-owners of a residence at 3630 16th St. NW, Washington DC, 20015.

Read More
840 Words | 4 Pages

The District of Columbia courts needs to waive and remit before he is able to be tried. At this time there was a motion filed to have him receive the case waived. The judge filed for a ‘full investigation’, which lead to Kent’s case being waived from the juvenile courts. He was then tried in the District Court. The jury found Kent guilty of six counts of housebreaking and robbery.

Read More
415 Words | 2 Pages

In U.S. v. Jones, Antoine Jones owned a popular nightclub in the District of Columbia. As the police department and FBI had reasonable suspicion to believe that cocaine trafficking was taking place in the club, law enforcement enabled strict surveillance. The strict surveillance consisted of cameras around the nightclub, officers obtained a warrant to implement device to register phone numbers of anyone calling Jones or calls Jones made and installed a wiretapping device. In addition, the officers installed a GPS tracking device in Jones vehicle, to install this device the officers had to obtained a warrant that allowed the GPS to be installed for ten days in the District of Columbia. However, as the car traveled to Maryland the officers changed

Read More
1379 Words | 6 Pages

I Introduction In McCloy v New South Wales, the High Court upheld the validity of provisions in the Electoral Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (NSW) that imposes caps on political donations, prohibits donations from property developers and restricts indirect campaign contributions in New South Wales. The majority did so on the grounds that whilst each of the provisions burdened the implied freedom of political communication, they had been enacted for legitimate purposes and hence, did not impermissibly infringe upon the implications within the Commonwealth Constitution.

Read More
127 Words | 1 Pages

Sally was interfering with the access to the building when she was sitting and therefore she broke the law. Sally had the right to hand out the leaflets and be there as long as she was not obstructing the access to any buildings.

Read More
583 Words | 3 Pages

Although she ended up spending months in jail, the arguments against her conviction on the legal terms of a change in jury member were not only heard out, but accepted, resulting in her freedom. (122). Although she faced unideal consequences under the law, as the jail time and fear of execution were certainly detrimental, they were far less severe than those that would have been expected. Compared to other women accused in other areas, Disborough’s legal consequences were notably light. She did, however, face more harsh consequences from her peers and fellow citizens.

Read More
852 Words | 4 Pages

Both men were successful in their appeals as a verdict of guilty could not be settled upon as the case was based on improbabilities and circumstantial evidence that could not lead to a definite

Read More
672 Words | 3 Pages

With the changes seen in the economy, war & leaders, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 can be considered a part of the Enlightenment. Evidence shown through historical documents proves this stance. Although some historical events during the Glorious Revolution refute my stance, the Glorious Revolution was indeed a part of the Enlightenment because of the major shifts England had during and after this time period: Influencers, Religious tolerance and changes in governmental policies. Stated in the English Bill of Rights which were passed by Parliament and ratified by William III-King of England. “That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by royal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal”(Doc.3)

Read More
821 Words | 4 Pages

Mohammad Haneef & Erosion of Civil Liberties Weland La ‘Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties.’ Discuss this statement in light of the Haneef Case and one other issue (such as the right to silence, privacy, etc.), commenting on the extent to which the law balances the rights of the individual with the needs for community safety. In correlation with the Haneef Case, Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties as demonstrated by NSW’s introduction of the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013.

Read More
437 Words | 2 Pages

An example of this is maybe a neighbor is throwing a party and they are a little loud and it is keeping from sleeping or doing work. Yes you can call the cops, but all they will do is ask them to turn down the music or whatever is causing the noise, unless the cops get another noise complaint those neighbors are not going to get into any major trouble. The second reason why people should not agree with the author is because if people are caught doing it they are fined or arrested. An example for this is the freeway or highway again. If the speed limit is 65 miles per hour and everybody is going 70 miles per hour

Read More
897 Words | 4 Pages

Also, for the safety of other motorist driving on the highway. Based on

Read More
2469 Words | 10 Pages

The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment states that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. The power of eminent domain is essential for a developed state, for example to build roads and highways the government often needs to seize land from private individuals. Questions surrounding the use of eminent domain and the takings clause include what counts as a seizure of land, what counts as just compensation, and what counts as public use. In 2005 the Supreme Court heard the case Kelo vs City of New London which dealt with the question of what counts as a public use. Justice Stevens’s majority opinion in this case appeals to Dworkin’s method, while Justice Kennedy’s reasoning would be endorsed by Hart.

Read More
649 Words | 3 Pages

Finally, in the fifth count of her complaint, Ellina states a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). “[T]o impose liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress: (1) The conduct must be intentional or reckless; (2) The conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (3) There must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; (4) The emotional distress must be severe.” Harris v. Jones, 281 Md. 560, 566 (1977). Critically, the intent requirement of the tort requires the tortfeasor to have acted intentionally or recklessly. Indeed, in her complaint, Ellina alleges that Gil “intentionally and/or recklessly engaged in conduct . . .”

Read More
208 Words | 1 Pages

Mr. Dunne should be made to take down signs and keep them down. It is dangerous to stifle freedom of speech especially if that speech is unpopular. It is true that everyone should have a right to express freely. However, this right should depend on principle of morality.

Read More
1627 Words | 7 Pages

We can’t protest against the rules that determined by the community. For example, smoking is a right, but you can’t smoke in a shopping mall. We hear other people’s requests and needs. Yes, a person’s freedom ends where someone else’s rights

Read More

More about What Is Dp V Jones Case Brief

Related Topics

Open Document