A: A Case Study

The purpose of this report is to discuss the matter The Queen V Bayley, which took place on the 29th of September 2012. Adrian bailey (serial rapist) was found guilty on charges of murder and rape, this report will discuss in detail the court proceedings that lead up to the imprisonment of Adrian Bayley and also the events prior to the kidnapping of Jill Meagher. The purpose of this report is to discuss the purpose of law in our society and how it applies to people who commit crimes in our community. As well as the purpose of criminal law in our community.

S: YMR stated that she had been living with her mother about one year, has is a newcomer. YMR lived with her maternal grandmother for many years back in her country. YMR stated that when she arrived to the U.S., she found out that her mother was pregnant, She shared that her mother did not want to tell her because she did not know how the client was going to react. YMR stated that she was happy because her mother had had four miscarries before. YMR explained that almost at the same time that she started living with her mother, the mother's partner and father of the child that her mother was going to have moved into her home. YMR stated that her mom used to work from 6am-12pm and the YMR spent a lot of time with her mother's partner. YMR stated that this man has

The first part of the essay will draw upon knowledge gained from different legislations in Wales related to the case study. it will also include ASPIRE social work process model to interpret and demonstrate an understanding of Khalid's circumstances as an unaccompanied asylum seeker.

1. A small family was traveling in its van and had a minor accident. The children in the back seats were wearing lap belts, but still sustained numerous bruises about the abdomen, and had some internal organ injuries. Why is this area more vulnerable to damage than others? Name specific organs that would be injured, as well as the abdominopelvic quadrant and region in which they are found. What injuries might you suspect in the damaged organs?

Was Elian capable of filing for asylum himself? Because Elian was only six years old, he lacked the legal capacity to file for himself. The only person that would be able to file for asylum on behalf of Elian would be father, Juan Gonzalez. The general counsel for the INS stated “we generally assume that somebody under the age of 14 will not make representation or other immigration decisions without the assistance of a parent or legal guardian.” The Court saw no reason to reverse the lower court decision stating that Elian was too young and lacked the capacity to make immigration decisions for himself The Judgment was

Had the government forgotten our obligation under the refuge convention towards asylum seekers and refugees in our country?

This is to guarantee that children may only be detained under the Migration Act for only on necessary matters such as identity, health and security checks. Children shouldn’t even be behind bars. They should be able to be released into the community as they have just as much right as everyone else does. We need new laws that make detention of children the last resort – not the first or the only option. We need new laws that make detention of children for the shortest proper period of time – not for indefinite periods of time. And we need new laws that make the best interests of the child a primary consideration – not laws that force a choice between indefinite detention and family separation. There also needs to be an individual assessment of the need to detain children and an effective review of detention in the courts. Our immigration laws need to be amended as a matter of urgency to ensure Australia’s full agreement with the international human rights standards.

Indefinite detention is an extremely controversial issue consisting of valid arguments on both sides of the debate; however, Queensland’s Dangerous Prisoners (Sex Offenders) Act 2003, including the amendment made to it in 2009 and part 10 of the Penalties and Sentences act 1992 (Qld) all provide a desirable outcome. These laws are scrutinized by many but evidently all contribute to the equitable way that this system functions. Although on the face of it, indefinitely detaining a prisoner may be perceived by some as infringing the fundamental rules of law, in reality extensive measures are taken through the legislative processes of these laws to ensure that a just decision is made in respects to the continuation of a detention order. By doing

Judge Tracey also quoted Wu Yu Fang & 117 Ors v The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs & Anor and Onea,

Does the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (“Charter”) protect the conduct of Josh, Dianne and Cary?

Almost every day, we hear about justice being served upon criminals and we, as a society, feel a sense of relief that another threat to the public has been sentenced to a term in prison, where they will no longer pose a risk to the world at large. However, there are very rare occasions where the integrity of the justice system gets skewed and people who should not have been convicted are made to serve heavy prison sentences. When word of this judicial misstep reaches the public, there is social outcry, and we begin to question the judicial system for committing such a serious faux pas.

To address these concerns and ensure that the rights of LGBTI asylum seekers are protected, the Commission recommends that the Australian Government adopt an on-shore processing solution for irregular maritime arrivals. Due to the vulnerable position of sexual minorities in detention, the Commission also urges the Government to implement community detention arrangements for all LGBTI asylum seekers awaiting refugee status determination’s (RSD). In addition, increased opportunities for judicial review following negative RSD’s, improved independent monitoring, the development of guidelines on LGBTI

Stevens make reference to other recent situations such as Dr Haneef’s debacle as a generalisation persuasive technique to evoke fear onto how much¬ liberty was at risk. It can position the reader to consider their own fear of limited liberty and become aware of what would happen if we found ourselves in a similar situation. The core of the article, A sorry state? Was to present evidence to persuade the intended audience of Professor Stevens point of view on the unfair

The second point of contention with this bill arose out of concerns with the power granted to the security. More specifically Andrew Swan is concerned with the re-entry of barred persons, questioning if there will be an appeal process to regain entry via an independent third party, “[I]t's her intention that there be no other objective look or appeal process” (Hansard, 22 Mar 2017, p. 902). This essentially is a concern about the amount of discretion given to the officers, as it could be misused, and people may be barred based on prejudices some security officers may have, “[The Minister of Justice] is conflating the idea of security with the ability to simply prevent someone from being able to be there.” (Hansard, 22 Mar 2017, p. 903).

In the decision released by the AAT Russell and Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] AATA 22 Senior member Josephine Kelly states “In my opinion, taking into account all of the evidence, I am satisfied that, as at the date of MARA’s decision, Mr Russell was not a person of integrity or was otherwise not a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance”. Although the AAT agreed with the decision made by MARA senior member Josephine Kelly also stated, “I am hearing this case afresh. I am concerned with the provisions of the statue”. Although MARA had already made its decision as to whether Mr Russell had breached the Code of Conduct the AAT looked at the facts once again and made its own decision. The AAT considered Mr Russells circumstances in its own