Case Analysis : Baig V. Harvie

On the fourth of July in 1776 the United States became an independent nation. At that point in time, the foundation for a formal legal system was put into place. One of the oldest sources of law is the common law, which dates back to the colonial days. In the case of Davis v. Baugh, the common law rule was used in the first court trial. Common law refers back to precedent cases of similar disputes and assists the judge in making a decision after comparing both cases. Utilizing this ruling to resolve disputes in court is very helpful because it provides uniformity in court. This rule also provides an expectation of what the verdict will be based off the prior cases. Most importantly, common law allows the judge to remain neutral without the implication of personal bias on each case (Meiners, 2012, pp. 9-10).

Keli Lane-Contemporary Criminal Case Original case citation: R V Keli Lane (2011) NSWSC 298, 15 April 2011, Whealy JA (1) Appeal citation : R V Keli Lane (2013) NSWCCA 317, 13 December 2013(1) Elements of the offence: Actus Reus: Keli Lane was found guilty of murder and three counts of false swearing.

Facts: Gawley was a police officer who worked for Indiana University for several years. She sued the college because she noted sexual harassment by a higher-ranking officer than she was. She also sued because she felt she was part of a hostile work environment and that officers in her department retaliated against her for filing a complaint with the college. Her final argument was that there was spoliation of evidence. The district court found in favor of the employer. The case did not go to trial because the district court granted summary judgment. Summary judgment is used to avoid trials. The decision was made based on two key decisions made by the Supreme Court in other cases and that the university was able to establish an affirmative defense. The university “may assert an affirmative defense that examines the reasonableness of the employer’s and the target’s conduct” (Kaplin & Lee, 2014, p. 167). Gawley then appealed to the United State Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. This case brief will outline the question, holding, reasoning, and significance of this case as it was decided by the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Cases R v Park (1994) where procedures laid down in the PACE Act were not followed properly and evidence could not be submitted. Also R v Fenlley [1989] in which the defendant had not been informed properly of the reason for stop and search can lead to suspects being unable to be prosecuted. It is hard to justify these results and describe the use of stop and searches as a valuable tool in the detection of crime. Especially when there is a large amount of evidence from reports, cases and statistical information showing the disproportionate amount of Black and Asian individuals that are stopped and searched under section 1 of PACE 1984. This has led to issues arising between the police and the community.

In the case R v Davis, there are two different parties involved. The first party is Davis who is the appellant. And the second party is the Queen who is the respondent. The appellant’s role in this case to bring forth the appeal based on the trial court’s decision as they find there was error made in the decision of the trial judge. In this case, the appellant made three grounds of appeal with only two being heard; one being the judge made error in the law via Davis’s Charter rights being breached through excessive force, and two being the judge gave insufficient reasons for the accused being guilty. [28]

The latter case of DPP v Carr (2002) shows many similarities, providing that arrest should and can only be used as a method of last resort, and must not be used for minor offences where the defendant can be identified . In this particular matter, a highly intoxicated Mr Carr was of the belief that police were accusing him of throwing a number of rocks, when this was not the case. This confusion led Mr Carr’s to use offensive language, which provoked the police officer to caution the accused. Mr Carr was then soon after arrested for offensive language because of the continuation of this offence, and also for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duties. The main issue in this matter was whether or not the arrest was lawful, and if so, was it improper. It is important to note that this case was decided before the provisions of LEPRA was passed by the parliament and became valid law meaning the Court had to rely on common law principles to determine its outcome. The arrest for vulgar language in this case was held to be proper because the officer had reasonable suspicion (having witnessed him swearing and

Words alone, even aggressive ones, can not constitute an assault and must be accompanied by some bodily act or gesture that indicate a present ability to effect a purpose. In R v Secretary it was held that the reference to ‘present ability’ meant an ability, based on known facts as present at the time of the making of the threat, to effect a purpose, and that the threat may be one of future violence, and not an apprehension of immediate violence. In this case, it was Livingstone’s aggressive nature in addition to the knife in his hand that instilled in Blyton an apprehension of a future threat of personal violence which constitutes assault pursuant to s 245 and satisfies the first condition of s

Today I was able to have a quick interview with the honorable Mrs.Salvarez. I asked her a few questions about what she does in the government and if she could clarify some things.

In the case between R. v Maracle, it was about a 14 year old Brantford female was kidnapped at gunpoint by David Maracle on May 26, 1997 and brutally and repeatedly raped. This event had accused on 1997, and then was farther investigated and made its way to court. On November 8, 2000, the trial judge found the appellant to be a dangerous offender and ordered him detained for an indeterminate period. The appellant appeals conviction and sentence. The case was later appealed in 2006. This case took place in superior court of justice. This case took place because the appellant’s conviction and sentence. In this case it shows the dangers so sex offenders and how hard they try to get away with crime that they have committed, even though they left all the proof / evidence behind at the location which was all leading up to them, being the one to frame. (http://www.thespec.com)

The threat must create an apprehension of imminent physical harm or contact, and that apprehension must be present and continuing. This is satisfied on the facts by Lawless threatening Chalmer and continuing to do so whilst standing next to his car, as he struck the window and eventually Chalmer’s face. It’s stated that Chalmer felt ‘uncomfortable’ and

Even If This Court Was To Find That Ms. Brie’s Authority to Consent Was Ambiguous, This Court Must Still Find that the District Court Properly Denied the Defendant-Appellant’s Motion.

During a criminal proceeding where the appellant, Mr. Doré was the defence council in the Superior court of Quebec, he was subject to personal attacks by Justice Boilard. Taking offence from the personal attacks, he wrote a letter to the judge, which included attacks on the judge’s professionalism, social skills, and shaming him as a judge. (Doré, at Para. 10)

Christopher Simmons was not your typical American teenager. Abused and neglected as a young boy, by the time he was seventeen years old he came a convicted murderer and was sentenced to the death penalty. His case quickly became under fire for overriding his Eighth Amendment right that stated that the federal government cannot impose cruel and unusual punishment upon anyone. Christopher Simmons was old enough and mature enough to understand that what he did was morally and socially wrong. If someone can completely conjure up a murder plot by oneself, then they should be sentenced to the death penalty no matter the age. Simmons should have received the death penalty despite his age at the time of the crime he

But looking at all the evidence that has been presented and my research I think that Ms. Singh will be ok. She was felt upon and placed in jail possibly for expressing her feeling. Not only going into the situation a little deeper, her boyfriend had to be placed under arrest for assault so with two testimonies of the situation that transpired that night. The judge could have sympathy for Ms. Singh and let her off with a warning or just pay a fine. So sometimes the law could work out to your benefit only if you are truthful and have integrity.

“Manslaughter - Recklessness or gross negligence - Assumption of duty of care for infirm person - Breach of duty amounting to recklessness - Negligence - Assumption of duty to care.”