Case Analysis : Chalmers V. ' S ' Open This Door And I Will Do You ! '

At first, the NSW Supreme Court found that the Public Relation Oriented Security was not vicariously liable as the assault was motivated by guard’s blood lust and want beyond the reasonable acts. In Sprod bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Ltd[1], the court of appeal was faced with complex difficulty concerning the employee’s authority either the authority of the employee is within the scope of employment or not which may resulted in vicarious liability.

6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

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.

1. Volitional act. Charlie volitionally fired the gun at Art, causing the bullet to strike

A medium-sized firm Clean fabrics Inc in United States has increased the company’s revenues strategically about $350 million dollars per year. The company struggles to meet the objectives of expanding the company along with the cost control. The vision of the company is to provide the right choice to the clients and supplying the support services for the cruise ship industry in the different parts of the world operating in the areas of hotel and travel. The services are supplied to major hotel chains and cruises including linen services in the south east area of United States. Comparatively, the cruise ship industry provides the company with an

The amount of extra sales that would be required to cover this cost of 300,000 would be

The R v Bentham case , which presented the question of imitation firearms, and whether part of your body is covered in the legislation adopted the literal approach and as this directive was employed judges declared the word ‘possession’ did not include someone’s fingers. If words of the act are evident, they should be adhered to, even if they provoke a distinctive absurdity. The legislation specified that imitation firearms could be “anything which has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or missile”. It was held by Lord Bingham that Parliament obviously meant to legislate about imitation firearms and not to develop an offence of dishonesty, claiming to possess a firearm. Accordingly, possession of something needs to be independent from the body and the defendant was found not guilty.

The treatment and consequences for Mr Doomadgee, who appeared to be guilty of no more than swearing at Chris Hurley is difficult to comprehend. Especially when considered in the context of Mr Bramwell’s release back into the community after bashing his partner and her sisters. I feel that it is entirely legitimate to question the motives and actions of the arresting officers involved

“In 2008, police arrested an estimated 2.1 million persons under the age of 18. The majority of these juveniles (67%) were referred to juvenile court jurisdiction. The police used discretion to handle and release a portion (22%) of these youths” (Lopez 2016). That means that 273,000 juveniles were prosecuted and punished as adults, some even receiving life in prison. This begs the question should juveniles, regardless of offense, be tried as adults?

Young Professional magazine was developed for a target audience of recent college graduates who are in their first 10 years in a business/professional career. In its two years of publication the magazine has been fairly successful. Now the publisher is interested in expanding the magazine’s advertising base. Potential advertisers continually ask about the demographics and interests of subscribers to Young Professional. To collect this information the magazine has commissioned a survey to develop a profile of its subscribers. The survey results will be used to help the magazine choose articles of interest and provide advertisers with a profile of subscribers. As a new employee of the magazine, you have been

In this case study, I will explore the concept of stare decisis and wherether it is in exorable command. I will be explaining what the court means when it say that” stare decisis is not an inexorable command”. Also what it would mean for the American system of criminal justice, if stare decisis actually was “inexorable command”.

"The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee

The previous common law interpretation regarding (“CP”) was significantly influenced by English law, employing an approach of moderate corporal chastisement as permissible towards those under their care. Snyman relays that unlawfulness is based upon the principle of ‘objective reasonableness’, which is founded on the “legal convictions of the community” or boni mores. Within South African criminal law, disciplinary chastisement is classed as a ‘putative’ (supposed) defence and will exclude the criminal element of unlawfulness, unless inconsistent with human rights norms.