Law of Evidence: R v Kearley Essay

Christopher Simmons, who was seventeen years old, and two of his friends by the name of Charles Benjamin(fifteen years old) and John Tessmer (sixteen years old) had a detailed conversation about committing a murder. Christopher Simmons had a premeditated plan to which included, burglary (breaking and entering), robber and

It seems that they got tunnel view when it came to Bloodsworth and were going to make the evidence stick one way or another. This is made evident in the fact that Bloodsworth was the only suspect that they looked at for the crime. They never investigated any other leads to the crime. They even did not take into account that Bloodsworth in no way resembled the description that was given to police by the witnesses at first. It is quite funny the sketch that was done by a police sketch artist resembles Bloodsworth their prime suspect at this time. A sketch mind you that the witnesses said did not look like the person they saw. I find it also odd that two of the witnesses did not pick put Bloodsworth at first, it was not until later that they had time to “think” that Bloodsworth was the one that they saw. While we are on the subject the police ruled out a potential suspect his demographical features did not meet the description that was given by the witnesses. How odd one suspect is ruled out by demographical features but one is not.

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 question at hand was that how much evidence must an individual, who was already trialed and convicted of a crime, present to a court in order for the court to review his case (“House v Bell”).

1. The witness has first had an opportunity to explain or deny it and counsel for the other parties have had an opportunity to ask about it, and

This assessment will focus on Section 1 of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Stop and Search powers). I will look at the use of stop and search before the Macpherson report and after the Macpherson report and compare how it has changed. The use of stop and search powers allow the police to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, and to prevent more serious crimes occurring generally in public places like a Football match. A police officer can ask what you are doing, why you’re in an area and/or where you’re going. They also have the power to stop and search you if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect you’re carrying; illegal drugs, a weapon, stolen

The Death Penalty is a controversial topic on its own. However, if you add the possibility of a minor receiving the death penalty it gets even more interesting. The Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons was a perfect example of that. Roper v. Simmons presented the Supreme Court with two questions: 1) whether or not the execution of those who were sixteen or seventeen at the time of a crime is cruel and unusual punished and 2) does is violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. The main audience for this particular case is the general American population, and specifically affects the juvenile population.

Parties involved in the case are the Crown and the accused. The crown was represented by Mr C Thompson and his solicitors were the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions. The accused is Neil Allen Baker represented by Mr P Morrissey SC and Ms C Hollingsworth with the solicitors being The Office of Emma Turnball.

A trust can only be enforceable if it is sufficiently certain. The three certainties of a trust must coincide for a trust to become valid. Absence of any of the uncertainties makes a trust invalid from the start. The three certainties are certainty of the subject matter, certainty of intention and certainty of the objects. All these certainties must be established to make a trust valid. The purpose of the certainty requirement of trusts is to ensure compliance with the intentions of the settlor. For a trust to be enforced, there must be an individual who can compel the trustee to enforce the trust. The trust should also be capable of being implemented for the benefit of a beneficiary. The certainty requirement ensures that a trust is capable of being implemented failure to which would render the concept of trusts pointless.

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots cash chemist (Southern) Ltd was a Court of Appeal decision on the nature of an offer. The court held that a display of an item in a store with a price tag is not enough to constitute an offer. Such a display would be a mere invitation to treat.

Common law also permitted the prosecution to adduce evidence that was relevant to the accused’s guilt of the offence charged,

Evidence is the key element in determining the guilt or innocence of those accused of crimes against society in a criminal court of law. Evidence can come in the form of weapons, documents, pictures, tape recordings and DNA. According to the American Heritage College dictionary, evidence is the documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law (476). It is shown in court as an item of proof, to impeach or rehabilitate a witness, and to determine a sentence. This paper will examine two murder cases, O.J. Simpson and Daniel Taylor.

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

In the second part of the following essay I will be nominating one source of evidence that is present at the scene of a scenario. I will be discussing in my own words how Police should collate, handle and analyse the piece of evidence in a Criminal Investigation. In doing this I will be using relevant crime scene powers, NSWPF operational guidance and making reference to the Horswell (2004) reading.

I am asked by the owner of The Friday Shop and the owners of the apartments (Claimants) to write an opinion to establish if they are able to claim for damages from Boutique Bugs (Defendant) for the amount of $1,100,000 based on the elements of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.