Mcdonald V Mcdonald

This event was a very unfortunate tragedy, although it was used as an opportunity to create a new legal precedent which determines whether or not a child can be convicted for crimes though to be classified as an ‘adult crime’, for example, manslaughter. Doli incapax, assumes that any child aged 10-14 is incapable of criminal intent unless proven otherwise.

An extremely colossal portion of citizens around our gracious Earth has heard of or visited a McDonald’s. With it’s thousands upon thousands of well known and family-oriented buildings placed all over the world, McDonald’s exists in over 120 countries. Compared to the quantity of people worldwide that are conscious of McDonald’s, the portion who knows about Culver’s is quite slim. Culver’s is a fairly popular restaurant that exists only in America, and not even in every state. The question is, which restaurant is overly superior? Based on the point above, as well as many others, it’s obvious that McDonald’s is the crystal clear answer. McDonald’s has a generous, positive tribute to society, extremely cheap food, and is culturally respective

Currently if a D aged 18 or over is convicted of murder, the judge must pass a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. For offenders aged 10-17 found guilty of murder, the judge must order that they are detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. The fact the sentencing is mandatory and the judge has no discretion leaves a lack of ability to sentence according to blameworthiness, unlike all other offences which have discretion in sentencing; Gotts. This lack of differentiation between blameworthiness is further emphasised by the Government’s sentencing guidelines laid down in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Under this act in cases of murders of police officers or murders involving firearms D should receive a 30 year sentence. However, in cases like that of Martin (Anthony) such a sentence would appear unjust.

The Juvenile Delinquents Act brought some positive impacts on many young people who went through the juvenile justice system. However, many flaws appeared in this Act after a period of time. "Under the JDA, there were a number of differences in provincial prohibitions, variations in maximum age limits, and a wide range of financial commitment" (Covell & Howe, 1996, p.346). The juvenile offender under this law, which built a level of discretionary regime, had few rights with regards to the welfare. In addition, according to Makarenko, there was another limit of this act – the law did not charge against children by defining different circumstances, instead, it charged children with delinquency. The law offered judges with a great deal of rights in sentencing juvenile delinquents (2007, p.2).

The decision of the jury was based on the principles of comparative negligence. McDonald's was found guilty and responsible 80% for the coffee burn. Liebeck was found responsible 20% for the occurrence of the incident. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was not large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000, and an additional $2.7 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $480,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald’s and Liebeck, and both parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.

The Case of Mason Jet Lee has been covered countrywide by many media outlets. In Queensland almost every day an article is published as the investigation unfolds. Over the last few weeks the story continues to receive intense media scrutiny as it evolved with new information coming forward. Politicians have spoken up, the public has weighed in and the Department of Child Safety has been interrogated. This report is investigates on a compilation of news stories collected in the last 4 weeks from various sources in relation to this matter. There will be a discussion on the methodology utilised in the selection of the articles on this report followed by a critical analysis of the journalism practices involved . Finally, the report will analyse the data selected based on jJournalism practice principles.

With regard to Ms. Green’s claims against O’Brien, it is apparent that Ms. Green was O’Brien’s client, and that O’Brien owed Ms. Green a duty. Should this case proceed to trial we do not anticipate that we would argue to a jury that O’Brien did not neglect this duty. Rather, there are serious questions as to whether “the negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the client.” Kendall v. Rogers, 181 Md. 606, 611-12 (1943). Indeed, the estate will have to demonstrate that Ms. Green would have prevailed in proving that one or both health care provider defendants committed medical negligence that caused her to fall into the diabetic coma.

App. Ct. Mass. App. Ct. at 341, the court reasoned that the degree of emotional distress can be inferred from the actual conduct and the circumstances, no need for an expert witness. Caddys had headaches and stomachaches and could not concentrate on work because their home was taken away from them which is not something an ordinary person could endure. Id. Similarly, Taylor felt so unsafe that he and Mya quit their jobs, he withdrew his membership from the union, and they left Massachusetts altogether because Murray was threatening their lives. No reasonable person could carry on with their life when someone is threatening to take their life. Although, Murray may argue that Taylor’s weight loss, insomnia and nervousness are not severe enough physical ailments, according to a holding in Agis, 371 Mass. Mass. at 146, absence of physical damages should not thwart a claim. Thus, the court will likely rule that Taylor’s favor on this

For instance on the same day as the historical ruling , the Ameen Jogee case was directly applied to the incident of Ahmed Ahmed aged 24 ,who was knifed at his doorstep by a group of six teenagers in 2014. The teenager was continuously knifed in the left thigh, who answered the door and was ambushed by the gang. Khalid Hashi and Hamza Dodi both had their cases disregarded surprisingly as the same day as the Ameen Jogee retrial verdict which was directly applied to their situation (Telegraph.co.uk, 2016). This suggests that parasitic accessorial liability was ruled out at this point. However Osman Mohamed was convicted for the murder of Ahmed Ahmed and was consequently sentenced for a minimum of 22 years in prison for landed the fatal blow. On the other hand, Husein Roble aged 18 and Onyema Olisa aged 20 were cleared of murder charges. Surprisingly out of the six individuals only Osman Mohammed was imprisoned for murder and Sazzad Kham for six months for breaching Antisocial Behaviour Orders . The remaining four teenagers were not prosecuted on any grounds though one has thought to have fled elsewhere. This verdict taken into consideration could indicate the negative implications the Ameen Jogee case has led to in terms of youth justice. Often it is unnoticed that Ameen Jogee was convicted for manslaughter which raises the presumption as to whether these charges could have been applied to at least few of the un-convicted individuals. Therefore problems such as the lack of justice perhaps may be an area that stems from the conclusion of the Jogee outcome. It is important to apply specific charges based on intent and not to mistake the changes of joint enterprise legislation for completely abolishing a case. The Ameen Jogee case should ensure lesser offences are applied to secondary participants when relevant, in what has been a

. The husband of the plaintiff file a petition to the court that his wife[plaintiff] is mentally ill and needs to have a court order directing the admission of her to the mental health hospital. The petition initiated by plaintiff’s husband is the order of the Wayne County probate court, and it is also appropriately certified by Doctors Wolodzko, who after appearing in her house and introducing himself as a doctor , and have a conversation with her in person that day and another day in telephone, determine that she is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and Smyk. The court gave the order and the Plaintiff was taken by ambulance from her home to a private psychiatric

malpractice and negligence. The Darling's (Plaintiff) felt that the hospital, nursing staff and emergency room doctor all played an important part in the Plaintiff losing his leg due to neglect.

Although JR was given the maximum sentence possible under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, many argue that this sentence was far too lenient (Remington & Zickefoose, 2010). In spite of her actions JR’s identity remains protected by Canadian law and, in addition, her criminal record may be cleared if she remains incident free. On the morning of April 23rd, JR acted alongside Jeremy Steinke with full intention, full awareness and full knowledge of the severity of her actions. In addition to her maximum sentence that is allowed under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, JR’s criminal record should remain permanent, and she should receive lifelong psychological treatment not only to punish and incapacitate her, but to rehabilitate her to the best of our abilities, while still protecting

Plaintiffs allege that defendants had prior knowledge that their daughter was a target for murder by a psychiatric patient and failed to warn the victim or anyone capable of stopping act. Defendants had notified campus police of patient’s intent, but after detaining him briefly, chose to release him because he “appeared rational.” Plaintiffs allege liability based on defendants’ failure to warn of impending danger, and failure to confine the patient. The Superior Court of California sustained the defendants’ demurrers to plaintiffs’ complaints. Appeal followed.

The appellant’s second submission concerned the way the judge in the first instance referenced sudden and temporary loss of self-control to the jury in the direction. The appellant submitted that this direction was incorrect. He also proposed that the learned Judge’s direction regarding the appellant’s characteristics in an attempt to use the model set by Lord Diplock in DPP v Camplin. The counsel for the appellant criticized the learned judges direction on two grounds: Firstly, that the Judge did not mention that the appellant was suffering from a condition known as the battered woman’s syndrome which so affected her personality that it put her in a state of learnt helplessness. Secondly, that the list of characteristics should have been left open so that the jury may pick up on the fact that she suffered from a

‘R v Stone; R v Dobinson’ is significant as it addresses the point of ‘duty of care’ and the outcome was described as “highly controversial because of the low capabilities of the two accused” . Appellant Gwendoline Dobinson was treated differently to appellant John Edward Stone due to her gender. Dobinson was expected to care for Fanny due to women being the “primary care-givers in domestic relationships” , proving that “the rule on voluntary undertaking of responsibility potentially remains structurally gendered” . The case was dealt within the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal by Geoffrey lane LJ, Neild and Croom-Johnson JJ. The appeals against conviction were dismissed although the appeal by Stone against his sentence was allowed, altering his sentence. The decision was also influenced namely “whether in a case of manslaughter it is necessary to prove that the defendant was reckless as to whether the victim would suffer death of serious bodily harm” .