R. V. Stinchcombe Case

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

Rinaker vs Superior Court case is a juvenile delinquency proceeding minors, Christopher G. and Huy D, are charged with committing vandalism. Minors were allegedly convicted with throwing rocks at Arsenio Torres’s car. Torres later brought a civil harassment case against the minors, which began the process of mediation in an effort to resolve the civil harassment action.

As questioning continued, she was asked about specific crimes that she had been accused of committing. After the testimony had been taken from

The criminal justice system plays a fundamental role in achieving justice, as the system aims to protect all members of the community fairly and equally. However, in the criminal case of R v Loveridge, it is evident that the justice system fails to apply the law to equally balance the needs of the victims and the community. In this case, the offender Kieran Loveridge pleaded guilty to five counts of offences; three charges of common assault, one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one charge of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, the victim being Thomas Kelly, Loveridge received 4 years’ non-parole for manslaughter, Loveridge’s total effective sentence therefore is 7 years and 2 months with an effective

Extreme sumarization of r v brown( key point of arguments used by the five judges)

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.

Although Etzewieler allegedly knew Bailey was intoxicated, he still allowed Bailey to use his vehicle while he

The primary issues in the case that were discussed were about whether it is necessary that the police officer who makes an arrest in obedience to that order also holds the suspicion, whether a judge’s delay in giving judgment can prejudice the second appellant’s case, and whether the conduct of the police and “SERT” Operatives constitutes as torts of false imprisonment or assault. (Elaborate on all 3 issues) Whether or not s 52(1) in Ch 3 of CLA precludes awards of aggravated damages. “A court can not award exemplary, punitive or aggravated damages in relation to a claim for personal injury damages.”

Canada has become a country where laws such as: assisted suicide, prostitution, and abortion are becoming easily altered by higher powers; the power of the judges. Canadian judges are changing certain laws that affect the quality of living. The question comes down to who is truly in charge of law making in Canada? The government may make the laws, but judges may reject and change the entirety laws through the use of the entrenchment of the Charter. Additionally, judicial supremacy retains their power through a paradoxical parliamentary supremacy. Furthermore appointing government officials and electing government officials plays a tremendous part in correlations to Canadian democracy. To summarize, judiciary are too powerful through the entrenchment

R.v. Feeney (1997) is a important case for the development of a Feeney warrant, which is needed for the police to enter a dwelling house. This ensures individuals have privacy at their homes from the police making forcible entries. When a suspect gets arrested and their privacy rights are infringed. The job of the courts are then to evaluate the case, and check if the appellants rights were indeed violated, if so was it because the protection of society outweigh the individual right to privacy. First, in this paper we will discuss important section numbers relating to the Feeney case which includes section 8, 10 (b), and section 24 (b). Than we will examine the ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Feeney case and how this case has impacted police in their work and assuring individuals their right to privacy. After we will look at two other cases precedent to the Feeney case that includes R.v. Godoy (1999) and R.v. Gomboc (2010). Lastly, the personal analysis section will evaluate the decisions made from the three cases, identifying whether the judges have made the correct decisions.

When Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided in 1857, it made an enormous impact on the United States. It riled up both pro- and anti-slavery Americans. It angered many Americans in an extreme example of judicial activism. Some say it made the Civil War inevitable. By the time the dust had settled and the 13th and 14th Amendments reversed the Court’s decision, Dred Scott could be considered one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. And yet, although the case was egregiously wrong, it still can be considered a “great case”.

In the book, Dred Scott v. Sandford, they discuss the Dred Scott case and the problems that arose from the case. Basically, the Supreme Court overreached its bounds in regards to the case it oversaw. The court was asked to decide on the fate of Dred Scott and his family in regards to their freedom. Instead, they overreached and decided on constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise and the overall citizenship of all those of African descent. This brought the matter of slavery to the forefront of everyone’s mind in America. It thoroughly destroyed the status quo of the North and South.

The case R.v. Flett, 2013 the defence counsel was Darren M. Sawchuk who represented the accused, Lulonda Lynn Flett and for the Crown Elizabeth Thomson represented the Her Queen The Majesty, Judgement was delivered on June 13 2013. Lulonda Lynn Flett, 41 went to a rooming house located at 288 Austin Street, Winnipeg on July 16th 2011 and set fire to a couch on the front porch. She was angry at her boyfriend’s mother for calling the police as a result of the fight she had with him, she also blamed her because of an arrest warrant, for the fight she had with her boyfriend's sister Lynette. Also Ms. Flett had said that she would “burn the house down” which she said in a fit of uncontrollable anger when she was drunk. Firefighters brought six people out of the

On December 18, 2014 a journalist Lindsey Bever from Washington Post wrote the article “It took 10 minutes to convict 14-year-old George Stinney Jr. It took 70 years after his execution to exonerate him”. George Stinney was an African American boy who was convicted of murder in his hometown of Alcolu, South Carolina when he was 14 years old and sentenced to death by the electric chair on June 16,1944. Stinney was accused of killing two young white girls that were 11-year-old Betty June Binnicker and 8-year-old Mary Emma Thames. The image of the boy sat on the electric chair, and the chair’s strap were passed through the 95-pound boy. This chair didn’t fit for him, so they used books to be placed on his seat. His eyes seem to be different from

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.