The Case Of R. V Taylor ( 1994 ) 98 Cr App R 361

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

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.

Police officers including approximately six armed members of the “Special Emergency Response Team” forcibly entered the appellants’ (Bulsey & Anor) house. Bulsey was taken from his bed, placed on the floor, handcuffed and dragged out to the street and later charged with riotous assembly and destruction of a building. In subsequent committal proceedings, the respondent conceded it did not have a case against the first appellant. He was discharged. Bulsey (the first appellant) sued the respondent for damages for trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment). Anor (the second appellant) sued the respondent for damages for assault and false imprisonment. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ claims with costs, with judgments in favour of the respondent.

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

In August 2015, the case Miller V Davis brought to light the complicated relationship between law and morality. Indeed, Mrs Davis a county clerk in Rowan county (Kentucky), is being sued for not delivering marriage licences to same sex couples as she believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Thus, despite the fact that same-sex marriage has been made legal by the U.S Supreme Court since June 2015. Ought individuals to apply the law though it is in inadequacy with their moral beliefs? Do the law should be totally free from any moral influence? Many legal scholars have argued on these questions, as well as trying to define the terms “law” and “morality”. While no one has agreed to a universal definition, law can be defined as a “body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects”. On the other hand, morality is referred to as an “ethical wisdom” , the set of common values unifying a society. This essay will discuss the role of morality in the law, while analysing different legal school of thoughts arguing on the topic. First of all, positivists such as Bentham, Austin and Hart, argued that morality should not interfere with the law as it is created by a legitimate authority. On the other hand, naturalist theorists, such as Aristotle, Fuller and Dworkin, believed in the existence of a “higher law”, highly influenced by morals, has to be integrated in a legal system

A large contributor to the bias in the trial was the public’s bias. Before the trial began it was

In the R. v. Stinchcombe case, a lawyer was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. His former secretary was a Crown witness at the opening of the investigation. She provided relevant evidence towards the defence. Former to trial, she was interviewed by an RCMP officer and a tape‑recorded statement was taken. Far along during the progress of the trial, she again was interviewed by a police officer with a written statement taken. The defence counsel was notified of the occurrence but not of the statements. His request for a disclosure was declined. However, throughout the trial, the defence counsel acknowledge without a doubt that the witness would not be called by the Crown and required an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose the main statements to the defence. The trial continued and the accused was found guilty of breach of trust and fraud. Conditional stays were entered with respect to the theft counts. The

Christopher Simmons a 17-year-old junior in high school at the time murdered Shirley Crook, one early September morning (Oyez, p.1). Simmons was briefly acquainted with Crook previously from a past occurring car accident that had involved them both. Furthermore, Christopher did not plan alone how he wanted to accomplish his crimes. Simmons two friends Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, 15 and 16 agreed to aid Simmons in accomplishing his plan due to Simmons insisting they would get away with charges due to being minors (Roper v. Simmons, 2005,p.3). The three friends met around 2am September 9th; however at the last minute Tessmer left the scene, backing out of the murder plan. Nevertheless, Simmons and Benjamin gained access to Crook’s home through a window left open, which allowed them to unlock the back door. Mrs. Crook was in her bedroom at the time and the two juveniles duct taped her: eyes, mouth and hands closed (Roper v.

An act to amend Virginia code 20-124 paragraph two, point three and subsection F of 63.2-1202 in regards to subsection A of 18.2-61 to apply not only to convicted persons but also to an accused person when there is clear and convincing evidence of rape (Definitions; Megison; Rape; Parental, or agency, consent required; exceptions).

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.

In Griffin v.Illinois (1956) the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause indigent defendants are entitled to a trial transcript in order to facilitate appeals. Justice Black wrote: There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has. Justice Black’s opinion was probably designed to undermine the Betts special circumstances rule, replacing it with a flat requirement that the state had to provide counsel to indigents.(Zalman,2008).

As argued by Caroline Hospers, Barnett came home on January 30 looking very distraught and without the baby with her. She argues that she ‘discovered’ that Mary had left Alison all alone in the apartment to die. She has no concrete evidence to support her claims. She saw officers in Mary’s place and once she knew what had happened she concluded that Barnet had intentionally left Alison to die. According to Hospers’s statement, she always thought that Ms. Barnett was a disgrace and she was not surprised of what had happened. I feel that this preoccupation in Hospers’s mind is what made her preclude that

To critically evaluate the impact of the cases R v Bugmy and R v Munda on the existing case law.

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

“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.”