The Case Of Southwark Crown Court

Trial by jury can be traced back to the 12th Century and has been an integral part of the criminal justice system since Henry II favoured it over trial by ordeal (Davies, Croall and Tyrer 2010, p.311). Although they are used in both crown court trials and civil cases, the introduction of the Administration of Justice Act 1933 has reduced the use of juries in civil cases significantly (Joyce 2013, p.208). However, they are only used in about one third of cases in the Crown Court (Huxley-Binns and Martin, p.220). Since the 19th Century, the statutory provisions for jury service have been amended and revised considerably resulting in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Throughout this essay I will be firstly discussing who is eligible to sit on a

In the human services field it’s likely workers will have contact with the court and legal system. The differences in the human services profession and the legal systems can become challenging for workers. Such as dissimilarities in prerogatives and values, prove this challenge for human services workers (Kennedy, Richards, & Leiman, 2013). Human service work practice requires an understanding of social policy’s impact in specific areas. As practitioners grasping how theories concerning fundamental principals of social policy have implications for human services agencies and for the individuals who are the users of the services (Carson & Kerr, 2014). This paper will discuss a case observed at Beenleigh Magistrates Courthouse. It will also look at the multiple roles and responsibilities of Human Service professionals appearing in the legal system, as well as the importance of ethical writing and possible tensions between the legal system and human services profession.

This is a case of a trespassing drug distributor and his blatant disregard of national park camping rules and regulations. (R.1-2,4-5,9.) At issue is whether the trial court properly denied Appellant Thom Yorke’s motion for a new trial. (R.1,4.) Yorke claims the court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized from his tent. (R.1,12.) The trial court correctly found that Yorke’s expectation of privacy in his tent was not objectively reasonable. (R.3.) Thus, the warrantless search and seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the motion to suppress was properly denied. (R.1,4,12.)

" The case involves gun ownership rights in relation to gun ownership and use in the state of Massechutes. Private gun ownership and self defence has been a bone of of contention in legislative and judicial platforms in the US. Individual states have various legislation relating to gun ownership that are in effect in the respective states. The ownership and use of guns by individual have varied implication. A citizen 's right to feel safe and secure is enshrined in the constitution and the acquisition of weapons by individuals for their private protection has been a subject of debate due to reckless use,

Sheriff Raids House to Find Online Critic. This is about investigators seizing computers and cellphones from Wayne Anderson’s house. They say he is a blogger who is defaming insurance agent Tony Alford in several blog posts. Anderson’s attorney, "I don't want to have to worry about getting falsely arrested or having a bogus search warrant executed on me or anyone else, just because we exercised our constitutional rights,"That's not the society we're supposed to be living in."

On November 2, 2000 Erma Stewart was arrested along with twenty six others because authorities were under the suspicion that they had been involved with the distribution of an illegal substance. Stewart was jailed and had her bond set to $70,000. She was then appointed a public defender to handle her case. However, Stewart claims that the attorney pressured her into pleading guilty despite her insistence that she was innocent. After spending a month in jail with the knowledge that her children had no to look after them, due to her being a single parent, Stewart conceded and plead guilty to the charges. She was made to pay a fine of $1,000 and was sentenced to 10 years of probation.

Kelo v. New London (2005) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. This seemly local conflict that began in Fort Trumbull would ultimately trouble the conscience of an entire nation. The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut of privately own real property, so that it could be used to promote economic development.

The case was heard at Manchester Crown Court on 8th December 2014. The defendant was convicted of handling and exchanging of indecent images, including recorded CDs with sexual acts, classified as range A, B and C with children aged between 8 and 10; being contrary to s45 and 46 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 3 years of community order, including mandatory attending to sexual problems, regulatory behaviour and alcohol misuse helper groups, and 12 months of community payback. The judge considered the defendant’s previous sentences and needs, and the level of risk of possible victims. This report explores the police powers given to examine and recollect evidence. The report will also look at the accountability mechanism of the police in order to come with a conclusion whether they should be given extra powers or should there be a higher level of accountability. It then considers the Probation Service and the difficulties that rise in fulfilling its aims as well as maintaining the public credibility. It begins by questioning how realistic the achievement of ‘public protection’ is. It follows with an analysis of the two main aims, rehabilitation and reduction of crime, as approaches directing to fully protect the public. Then proceeds to examine the argument that joining forces between the professionals involved in criminal justice and the community at risk is needed in order to a proper protection to the public.

In our modern-era of a technology based democracy, most if not all (people) are exposed to trials by jury’s in diverse forms of media. Less than often, we rarely give these legal inquiries a second thought but every so often there comes a trial that captures our attention and we become apprehended until a verdict is handed down. This sequence has been continued throughout centuries and regardless of the lack of media, in the past there were still specific trials that everybody spoke of. The treatment of the defendant by the courts has always been under scrutiny and either criticised for being too compassionate or too abrasive (?). It is rare as most prefer a skillful lawyer to defend them but it does happen that defendants do represent themselves

Undoubtedly, the use of unpaid lay justices is cheap, not only because they are unpaid but also the cost of the trial itself is much less expensive than in the Crown Court. In 1999, the Home Office Research and Planning Unit estimated the average cost of a contested trial in the Magistrates’ Court at £1,500 and a guilty plea at £500. The comparative figures for the Crown Court were £13,500 and £2,500 respectively. However, part of this difference is due to the fact that cases in the Crown Court are more complex and therefore likely to take longer; but even so, it is clear that the cost both to the Government and to defendants who pay for their own lawyer is much higher in the Crown Court.

Most likely not. The reasoning underlying the court’s choice in the case was, in part, that “the State’s prohibition of the labels does not materially advance its asserted pursuits in insulating youth from vulgarity and is not narrowly tailored to the pastime regarding children.”The court’s reasoning was supported in part through the truth that kids cannot purchase beer. If the label advertised toys, however, the court’s reasoning would possibly have been different.

For the purpose of this report, visits have been made to the Supreme Court of Victoria on Thursday, 3rd of March 2016. The Supreme Court is located at 210 William Street, Melbourne. The court visits are an essential experience for students taking part in law studies to further familiarise with the Australian court system through actual participation in court proceedings. This report will aim to provide a reflective discussion on the experiences and observations encountered at the Supreme Court visits and also the overall structural system of the court system. The court hearing which will be examined in this report is the trial of Fai Sing Yiu accused of stabbing a father of four to death at lunchtime in Melbourne’s Chinatown over a $24,000

The principle of open justice is a vital characteristic of the court system. Lord Atkinson in Scott v Scott noted that public trials are ‘the best security for the pure, impartial, and efficient administration of justice, the best means of winning for it public confidence.’ Similarly, Gibbs J in Russell asserted that this principles ensures ‘the proceedings of every court are fully exposed to public and professional scrutiny, without which abuses may flourish undetected’. It follows that the media ordinarily has a right to report on Court proceedings. This entitlement has been described as a fundamental necessity ‘given that ‘few members of the public have the time, or the inclination, to attend courts.’. Nevertheless, the law has

The High Court of Australia will inevitably be subject to some criticism and media scrutiny surrounding their decisions on contentious cases. Whilst there are many limitations on the power of judicial review, it is within the High Court's power to override the legislation of elected governments, or declare the legislation invalid. Therefore, criticisms of High Court decisions which come into conflict with legislation made by parliament are largely unjustified.

The Merriam-Webster 's Learner 's Dictionary defines jurisdiction as the power, right, or authority to interpret, apply, and declare the law (as by rendering a decision) (Merriam-Webster, 2015a). In order for a court to make a decision in any case, the court must have several types of jurisdiction. The appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors.