The Human Rights Act By Viscount Sankey Essay

The purpose of this report is to discuss the matter The Queen V Bayley, which took place on the 29th of September 2012. Adrian bailey (serial rapist) was found guilty on charges of murder and rape, this report will discuss in detail the court proceedings that lead up to the imprisonment of Adrian Bayley and also the events prior to the kidnapping of Jill Meagher. The purpose of this report is to discuss the purpose of law in our society and how it applies to people who commit crimes in our community. As well as the purpose of criminal law in our community.

A controversial aspect of the criminal justice system is the Crown’s use of discretion when it decides to make charge negotiations. This means that the crown offers the accused a lesser charge should they plead guilty to it. In doing so, the crown benefits from the assured conviction (maintaining peace and security by an efficient means) and the accused benefits from a lesser sentence. However by employing powers of discretion in this case and making a deal with offenders, is seems to be at the expense of victims as there if insufficient retribution. The case of Nannette May (2009) epitomises the concern of victims, as May was not given a chance to give evidence against her attacker due to his acceptance of a

According to the woolmington principle the burden of proof is lie on the prosecution and till the end of the trial, the accused (criminal procedure) is presumed to be innocent

``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the

In order to understand how much the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has truly changed our nation for the better, we have to look back in history at the first form of the Charter that we have today. This was known as the Bill of Rights, which was introduced by Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker in 1960. Its preamble contains the Parliament of Canada, “affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principals that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions.” It also guarantees that people remain free only when moral and spiritual values and the rule of law are respected. This Bill sounded good at the time, but had many flaws

In today’s America, it is a constant debate: Do we have true equal rights? The obvious answer to most people is no, and we probably never will. Though some people seem to live in ignorant bliss, thinking that everything is going well and everyone is being treated fairly, they are wrong. The theme of not having adequate human rights is commonly shown through the unjustness in documents one, three, and five.

As William Blackstone, famous English jurist of the 18th century, said: it is "a universal maxim of the common law of England that no man is brought to jeopardy of his life or limb more than once for the same offence". The principle of double jeopardy that Blackstone refers to here has existed in the English law for over 800 years, and is based on two fundamental principles that are autrefois acquit and autrefois convict. Thus, the amendments brought by Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are a huge innovation for the English (and Welsh) system of justice. This essay will consider the changes made to the principle of double jeopardy and question whether these new amendments have bettered our system of justice. In order to do so, it will first analyze the exact alterations that were made to the principle of double jeopardy. Then, it will examine why the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did not meet the government's objectives of "rebalancing" the criminal justice in favor of victims. Finally, we will consider how in reality, this Act did indeed improve the criminal justice system.

There are two kinds of rules of evidence in common-law jurisdictions. The first, which deals with what kinds of evidence may get to the jury when and in what form, can be understood without much reference to nonjury developments. The second deals with the evaluation by the jury of the evidence, and how it is to decide whether there is sufficient probative evidence to justify a verdict. Such rules are drawn from the culture's general understanding of how we "know" things to be true. This paper deals with this second variety and

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

Recent statistics within the United Kingdom show that still there are a high number of innocent people being convicted of crimes they did not commit. There have been a number of highly publicised cases over the years which concern wrongful convictions of the accused. This would stress that there is a need for the primary concern of the laws of evidence should be focussed on protecting the accused against being wrongfully

In line with the increasing trend to find in favour of the plaintiff, where liability of public authorities is involved, the High Court (‘the Court’) held that the appellants (‘CSY, Michael and others’) were assaulted by the respondents (‘The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and another’), prison officials at the Silverwater Prison of South Wales. The Court’s reasoning, principles and ultimately its decision in CSY, Michael and others (Appellants) v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and another were logical in light of the well-established common law principle. However, this paper proposes

Information regarding whether or not a person has a previous conviction falls into character evidence. Character evidence essentially refers to the evidence of reputation and may show that the defendant was unlikely to have committed the offence charged . Ever since the beginning of criminal trials in the UK, a defendant’s character has been of significant importance, whether that be because they are a model citizen or not . Cockburn C.J for instance has said that allowing such evidence shows "the tendency and disposition of the prisoner's mind" and is also confirmed by Erle C.J who says that character evidence should be "admissible for the purpose of showing the disposition of the party accused" . Character evidence can make a huge impact upon a case may be enough to turn a reasonably strong case into a very strong one . There are two types of character evidence – good and bad character evidence. However, throughout this essay I will be focusing on the former and looking at how the directions that may be followed after the case of Vye can be considered to be unjust. I

create an understanding and response to this statement, I will first explain the legislation that police have to abide by when it comes to the treatment and rights of a suspect before they have turned into the ‘defendant’. This will have a main focus on Code A and Code C within the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 and parts of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (CJPOA) 1994. I will then address the two models of criminal process created by H. Packer; these models both have different values and create a debate on whether the rights of the defendant should be protected rather than the victim. The Human Rights Act 1998 will then be used to show that it can be used to help terrorists stay in the United Kingdom. To conclude I will give my opinion on the statement and explain how the research I have found backs it up.

The early Persian Empire was governed by Cyrus the Great. Cyrus was a brilliant, powerful, and thoughtful Persian king that wanted to enlarge the Persian kingdom by conquering nearby lands and then tried to unite them into one empire. Throughout Cyrus skillful leadership and strong military, he was able to create a huge empire that lasted for more than two hundred years. Cyrus was very skilled ruler that does everything the right. He take up a policy of toleration toward the people he goes against. For instance, he accepted them to speak their own native languages, practice their own rituals and religions, and stick to their own old ways. He had so many respected for those people that he announced the first Charter of Human Rights. This charter was the one that set forth Cyrus’ goals and policies. Since, he was a well-respected man among the people that helped him create a peaceful and stable empire for the people to live. Cyrus built was the one that built the foundation of mail system. Then after his deceased, Darius built a communication network that connected to all the 20 provinces which helped the Persian Empire tremendously.

There was a “famous” case of Woolmington stating: “no matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution