The law relating to spousal compellability. In 1940 Wigmore observed spousal compellability has a long history wrapped ‘in tantalizing obscurity’. Whereas Lord Wilberforce also states that to allowed a spouse to give evidence would rise to discord and perjury of the law which would be to ordinary people repugnant . These are two distinct opinions highlighting the fact that spousal compellability is a highly debatable area of law. Under section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 spouses are non-compellable unless the offence is one which is specified. However this spousal compellability has sparked intense criticisms and renders the justification questionable. By utilising relevant source, academic opinions and case authority, …show more content…
”
This is the basic rule that spouses should not be compellable to testify against their husbands, that the preservation of the matrimonial harmony of husband and wife is very important as two souls in one flesh. Marriage is a fundamental institution of the society and it’s the utmost respect, the institution of marriage has a greater importance to public interest rather than the outcome of judicial result . The New Zealand Commission noted that distress will be caused if a wife is compel to give evidence against her husband and this was supported by Lord Salmon were he comments that “it seems to me altogether inconsistent with the common law’s attitude towards marriage that it should compel a wife to give evidence against her husband and thereby destroy the marriage.” Allowing a wife to give evidence may incriminate her husband and furthermore it might put her in a state of risk in there matrimonial home, and it will also create a greater function of perjury in criminal proceedings. A wife is only compellable if the ‘offence is specified.’ PAEC s. 80 lays down further rules under the criminal charges related to specified offences as fellows.
If the offence charge is a ‘specified offence’ the wife is compellable not only against the husband, but also against a co-defendant ‘but in respect of any
Linda Jordan wants to know if Tod Wood, her current partner, will be able to prove that a common-law marriage had been established. Under Montana common-law courts have held that the party claiming a common-law marriage must prove: “(1) that the parties were competent to enter into a marriage; (2) that the parties assumed a marital relationship by mutual consent and agreement; and (3) that the parties confirmed their marriage by cohabitation and public repute.” Barnett v. Hunsaker (In re Estate of Hunsaker), 968 P.2d 281, 285 (Mont. 1998). (Citing In re Estate of Alcorn, 868 P.2d 629, 630 (Mont. 1994)). There is no doubt that Ms.
The case of Jonah v White (2012) 48 FAM LR 562 wishes to appeal the original decision of Murphy J, in which his Honour asserted that the appellant, (“Ms Jonah”) and the respondent (“Mr White”) had not been in a de-facto relationship in correspondence with the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). The appeal is bought before May, Strickland and Ainslie-Wallace JJ in the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Brisbane. The case seeks to question and determine what constitutes a law-binding de-facto relationship.
In some circumstances the statement can be used as evidence without the support of the victim and the final decision in regards to continue with the prosecution will depend on the CPS and police seriousness of the crime and available evidence. It may be decided it’s in the public interest despite the wishes of the victim.
Fundamental to the Scottish legal system is discovering the truth. In Scotland, a defendant has to be presumed innocent until proven guilty . The burden of proof lies with the Crown, who must prove their case against a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. From the very beginning of the criminal process - the arrests of the suspect - until the very end - the conviction of the defendant - the state are empowered with many rights, such as the power to detain , which assist them in reaching the truth. Although the state are provided with these rights, there are limitations placed on them in the form of the rights of the defendant, such as the right to remain silent or the right to defend themself either in person or through legal
The current system revolves around the five facts which due to their nature have been criticised as “a mixed bag of separation and fault-based facts at best illogical and at worst destructive”. However, the current system has its reasons for operating the way it does. It encourages reconciliation but at the same time discourages a clean break which is one of the central aims within divorce law. With an increasing number of divorces the law must adopt to different social, economic and cultural circumstances and is bound to change as the requirements of our ever more complex society
Now this one is a bit trickier than the other. To give proper advice would be giving legal advice. Mrs. Smith would have to know the ins and outs of divorce when it comes to adultery and Polly legally cannot supply the answer. Once again, Polly has the responsibility to let Mrs. Smith know that she is not a lawyer and she can’t give any legal advice. Information that involves the grounds for any law suit of any matter is considered legal advice. Although Mrs. Smith may feel that a simple yes or no will not hurt Polly, it will. One thing Polly can do that is not UPL is to advise Mrs. Smith to seek legal representation [ (Orlik, 2007) ]. This action can save Polly a lot of hassles and the chance of getting disciplined.
Out of the shadows and into the limelight, the once hidden crime of domestic violence has recently emerged within the Australian community as a widespread criminal issue. This abuse of power occurs in a relationship when one partner attempts to physically or psychologically dominate and control the other. Inflicting physical harm upon another human being is undoubtedly a breach of the criminal law, yet the Australian legal system takes little measures to protect the wider community from this type of violence. According to Family Lawyer Richard Ingleby, domestic violence has often been condoned by the legal system due to the fact that assaults occur in the ‘private’ realm of the home where legal measures are regarded as inappropriate, and interventionist. However, by overlooking domestic violence as a criminal offence, does the Australian legal system fail to adequately protect the family unit from this form of violence? Recent studies from the Australian Bureau of Statics have revealed that 23% of women who have ever been married or engaged in a de facto relationship have experienced violence by a partner at some time during the relationship. Due to the secrecy that once surrounded this kind of abuse, victims often feel unable to speak out and seek help, therefore even large surveys cannot provide accurate estimates of the extend of domestic violence within the Australia community (Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre, 1998). Despite the high incidence rate of
In the novels written by Charlotte Gilman and Kate Chopin, the concept of marriage is contradicted from the romanticized relationship to a notion of imprisonment. Through the feminist perspective the reader gains a sense in which marriage may be the primary cause to gender oppression. In “The Yellow Wallpaper” Gilman’s central figure, who is unknown to the reader, is metaphorically imprisoned in a house in which the warden is her own husband. In contrast to this Chopin’s Character, Louise Mallard, gains a sense of liberation from a bleak marriage. It is clear that there two works illustrate how the characters are imprisoned through marriage. In both works there is a fine-line between the concept of domesticity and masculinity that ties
The law relating spousal compellability. In 1940 Wigmore observed spousal compellability has a long history wrapped ‘in tantalizing obscurity’. Whereas Lord Wilberforce also states that to allowed a spouse to give evidence would rise to discord and perjury of the law which would be to ordinary people repugnant . These are two distinct opinions highlighting the fact that spousal compellability is a highly debatable area of law. Under section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 spouses are non-compellable unless the offence is one which is specified. However this spousal compellability has sparked intense criticisms and renders the justification questionable. By utilising relevant source, academic opinions and case authority, I will critically evaluate and consider all arguments concerning spousal compellability and include whether or not I think it is justifiable.
Family law is the most complex aspect of the Australian legal system as it is constantly under review and reform pursuing to adopt society’s continual change in values and principles. The changing of laws in an attempt to be parallel with society is a strenuous process. Nevertheless, legislations are reflective of contemporary society’s values and ethics. Numerous legal issues arise in regards to family including, same sex relationships, domestic violence and divorce ideally on the best interest of the child, where family laws have been imposed to protect individuals and aim to achieve justice.
This is seen in R v Holt, R v Bird where even though the defendants withdrew their statements because of fear, the Court upheld their conviction of contempt . Even with section 116 2E of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (provision for hearsay on fear which allows a person to use a statement as their evidence) , women were still prosecuted. This is seen in R v A where A was charged and convicted of perverting the course of justice by withdrawing her statement against her husband . What this shows is that the rules of evidence did not protect the victims of domestic violence as one can argue that the Criminal Justice Act does not address the shame, emotional abuse and the fear of reputation damage the victims of domestic violence face. However, it can be argued that section 116 2E has its advantages as it makes the defendant who instils violence to plead guilty. Yet, can this be said to be advantageous? If the defendant pleads guilty he/she gets a sentencing discount. One can question the message this sends out to defendants. Also, it can be argued that the provision for hearsay contradicts the rights of the defendant under article 6 (3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights which states that there should be examination of witnesses . The introduction of statements being used as evidence makes this requirement difficult. Nevertheless, it can be said that the court must balance
What law is applicable to the determination of the competency of the wife of the petitioner as a
This essay will critically analyse the significant changes that have occurred within domestic violence which is viewed as a vital subject within the criminal justice system. It will explore the way that domestic violence has progressively become a concerning issue in the criminal justice system from being relatively acceptable in recent history. In addition to this, the essay will explore legislation changes in relation to domestic violence and how the police have arguably been forced to change their attitudes towards a problem that was once thought of as a private regard. It will critically analyse the theories put forward as to why domestic violence occurs in today’s society. It will explore the weaknesses within the criminal justice system, especially the police in regards to domestic violence, the police previously viewed domestic violence as a matter of which they should not get involved. However as mentioned in the essay, after many reviews within the system, many improvements have been made to help protect the victim.
Common law also permitted the prosecution to adduce evidence that was relevant to the accused’s guilt of the offence charged,
In the statement, it is mentioned that the great strength of the common law lies in its capacity to develop to meet the changing needs and circumstances of the society in which it functions. A case to illustrate this point would be W v Registrar of Marriages [2013] HKCFA 39 (CFA).