White V Woolcock Case Study

Legal citation of the case: Regina v Bilal Skaf; Regina v Mohammed Skaf [2006] NSWSC 394, 28 July 2006 AND amendment to this decision with the appeal: R v Skaf & Skaf [2008] NSWCCA 303, 17 December 2008

4. In my opinion, the decision that was made by the court is not the best. Assessing the constitutionality of the situation, Abramski did not make a false statement because with his purchase he was the legal owner of the gun and later legally transferred ownership to his

Further, he argued that the third statement was admissible to rebut the Crown’s allegation of recent fabrication. The court accepted the first submission and ordered a new trial. The court ruled that edited portions of those statements bearing upon the appellant’s state of mind were properly admissible as an exception to the rule against the admissibility of prior consistent statements. This court rejected the second argument on the ground that the Crown had not alleged recent fabrication. The appellant submits that the trial judge failed to put the defense position on automatism fairly before the jury telling to be sceptical of the defense, also mischaracterizing the evidence of Dr.kolito and failing to instruct the jury that the absence of motive had a bearing on the defense of

Beyle’s reason for appeal is that the district court had insufficient jurisdiction over any charges with relation to murder (Counts being 16, 17, 18, and 19) and as well as the consequent use of any firearms (Counts being 22, 23, 24, and 25) due to the primary actions arising within Somalia’s territorial waters and not on high seas.

The miscellaneous ammunition was placed in a box, sealed and weighed. The box of ammunition weighed 10.8 pounds. A property receipt was completed. The box of ammunition and the original copy of the property receipt was placed in a Property Evidence locker located in District II. I forwarded copies of the property receipt to Records and CID.

In 2005, Congress sanctioned a law that vaccinates weapon merchants and producers from obligation for wounds bringing about the "criminal or unlawful abuse" of a gun. The law approved rejection of any pertinent pending claims and precluded future

This case was heard in the Victorian Supreme Court. This court is able to exercise original jurisdiction in all criminal matters. Original jurisdiction refers to the Victorian Supreme Court’s authority to hear and determine serious criminal cases for the very first time. Furthermore the Victorian Supreme can appeal criminal cases from lower courts and hear or appeal civil cases.

HISTORY: Plaintiff appealed from summary judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco in favor of defendant.

In the 2013 case of Doulgerakis v. Commonwealth, In October 2011, Mr. Doulgerakis was stopped for a traffic violation. When asked if he had anything in his glove box that would concern the police officer, Mr. Doulgerakis responded that he had a handgun in the glove compartment. The glove box was closed and latched, but not locked. The police officer removed the handgun and charged Mr. Doulgerakis with carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. At trial, the Commonwealth argued that the firearm was not "secured" within the meaning of the statute because the gun was readily accessible to appellant for prompt and immediate use, which is precisely

During the 2008 case of The District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has the right to establish restrictions on the commercial sale of firearms and supports on the prohibition of carrying dangerous and unusual weapons. Demonstrating that “Infringement” is not a statement exempt from federal or state government ability to regulate firearms. Assault rifle class weapons present a challenge to both sides when defining the type of weapon the best fits the requirements for self-protection or sport, two requirements that assault weapons do not fulfill.

The case was then taken to the Supreme Court of New South Wales under s 119 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW) , where the Court decided in Norrie’s favour. It was stated that,

Weapon control laws facilitate the proprietorship and buy of weapons, which melds the sorts of firearms that might be controlled, sitting tight periods required for obtaining, and depiction of people who are constrained from owning guns (statelaws.com). Each state has their own stand-out weapons control law. This paper will examine the broad assortment of weapon laws, and besides answer the demand guns control laws affect criminal advancement. As an inhabitant whom have their weapon give, it principal to be astoundingly prepared and in like manner safe here in this world. There is a truism while growing up about weapon don't execute individuals, individuals butcher individuals. As a known Tennessee tenant, the weapon law here is such a remarkable measure of not precisely the same as Arkansas which is 10 minutes outside Memphis, Tn. In where I grew up Tennessee issues licenses for the stowed away or open pass on of handguns, yet not stacked long firearms. While Tennessee firearm control laws are generally delicate, the state requires singular examinations for weapon buys from endorsed sellers and has some other constrained restraints. Tennessee no more requires a 15-day sitting tight period for firearm buys

They further cited their defence within s.38(2) , but this was not the defence used, as they did not have enough evidence.

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.

This is an application to deny the appeal against a ruling in the case of R. v. MacDonald. The appellant, Mr. Erin Lee MacDonald, is seeking to appeal against his trial judge’s decision to uphold his ss. 86 and 88 Criminal Code convictions. The case pertains also to ss. 95 of the Criminal Code of Canada and s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When police answered a noise complaint at MacDonald’s Halifax resident, Mr MacDonald initially swore at Cst. Pierce and slammed his door shut. A few minutes later, MacDonald reopened his door just enough for Sgt. Boyd to spot a “shiny black object” in MacDonald’s right hand. After Boyd asked MacDonald to identify the object two times, he pushed the door open a few