On March 22 2009, 29 year old Anthony Zervas was bashed to death with a bollard by the national president of the Comanchero motorcycle gang, Mick Hawi at Terminal 3 in Sydney Airport. He was found guilty of murder and affray and was sentenced to 28 years in prison with a non-parole period of 21 years on May 2009.
After serving 5 years in prison and 40 days in maximum security over the crime, Hawi appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal on 18 July 2013. Hawi appealed for four main reasons - insufficient evidence of Hawi’s involvement in the murder of Anthony Zervas, unreasonable verdict in charging Hawi for the main perpetrator’s case, miscarriage of justice and disregarding ‘provocation’ to the jury. The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal set
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
On 14th September 1984, he was convicted of provoked burglary, three murders and rape at Sheffield crown court. The applicant was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment by the trial judge and recommended a minimum tariff of 18 years to the secretary of state for
Mr. Bradford was sentenced to two and a half years in state prison for assault and filed a lawsuit from Ogdensburg Correctional Facility, implying that he would not have received a state prison sentence if not for the warrantless search of his residence. He was released from prison under parole supervision in February 2014. Bradford has not contacted the court about his lawsuit since November 2014. In July, Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks recommended that the action be dismissed because Mr. Bradford, who acted as his own attorney, had not advised the court of his change of address or provided any reason why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Judge David N. Hurd dismissed the case. Bradford claimed that he was forced into pleading guilty in County Court when a judge advised him of the potential years of incarceration he would face in the event he was convicted of assault following trial. He also claimed that the County Court sentenced him without the benefit of a presentence report. The appellate court rejected his
Ngo appealed the Court of Criminal Appeal for an extension of time to appeal against his life sentence. Judge Dunford handed down his decision in which he refused to grant an extension of time, however, in doing so, he considered carefully whether such an appeal would succeed. He found that such an appeal would fail.
... The offenders’ rights to a fair trial were upheld under s 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1980) which can be seen in that she had adequate time to prepare her defence (1 year, 8 months and 27 days) and that she had the right to presumed innocent until proven guilty. The offender also had adequate legal representation and didn’t require any legal aid.
The trial was slow and tedious. Chikatilo was placed in a cage, not to keep him from escaping, but to keep him safe from his victim’s family members. He was disruptive and maniacal for the entirety of the trial. He even had to be removed during the reading of the verdict because he continued to interrupt. He made absurd comments throughout the trial including that he was pregnant and the guards were hitting him in the stomach to make him lose the baby. On October 15, 1992, Andrei Chikatilo was found guilty of fifty-two counts of murder and was handed fifty-two separate death sentences. On February 14, 1994, he was executed by a single shot to the back of the neck.
This is offered to provide an incentive for “good behaviour” and ultimately rehabilitation during a sentence. The granting and restriction of parole is outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and allows those with sentences of more than three years to be released after they have served their minimum sentences. The encouragement of rehabilitation upholds the rights of the community and offender, as the offender’s rights are not undermined by through excessively restricting their freedoms and the reintroduction of the rehabilitated offender into society minimises the threat of reoffending. However, the reward of parole for some offenders has resulted in community dissatisfaction. The Age article “Adrian Bayley should not have been on parole” represents a social concern regarding the leniency of parole for violent sexual offenders. The release of the evidently non-rehabilitated offender resulted in a breach of parole and the sexual assault and murder of Jill Meagher, a 29 year old Melbournian woman. As a result of the injustice of the lenient decision and subsequent community retaliation, new parole laws were introduced in Victoria during 2014. This legislation is outlined in the Corrections Amendment (Parole) Act 2014, and the penalty for breaching parole includes up to three months jail and/or a $4200 fine. Thus, there is greater justice for the victim and especially the community through the discouragement of crime for offenders who may not be rehabilitated and are released on
Antonio Zambrano-Montes was the man shot and killed by Franklin County police. Antonio was throwing rocks
He was sentenced to twenty years. In Honolulu, a man was beaten to death by a group of teenagers in a public shower because they believed he was gay. They were sentenced to five years in custody. In September, a transgender female was stabbed repeatedly with a broken beer bottle and set on fire. Christopher Lopez and Christopher Chavez spent five months in jail before all charges were dropped by the Fresno Police Department.
him guilty as he broke the law by taking the life of another human being.
Many say he’s innocent, but others say he got exactly what he deserved. Adnan Syed, a seventeen year old boy at the time was arrested for the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee. Nearly 18 years later, the alibi’s Adnan had became inconclusive after Asia Mcclain claimed she was forced to write the letters to aide Adnan. At the age of 35, Adnan Syed, is still fighting to prove his innocence with the help of a family friend, Rabia.
It was October 6, 1998 when he was lured from the bar that cold, fateful night. His skull was smashed with a pistol butt as he was lashed to a fence, left for dead in near freezing temperatures. Nearly eighteen hours later he was found by passersby and taken to a hospital where he remained in a coma for several days until slowly slipping away. At his funeral, picketers carried signs saying, "God Hates Fags" and "Fags Deserve to Die."
...degree murder for violating the state law #13-1105. He has been found guilty for committing the crime of King Duncan, Banquo, and Macduff’s family. As a consequence, his punishment is as follows: he must serve 25 years to life in prison. If he attempts to escape, he will be sentenced to death and no remorse will be shown. He has already done enough killing and it is time for him to face the consequences.
The jury deliberated for five hours and returned a verdict of guilty on 15 counts of murder. Dahmer was sentenced to 15 life terms, a total of 937 years in prison. At his sentencing Dahmer calmly read his four page statement to the court.
On the 21st of October 2014, at 10:30 am, Judge Thokozile Masipa in the high court of Pretoria, gave Pistorius the verdict of his case. The prosecution wanted maximum for murder, which could possible be a life sentence but they were willing to take as much as they could get. Judge Masipa ruled on the case and gave Pistorius six years for culpable homicide, also known in the United States as, manslaughter. This means that he unintentional but unlawfully killed Reeva. Judge Masipa said, Pistorius was “a fallen hero, who has lost his career, and been ruined financially. He cannot be at peace” (Burke). The evidence presented convinced Judge Thokozile Masipa that Pistorius would never kill again and never meant to kill Reeva in the first place. The judge stressed that the “court should not be swayed by public opinion but punishment must also reflect seriousness of the offense” (Burke). Unlike many across the world, the judge did her best to see Pistorius as just the regular man and ensured him a fair trial. She stated that the court truly believed that the “prosecutors failed to prove he showed ‘intent’ to kill” (Patel). This ruling was a relief for Pistorius and his family and after the six month trial, to them it felt as if the judgement of the world was no longer upon them (Burke). After the sentencing, Pistorius was sent to Kgosi Mampuru Correctional Services prison in