R v L [1991] HCA 48; 174 CLR 379
The respondent in the given case was facing a trial on two counts for the rape of his wife contrary to section 48 the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (S.A.) [The Act has been defined above].
The first count alleges an act of oral intercourse which doesn’t concern the judgement. The second count alleges an act of vaginal intercourse; it is that count that led to the making of an order on 15 March 1991 that "such part of the cause in action No.126 of 1990 pending in the Supreme Court of South Australia ... as involves the interpretation of the Constitution be removed into this Honourable Court". This led to the question of interpretation of the Constitution because of the existence of Section 73(3) of CLC Act 1935(State Act)
…show more content…
The respondent argued that section 114(2) preserved the ‘common wealth’ notion of conjugal rights which according to him involves that a wife by virtue of being married cannot deny to give her consent for sexual intercourse to her husband as by entering into a marriage, husband has the right to sexual intercourse and wife is obliged to submit herself to the husband.
The above argument was refuted by the prosecution stating that there is no inconsistency between the two provisions as section 114(2) is in aid of the injunctive orders that may be made pursuant to section 114(1). It was also explained that section 114(2) implies that there are or may be an obligation to perform conjugal rights but it doesn’t identify any such rights, giving statutory endorsement to them. On the other hand, section 73(3) of the State Act does no more than rebut any presumption there may be that a party to a marriage has consented to sexual intercourse with the other party to the
The applicant Mr. Arthur Hutchinson was born in 1941. In October 1983, he broke into a house, murdered a man, his wife and their adult son. Then he repeatedly raped their 18-year old daughter, having first dragged her past her father’s body. After several weeks, he was arrested by the police and chargedwith the offences. During the trial he refused to accept the offence and pleaded for innocence. He denied accepting the killings and sex with the younger daughter.
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
Article 42A.1°1- This article relates to the "natural and imprescriptable" rights of all children. It also continues to mention that the state, albeit as far as practicable, will vindicate the rights of all children. G v An Bord Uchtála2 was a case relating to Article 42.5°3 (which will now be deleted and replaced), related to the "natural and imprescriptable" rights of the child which will now be protected under Article 42A.1. This case which concerned the rights of an unmarried mother saw the Supreme Court trying to expand the rights provided for under the now replaced article with no real continuity. The previous article relating to this placed no real emphasis on State intervention except in exceptional circumstances which will now be changed following the addition of the amended articles. Another interesting aspect of this amended article is the reference to "all children". Previously marital families enjoyed a specific set of rights and it was permissible to discriminate in favour of marital families in some cases. This discrimination arises from the protection offered under Article 41.3.2°4,_________________________________________________...
Q1 THE COURT/S IN WHICH THE CASE WAS HEARD (OUTLINE THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT)
Until the 16th century, Aboriginal people were the only inhabitants of what is now Canada, hence, they were an independent and self-governing people till the Europeans had the capacity to dominate Canada's original inhabitants and possessors (Elias 1). The European Invasion brought about The 1876 Indian Act, which was developed over time through separate pieces of colonial legislation regarding Aboriginal peoples across Canada such as the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869. In 1876, these acts were consolidated as the Indian Act (Hanson). This essay aims to explain how the Indian Act tried to destroy the Aboriginal culture through residential schools and unequal recognition of women, successive acts,
R v. Keegstra: s. 2 (b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms versus s. 319 (2) of the Criminal Code
One of the issues in this case was that the Court must decide whether section 377.60, subdivision (b) contemplates a subjective or objective standard of good faith for putative spouse status. Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., 56 Cal. 4th 1113, 158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 21, 302 P.3d 211 (2013).
Many mass construction projects in the history of the United States have had a major impact on the economy and culture; however, not many of these have had as large as an impact as the Interstate Highway Act of 1956. The Interstate Highway Act revolutionized the way that we think about highways today. The act created an extremely easy mode of transportation for people across the country. Not only was the Interstate Highway Act extremely helpful in making rural and urban transportation for normal people, but it also helped commercial businesses in increasing sales across the country. These businesses were now able to transport their goods cheaper and faster. The Interstate Highway Act was tremendously beneficial in regards to its economic, social, and cultural significance. The legislation was significant economically in the way that it promoted business and cut travel costs, it was significant socially in the way that it allowed people to see friends and family even if they did not live close, and it was significant culturally in the way that it allowed people to move out to the country for low costs in order to live a happier life.
How will you contribute to the mission of the National Health Service Corps in providing care to underserved communities?
1. Legal, ethical and professional principle frameworks underpin all fields of nursing, and it is a requirement for all Registered Nurses to be competent and knowledgeable, act with integrity and maintain professional standards set out by Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC, 2015). Working with multidisciplinary teams within our profession, it is important to acknowledge and recognise the way in which all the professionals are guided by law and their independent regulatory bodies. The needs of the individual patient is to be considered by doctors and nurses alike, who share professional values and are set out in the respective codes of practice, The Code (NMC, 2015) and GMC (2013).
... if? The legal consequences of marriage and the legal needs of lesbian and gay male couples. Michigan Law review. Nov.1996. Pg. 447-491. http://www.jstor.org.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/stable/1290119?seq=1&uid=3739664&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103079482127
The National Code of Practice for the construction industry (The National Code) sets out the minimum standards construction companies have to meet to be eligible for any construction work funded by the Australian Government. It was developed jointly by the Departments of Labour Advisory and the Australian Procurement and Construction Council. The National Code has been endorsed and adopted by Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments through the Procurement and Construction Ministers Council and the Labour Ministers Council. (Council, 1999). The Fair Work Building and Construction (FWBC) are responsible for the education, monitoring, and the reporting of compliance with the National Code.
The second view is the “conjugal view”. According to the conjugal view, marriage is the union of two people (whether of the opposite sex or of opposite sex) who commit to romantically loving and caring of domestic life. It is essentially a unison of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recognize and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to raise (Girgis, George and Anderson,
[8] [8] E.g. cases 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1, 6/64 Costa v
However the Criminal Procedure Code section 226/1has recently amended a new revision. The court has the authority to permit the use of discretion. It has widened and is not as strict as the past. This section amended new revision which provides a flexible law that can be applied to the situation in each case. If the hearing of evidence benefits the justice, fundamental rights and freedoms of the people “…evidence will be more advantageous in rendering justice than being disadvantageous due to an impact on the standard of criminal justice system or basic right and liberty of