Baig v Harvie relates to the crime of threatening or abusive behaviour found in section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. This case comment will explain the relevant terms of section 38(1), and show the way in which the facts of the case constitute the offence. It will also discuss the defence created by section 38(2) and its application. Finally, it will highlight the key issue in relation to the offence; whether it was necessary to create the offence of threatening or abusive behaviour; and how the crime operates in relation to the common law crime of breach of the peace.
Mirza Baig parked his vehicle on Northland Drive Glasgow which is a restricted parking area without displaying the required parking permit.
…show more content…
Baig’s defence was that the two parking attendants were not in a state of fear or alarm and as such a breach of section 38(1) had not been committed. This argument was rightly rejected by the court. It is not a requirement of section 38(1) that Baig’s behaviour causes fear or alarm, it is sufficient if a reasonable person would be likely to suffer fear or …show more content…
However, since the landmark case of Smith v Donnelly, a ‘public element’ became a requirement for conviction for a breach of the peace. Hence, it became necessary to promulgate a law that considered crimes of this kind occurring in private spaces like homes. Section 38(1) appear particularly well suited to domestic crimes which often take place in private and where it is less likely to ‘threaten serious disturbance to the community’ .
Bringing domestic crimes under a charge of breach of the peace is not likely to lead to a conviction as in Hatcher v Harrower , where the accused subjected the complainer to a tirade of abuse in the presence of their children. The court held that the accused’s conduct was threatening or abusive and would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm. However, it did not find his behaviour capable of threatening serious disturbance to the community because their children who were the only witnesses were not considered by the court to be members of the community or
The defence argued that because the detention was unlawful, any arrest or search that flows from the detention should be regarded and was similarly unlawful. The Crown referred to common law power of arrest and search. As of R.v,Caslake’s case, it clearly stated that in the situation of an arrest, it is generally permitted that upon lawful arrest, police have the power to search a person for officer safety reason as well where there is “some reasonable prospect of securing evidence of the offence for which the accused is being arrested” and to secure that evidence. However, in the situation of Mr.Nanokeesic’s detention it is considered to be unlawful. The police did not have grounds to suspect that Mr.Nankeesic had provided a false name to them, as well, the fact that Mr.Nanokeesic ran
Chief Justice John Marshall was an intelligent man who served in the United States Supreme Court from 1801 until the year 1835. During this time, Marshall heard over 1,000 cases and wrote 519 decisions (Fox). One of the cases he heard took place in 1824, and it’s known as Gibbons v. Ogden. This case is a rather simple one, but an important one nonetheless. A problem arose when two men, named Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden, found out that they were both operating steamboat ferries along the same route. These men had both received permission to operate their steamboats from two different places. Gibbons received permission from the Federal Government, while Ogden had received his from a state government. When the case reached the Supreme Court,
In the United States Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons of 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in a five to four ruling that the death sentence for minors was considered “cruel and unusual punishment,” as stated by the Eighth Amendment, according to the Oyez Project online database. Christopher Simmons, the plaintiff, was only seventeen at the time of his conviction of murder. With the Roper v Simmons, 2005 Supreme Court ruling against applying the death penalty to minors, this also turned over a previous 1989 ruling of Stanford v. Kentucky that stated the death penalty was permissible for those over the age of sixteen who had committed a capital offense. The Roper v. Simmons is one of those landmark Supreme Court cases that impacted, and changed
DeVoe, D., 2003-2004, ‘The mental health and the criminal justice conundrum: Solutions’, Capital University Law Review, 2003-2004, pp. 925-933.
The law regarding Domestic and Family abuse states that an Act to provide for protection of a person against violence committed or threatened by someone else if a relevant relationship exists between the persons, and to make amendments to the Criminal Code, the Evidence Act 1977, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 and the Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2000 for particular purposes, and to make minor or consequential amendments to this Act and other legislation as stated in a schedule which was assented on 17 February 2012. In division 2 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act 2012 Section 8, Domestic Violence is defined as behaviour by a first person (the first person) towards another person (the second person) with whom the first person is in a relevant relationship that –
Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant's Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm. 7. The Australian Encyclopaedia.
R N Howie and P A Johnson, Annotated Criminal Legislation NSW, 2011-2102, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths 2012) 17769-1774
Pinot, S, Wardlow, G, 'Political Violence', Australian Institute of Criminology, 1989, Retrieved 15 March 2011,
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
This crime took place at different time era, where domestic violence, wasn’t brought to the attention of the courts and the public. In article written by Find law, “Domestic violence became an increasingly popular issue in the 1970s and 1980s. As awareness for violence between intimate partners grew, so did criticism on the manner in which police were responding to the issue. Many believe that police don 't take domestic violence calls seriously because police intervention would be inappropriate in what some may deem a family matter
...T., Reiner, R. (2012) ‘Policing the Police’ in The Official Handbook of Criminology. Ed. By Maguire, M., Morgan, R., Reiner, R. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 806- 838
Hodgson, Jacqueline. "Adding Injury to Injustice: The Suspect at the Police Station." Journal of Law and Society Mar. 1994: 85-101. Academic OneFile. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.
Lippman, M. (2012). Contemporary Criminal Law Concepts, Cases and Controversies (3rd ed.). [Vitalsouce Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781452277660/5/3
in criminal law and Beckett Ltd v. Lyons [1967] 1 All ER 833 the law
The criminal justice system is an existing tool for society to convict those practicing anti-social behaviour. The English legal system is under a lot of dispute given that the government can interfere with individual freedom declaring individuals to prison. Thus, the criminal justice system needs to balance competing interests from punishing the guilty to protecting the innocent. However, not every system can be upmost perfect; there have been miscarriages of justice, unlawful arrests and so on. There are remedies however, for those who abuse the system. In this essay I will critically consider the conditions for a lawful arrest.