More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and contrast criminal and civil law
Compare and contrast criminal and civil law
Compare and contrast criminal and civil law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The application of Browne v Dunn is established in Australia in both civil and criminal cases, however its appliance in the criminal ones differs. There is some vagueness as to when precisely the rule is breached and the penalties that apply to a party in breach. The question that arose recently is whether Browne v Dunn applies to criminal proceedings at all. The case of MWJ v R confirmed that Browne v Dunn applied to criminal proceedings in Australia, despite some differences in judicial reasoning. The case was further followed by R v MAP which moreover elaborates certain aspects of the following rule. Gleeson j and Heydon J stated that “the requirement is accepted and applied day by day in criminal trials”. One of the principles the High court articulated was that the rule must be applied with caution, when considering the conduct of the defense, this was emphasized with reference to the cases of R v Birks and R v Manunta. …show more content…
Where as in the case of R v Manunta , he stated that where an apparent non-compliance with Browne v Dunn was followed by judicial comment to the jury, it is vital to consider the substance of the comment, as the purpose of the comment may differ based on circumstances. Furthermore, the case of R v MAP where the courts consideration that whether Browne v Dunn applied to the defense councils failure to cross-examine is consistent with the principles outlined in MWJ v R . It elaborates on the explication of the rule in Browne v Dunn by exploring the circumstances which may surround the failure to cross examine on a fact in issue. The facts of the revolve around a conviction of rape, according to section 349 of the criminal code 1899 (QLD), the offence of rape covers various nonconsensual sexual penetration.
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
Myers, W. (2006). Roper v. Simmons: The Collision of National Consensus and Proportionality Review. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) , 96 (3), 947-994.
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
In order to highlight all aspects of People v. Smith, 470 NW2d 70, Michigan Supreme Court (1991) we must first discuss the initial findings of the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals decision was based on the precedence of two similar court cases that created discussion concerning the admission of juvenile records into adult trials. Following the Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court entered the final decision on Ricky Smith’s motion for resentencing. The Michigan Supreme Court also conducted a thorough examination of People v. Jones, People v. McFarlin, and People v. Price to determine the outcome of Smith’s motion to be resentenced.
Taylor, N. 2007. ‘Juror attitudes and biases in sexual assault cases’, Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, no. 344. Australian Institute of Criminology.
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
R N Howie and P A Johnson, Annotated Criminal Legislation NSW, 2011-2102, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths 2012) 17769-1774
Mitchell, Barry, ‘Multiple Wrongdoing and Offence Structure: A Plea for Consistency and Fair Labelling’ (2001) 64(3) Modern Law Review 393, 395.
Facts of the case: A California statute made it a criminal offense for a person to "be addicted to the use of narcotics." Lawrence Robinson was convicted under the law, which required a sentence of at least ninety days in jail. After a police officer, who had noticed that Robinson's arms were scabbed, discolored, and filled with needle marks. The officer arrested Robinson, who was sent to the Los Angeles central jail. He was examined by a narcotics division of the police department and proven to have and injection of unsterilized hypodermic needles in his arm.
Through his dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson, Justice Harlan takes a definitive stance against the laws that deny African Americans equal rights in any form, whether it be through the denial of voting rights or the formation of segregated communities. Harlan was a strong supporter of civil rights for all people, regardless of race. He argued that segregation laws violate the 14th Amendment because the Constitution is “color-blind” and has neither “caste” nor “class”. He also claimed that they encourage the idea that African Americans are both unequal and inferior to whites. Harlan condemned his fellow justices, who composed the majority for the case, for allowing the “seeds of race hate to be planted under the
Barristers' Perspectives on Rape and the Sexual Offences Act 2003 - (2010) 174 JPN 47
The jury plays a crucial role in the courts of trial. They are an integral part in the Australian justice system. The jury system brings ordinary people into the courts everyday to judge whether a case is guilty or innocent. The role of the jury varies, depending on the different cases. In Australia, the court is ran by an adversary system. In this system “..individual litigants play a central part, initiating court action and largely determining the issues in dispute” (Ellis 2013, p. 133). In this essay I will be discussing the role of the jury system and how some believe the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system, while others disagree. I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a jury system.
It would not be inconsistent with the principle of equality before the law that, where members of the Aboriginal race have special needs, those should be recognised by special rules laid down by the law. Further, the law is flexible enough to allow the courts to consider the special situation of an Aboriginal party where that is relevant. As the courts have recognised, the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders presents particular difficulties. Judges, in an attempt to do justice in discharging the difficult role of sentencing tribal and semi-tribal Aboriginal persons, have gone further. Clearly the ordinary criminal law is capable of facing these difficulties. It is neither necessary, nor desirable, to apply to the Aboriginal peoples the rules of their customary law rather than the general law. The attempt to uphold Aboriginal customary law is one aspect of the notion that the Aboriginal peoples will benefit if they continue to be treated as a class separate from the rest of the community, which must necessarily be a dependent and disadvantaged class.
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...