Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The law in the victorian era
Judicial system in australia and more
Judicial system in australia and more
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The law in the victorian era
FAGAN v. COMMISSIONER OF METROPOLITAN POLICE
1968; June 28; July 1, 31
Fact: This is a case of assault leading to battery for a police constable (Davis Morris) , held against the appellant driver (Vincent Fagan). Fagan was reversing a motorcar when Morris, wishing to question him, stood in front of the car and pointed out a suitable parking spot against the kerb. The appellant drove forward towards him and stopped the vehicle with the offside wheel on Morris’s left foot. When the constable yelled at the driver to take the wheel off his foot, the latter replied with abuses and ‘turned off the ignition or at least the engine stopped running.’ After the constable shouted several more times, did the appellant slowly turn on the ignition and
…show more content…
Justice James (Lord Parker CJ agreeing), writing for majority, held that mounting the policeman’s foot with the car was initially an unintentional act which was later converted to an assault by his purposely delaying the removal of the car, that is to say, his failure to remove the car was not an omission but rather a positive act in allowing the car to remain in place. Although the initial application of force was accidental, the offence was complete when the necessary intention to continue to inflict the unlawful force was formed.
Holding: The appellant(driver) was at fault in causing injury to the respondent (police constable) and was guilty of assault.
Reasoning: The justices were “satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant knowingly, provocatively and unnecessarily allowed the wheel to remain on the foot even after the officer repeatedly asked him to get off.” They gave the analogy that mounting a car on someone’s foot and sitting in the car while that position is maintained is an assault in the same way as stepping on somebody’s foot and keeping it there is.
Dissenting Opinion: Justice Bridge disagreed with his characterization of Fagan’s conduct as a continuing act. He finds that the appellant did “precisely nothing” after the accidental mounting of the wheel that could constitute an
Given the facts of the case were not of contention, the events of that night the court heard were what appeared to be instantaneous and had the respondent not taken his eyes off the road for those mere 4 seconds the same outcome is likely to have
Actus Reus: It was never unclear if the accused was responsible for the act occurring. There were several eye witness testimonies placing her as the offender which was backed up by CCTV footage from a camera in the lane. Furthermore, at the beginning of the trial the offender pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of constructive manslaughter and that it was caused by reckless driving on her behalf. By claiming manslaughter the offender immediately takes full responsibility for the act regardless of what charge they are handed.
The Causation of this criminal case was a dispute between two male youth rivals AH and Mr Boyce’s friend Joel, over the phone relating to a young female woman which resulted in the ignition for the violent brawl, leading to the homicide of Mr Wayne Boyce who was stabbed in the chest with a knife from a 18 year old male named Joey Aaron Smith who was the associate with AH and Saad Jamie Barghachoun.
When the jury dropped the hammer on Adnan Syed and found him guilty of murdering Hae Min Lee, there were some flaws in the case that may have skewed the case against the 17-year old from Baltimore, Maryland. The case is about Hae Min Lee, a responsible Woodlawn High student, being murdered by strangulation, and Adnan is the supposed killer. Sarah Koenig is a radio announcer that took interest in this case because the story was interesting. The case is about Hae Min Lee, a responsible Woodlawn High student, being murdered by strangulation, and Adnan is the supposed killer. Sarah Koenig is a radio announcer that took interest in this case because the story was interesting.
Marty Anderson was an employee for Family Auto Repair (FAR) in Memphis and was transfer to their Jackson store, which was an hour and a half from his house. The company allow Marty to use a company vehicle to make his long commute, although he had his own vehicle. The terms of the explicit permission to use the vehicle were: to and from work, during lunch breaks, and to deliver and transfer items between FAR’s two facilities either before work or on his way home. Marty Anderson became a victim of the dilemma when he fell asleep at the wheel and injured a man, Steve Spritzer, in the company vehicle, at a time when he did not have explicit permission to be using the vehicle. Marty Anderson’s case can be argued in his favor or in FAR’s favor,
Does the U.S. courts have the right to refuse Gary Small of his right to bear arms on the grounds that his conviction in a foreign court still applies to the law “it is unlawful for any person… who has been convicted in any court…. to possess a firearm”? Does the word any apply to foreign courts as well?
24). The action against Garmback for negligence also states that Officer Garmback owed a duty to act in a reasonable manner with regard to Rice’s health and safety and that “failing to properly apprise himself of the scene and scenario upon arriving to the incident, driving directly to the area in which Tamir Rice was seated without positioning the vehicle and officers in an area which provided cover to properly assess and handle the situation; failing to use appropriate levels of force; failure to properly assess levels of threat; failure to properly issue verbal commands; failure to properly identify oneself as an officer; failure to properly supervise Defendant Timothy Loehmann including failure to intervene; B) failing to summons immediate emergency medical care for Plaintiff Tamir Rice as he lay bleeding to death in the snow, and failure to respond to emergency medical needs of Tamir Rice and/or administer resuscitative measures and/or administer first aide;” (Rice Estate
The case of DPP v Carr is a fundamental case in evaluating arrest as a measure of last resort in the execution of a police officer’s duties. The brief facts of the case were that the defendant Mr. Carr was arrested for having insulted and hurled offensive words at the arresting officer. In the decision of the court it stated that “arrest ought to be the last resort and should not be done if the name and address of the defendant is known by the police and that one will not fail to honour summons issued” . The decision in DPP v Carr has been used as the yardstick under common law in determining the threshold for which a police officer uses before arresting a suspect. In the appellate decision despite having held that the arrest was lawful, it went ahead to declare that it was improper since the police officer had the option of issuing summons.
Waterman v. Batton, 393 F 3.d 471, 478. (4th Cir. 2005). One of the defendant officers observed the plaintiff traveling 51 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour zone and immediately initiated pursuit. The officer in pursuit radioed his fellow officers at a toll plaza ahead of the suspect car, and the officers at the toll plaza prepared “stop sticks” at the tollbooth. Following the communication between the officers, the pursuing car radioed that the plaintiff “tried to run [him] off the road,” and moments later the pursuing car and plaintiff reached the toll area. When the plaintiff approached the officers stationed at the toll plaza, he slowed down and then “lurched” forward. Although none of the officers at the toll area were in the direct way of the plaintiff’s car, the officers perceived the “lurching” as an attempt to injure them and the officers fired into the car as a result of the perceived threat, and continued to do so as the car passed through the toll plaza. The court held that the shots fired as the car approached the toll booth did not constitute excessive violence because the plaintiff did not stop despite the warnings of officers with their guns drawn, and because the an objectively reasonable officer in
Serial Killers have been present all over the world for a very long time. They kill innocent people every day for nor reason. They commit murder after murder and still continue the process. In some cases determining if someone will be a serial killer is much harder than other cases. In the case of Andrew Cunanan who was a serial killer, had killed over four people in just one year. There was no evidence in his childhood that would predict he would be become a serial killer so it was very surprising to see how a little boy could transform into a murderer. However, he wasn’t always a serial killer. He started off as just as a child but very smart child.
Was the intrusion based on a lawful objective, such as a valid arrest, detention, search, frisk, community warden guardian of mentally ill, defense of an officer or a citizen, or to prevent escape? If these answer yes then an officer may have legal ability to use the levels of force listed below to apprehend the suspect. Another list of things to consider when determining if it was a lawful use of force is; was the use of force relative to the person’s confrontation? Was there a crucial need to terminate the condition? Even though there is no duty to retreat, could the officer have used lesser force and still safely accomplish the lawful objective? These are the questions that the jury need to answer to determine if they should side with or against the officer in any court case brought to them that deals with such a controversial topic as this.
The multinational pharmaceutical firm, Wellcome PLC, brought a product to the market to help treat the symptoms of AIDS and HIV. Wellcome PLC owns an American subsidiary known as the Burroughs Wellcome Company. In 1987, Burroughs Wellcome Company received FDA approval to sale Retrovir, which interferes with the ability of HIV infected cells to produce new virus. Burroughs Wellcome Company finds itself under siege in September 1989 by AIDS activists and various segments of the U.S. government. Despite two reductions in price in the last two years, Burroughs Wellcome Company’s executive management is under unrelenting pressure to decrease the price of Retrovir so that many more people can afford the prescription.
The name of the parties are (appellant) commissioner of the police of the metropolis,(respondent) Mr. Michael Rottman . The judgment has been held in the house of lords. The judges on this were- Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Roger of Earlsferry. The barristers and solicitors in this case were, Mr. Perry, on behalf of the appellant and Miss Montgomery, for the respondent. The date of the judgment was 16th may 2002.
Two recommendations for promoting direct-sales through consumer and the business; One is to offer incentives to its customers and second is to motivate the business to promoting its products by advertisements, establishing sales competition for employees, participating in conventions, and by endorsing franchise of its products to retail stores.