CRF ASSIGNMENT
1) Case citation
R. v. Singh, 2017 ONCJ 797 (CanLll) – 2017. 11. 22 .
(https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2017/2017oncj797/2017oncj797.html)
2) Summary OF CASE
Mr. Shawn Singh was accused of the offense of having worked a vehicle while his blood liquor level was in abundance of as far as possible, on March 19, 2016. The Crown continued summarily. The safeguard documented a Charter application in connection to areas 7, 8, 9 and 10. The Crown called four witnesses, Mr. Jeremy Morrison, a TTC streetcar administrator who had on that time the scene, and three cops, PC Sean Shapiro, PC William Norman and PC Rohan Smith. There was no proof called
…show more content…
Singh to a cop were not to be driven or considered for reality of their substance, identified with any components of the offense. The issue of driving those articulations for grounds was important to Charter applications that the safeguard deserted. Basically, at that point, with the end goal of this trial, the court does not think about any announcements of Mr. Singh to a cop. The resistance contends that the Crown has not set up to the essential standard that Mr. Singh had worked his engine vehicle at the applicable time. Furthermore, with the end goal of any confirmation of his blood liquor content, the resistance contends that the Crown has not built up to the imperative standard that Mr. Singh had driven a vehicle amid a hour and a half period going before the entry of the main cop, which was a scope of the offense time frame connecting the blood liquor readings set out in the toxicology report record in proved. The Crown …show more content…
v. Agyemang, supra, R. v. Chan, [2011] O .J. No. 3329, and R. v. Irvine, [2002] O. J. No. 5375; aff’d [2004] O.J. No. 914. (The court finds in light of the greater part of the incidental confirmation in this trial, both for the deductions tried to be depended upon by the Crown, and in light of the majority of the proof in this trial including those put together by the safeguard, that Mr. Singh had been the driver of the Acura auto in the time allotment in the blink of an eye before 9:55 pm. at the point when the Toronto police dispatched the principal cop to the scene. Unquestionably, the court finds past a sensible uncertainty that this Acura auto had been driven around there after 8:35 pm. and preceding 9:55 pm. At the point when this auto was watched stranded on the streetcar tracks in the
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.
There is no dispute that Mr.Nanokeesic showed an attempt to prevent the police from finding the weapon, when he ran from the police and discarded his backpack. The backpack was found by the police and searched, without a warrant.
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
Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 589 F.2d 791, 794 (5th Cir. 1979) The appellant court held that it was not. According to rule 404 under the Federal Rules of Evidence, “evidence of a person 's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait”. Fed. R. Evid. 404 Under this rule the evidence of Reyes prior convictions admitted by the trial court, “purpose of showing that he was intoxicated on the night that he was run over by defendant-appellee 's train” proves to be inadmissible under Rule 404(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 589 F.2d 791, 792 (5th Cir. 1979) The courts due mention the exceptions on the admission of character evidence. However the court did not use the evidence of Reyes past drunkenness to prove some other criminal purpose. Since the trial court failed to do the latter, and instead entered evidence on the basis of character to prove that the plaintiff acted in accordance with his character trait during the night in question, it went against the modern rules set out in FRE 404 and is therefore
In this case entitled Gulash v. Stylarama there was a contract entered regarding the construction of pools. The pool was built and constructed but after a period of time the pool began to tilt, in which that’s when Gulash decided to sue Stylarama. The suit was that Stylarama violated provisions of article 2 of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Due to the fact the cost of the materials and the labor were not written out in detail but instead of in a lump sum it would make it hard to come up with a sum for the exact cost of the damages. Furthermore, since this is a contract with a mix of goods and services, article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code would not apply the services only to the goods but the common law would to the services. And
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
Marques, O. (2013, October 23). Issues in Policing [Lecture]. SSCI 1000 Introduction to Criminal Justice. University of Ontario Institute of Technology . Retrieved November 18, 2013
Section 718.2e is a section of the Criminal code used to sentence aboriginal offenders. Its main purpose is to make the overrepresentation of aboriginal offending minimal. (Griffiths, 69). This idea was re established during the R.v. Gladue case in 1999 where the judge looked at the background factors that led the offender to commit a crime. Section 718.2e of the Criminal code states that the judge must consider the following:
On 05/14/2017 at approximately 0605 hours, I was notified by Sgt. Kelley of a traffic crash fatality that occurred on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard at the intersection of USF Pine Drive. I responded to the scene and upon arrival at approximately 0708 hours, I conducted a sworn interview with the Adrianne Ojeda, the driver of Vehicle 1. I was also assigned to forensically map the scene.
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
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.
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
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.
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.
In. Rustam Satin v. Dr. Sampoornand, one of the contentions concerning an appeal was that it was based on caste consideration and hence a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Act. The appeal was made by a Prominent Yadav to his Yadav brethren in the following form: