Case Commentary – PNJ v DPP Introduction Victoria and New South Wales (NSW) take a similar approach in relation to tendency and coincidence evidence (‘the Evidence’). However, until the case of KJM (No 2) , they took different approaches in reviewing rulings of the Evidence . This case commentary discusses the different approaches used to be taken in Victoria and NSW, presuming that the admissibility of the Evidence in ss 97, 98 and 101 is of the same decision, not separate decision . Facts PNJ v DPP is an appeal case with regard to sexual assault against teenage boys by the applicant. The crime was alleged to happen at Youth Training Centre in the eastern suburbs of Victoria, where the applicant worked as a supervisor. The Crown gave notices pursuant to ss 97 and 98 of the Evidence Act (EA) 2008 (Vic), intending to lead the Evidence against the appellant at trial. The trial judge ruled that the coincidence evidence was admissible but the tendency evidence was inadmissible. Counsel of the appellant sought a certificate from the judge to bring an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal against the admissibility of the coincidence evidence. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ruling the coincidence evidence inadmissible. It adopted a different approach than that in NSW in reviewing the ruling of the Evidence. Victorian Court of Appeal It supported the view in Tasmania that an appellate court should consider the Evidence afresh when reviewing a trial judge’s ruling. There was no dispute in this issue where both the parties in this case concurred to the approach taken. Therefore, it can be said that the reasoning of Underwood CJ in L v Tasmania and Basten JA (in dissent) in Zhang was accepted. NSW Court of A... ... middle of paper ... ...d to follow the approach of NSWCA, after considering the reasoning in Dao. Now it is consistent in this issue across NSW and Victoria. Bibliography A Articles/Books/Reports Gans, Jeremy and Andrew Palmer, Uniform Evidence (Oxford University Press, 2010) Swift, Eleanor, ‘One Hundred Years of Evidence Law Reform: Thayer’s Triumph’, [2000] California law review, 2437 Heydon, J.D, Cross on Evidence, Lexis Nexis Butterworth, 8th ed, 2010) Odgers, Stephen, Uniform Evidence Law, Thomson Reuters, 8th ed, 2009) B Cases Dao v R (2011) 278 ALR 765 at 796 House v R(1936) 55 CLR 499 KJM (No 2) [2011] VSCA 268 L v Tasmania(2006) 15 Tas R 381 La Trobe Capital & Mortgage Corp Ltd v Hay Property Consultants Pty Ltd (2011) 190 FCR 299 R v Fletcher(2005)156 A Crim R 308 R v Ford (2009) 273 ALR 286 R v Zhang(2005) 227 ALR 311 C Legislation Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
The R vs Papajohn case took place in Vancouver of 1979. It was one of the first controversial sexual assault cases because of the issue of false consent. Geroge Papajohn was accused of sexual assault and found guilty. George Papajohn put his house up for sale and acquired the help of a real-estate agent, Constance (real name is protected under rape shield act). Because of the differing stories gave to the court, Papajohns intentions remain unclear. Did George Papajohn commit sexual assault or was it an honest mistake of false consent?
Mr. Cockburn concluded that the evidence presented in this case was misinterpret and misapprehend, the leading investigation was “unscientific and slipshod” which lead to the sentence of Edward splatt. Many questions were raised, whether police officers should collect trace elements from the crime scene? The involvemet of police officers collecting samples rather than scientific experts which could lead to wrong and misleading evidence? The scientific procedure undertaking in this investigation. And these collected samples collected from officers and tested would lead to unvaluable piece of evidence.After Edward splatt conviction, anattorney- general by the name of Mr Griffin keeped a close eye on the case and examined the moran report and
Holhan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935). In Napue, the court had held that the same result occurs when the State although not soliciting false evidence allows it to go uncorrected when it appears. In Brady, the Supreme Court had held that irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution, suppression of material exculpatory evidence required a new trial.
The milestone judicial decision in Cole v Whitfield pronounced a pivotal moment in Australian jurisprudence in relation to the interpretation of s92 of the Australian constitution. This essay will critically analyse the constitutional interpretation approach utilised in Cole v Whitfield. This method will be compared with the interpretational methods exemplified in Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory. Although within these two cases there appears to be a preference towards a particular interpretational method, each mode has both strengths and weaknesses. Accordingly, the merit of each should be employed in conjunction with one another, where the court deems fit, complementing each other. This may provide a holistic approach to interpreting the constitution.
The court findings have finally come to a conclusion, to confirm regard to defendants Alexander, McCarthy, Caruso, and Correctional Medical Services Inc. because the Plantiff has poorly provided evidence specifying suspicious indifference. However, the court overturned the district court’s granting of summary judgment to Heebsh and Pausits, two defendants who return to custody for further actions because of sufficient evidence of deliberate indifference to survive summary judgment.
Hamilton made an eloquent appeal to the jury to judge both the law and the facts; as a result was acquitted. This finding of not
Unless someone is very familiar with the rules and laws that govern the way evidence in case is used it will be hard to comprehend what is allowed and not allowed in the court system. Anyone that works in the court room will understand the Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) or FER 404(b): The Fictitious Ban on Character Reasoning from Other Crime Evidence (Broderick 2008).
The contradictory outcomes of cases presenting very similar facts to the court leads some jurists to cry out for reform and to denounce the defects in the present common law rules. Some, are supportive of the implementation of a statutory obligation to make reparation for wrongfully caused mental
The Carr government announced a Bill, that was called the ‘Criminal Appeal Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2003. That Bill was intended to amend the Criminal Appeal Act 1912’ (NSW), this act allowed a person to be retried for an offence if there was “fresh and compelling evidence”. The Bill caused a lot of debate within Parliament committees, in which it was discussed at federal level, although it was not passed until 2006 when they tried again presenting the ‘Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Bill 2006’. The new bill was to amend was to the Crimes Act
In summation, there is no real way to dismiss the utilization of certain rules to protect and or eliminate evidence. The defendant must preserve his or her constitutional rights. The prosecution and investigators must also be accountable to these rights to ensure that the judicial system in this nation does not become a mêlée of wrongful or unfair convictions, which may be motivated by speed and necessity, rather than good experienced police and legal work. It is also important to note that many legal violations of the disclosure laws and events that would obtain the use of the exclusionary rule have ended in false convictions, giving further proof to the efficacy of the law. The rules for presenting evidence are designed to help the court and jury establish truth and administer justice (Paul B. Watson, 1986).
For example, according to a CNN article entitled,” 'Blue-eyed butcher ' sentenced to 20 years,” “A medical examiner testified he was able to count 193 wounds on the body, with the actual number of stab wounds well in excess of that” (Jakobsson, 2010, para. 6). Pictures were also presented to the jury to show the disfigured body. Another piece of evidence leading to the conviction of Susan Wright was the autopsy done that showed drugs in Wright’s system. The author of CNN stated, “They also suggested she may have drugged him with gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, known as the "date-rape drug," low levels of which were found in Jeffrey Wright 's system” (Jakobsson, 2010, paragraph 10). One last conclusive piece of visual evidence was the presence of two of Jeffrey’s ex-girlfriends. “Misty McMichael testified Wright beat her repeatedly during their two-year relationship and tried to control her every move” (Jakobsson, 2010, paragraph 13). McMichael also claimed that Wright had pushed her down the stairs 104 times and at one point even locked her in a room (Jakobsson, 2010, paragraph 14). This evidence was in favor of Susan Wright. The impact of this visual evidence was significant in many ways. Evidence is proof and proof cannot be made up, only misinterpreted. Therefore, the excessive amount of stab wounds found on Wright’s body along with the drugs found in his system was
The Supreme Court used this evidence, and the fact that the pants and the blood had been transported to the crime lab in the same box, and that a vial and a quarter of autopsy blood were missing, to rule that, if known by the jury, could have created reasonable doubt (House V. Bell, 2006). This, along with the evidence, presented by House, that Mr. Muncey had a history of spousal abuse against Mrs. Muncey, and the fact that he had fabricated an alibi to cover his whereabouts for the time of the murder, could have created a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, had it been presented at trial (House v. Bell, 2006). It was with these facts in mind that the Supreme Court reached a final ruling in this case. The Court’s final ruling was that while House had not presented sufficient evidence to exonerate himself completely, he did present enough evidence to create the question of his actual guilt, and warranted a new trial (House v. Bell, 2006).
Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial or not The term ‘Judicial Precedent’ has at least two meanings, one of which is the process where Judges will follow the decisions of previously decided cases, the other is what is known as an ‘Original Precedent’ that is a case that creates and applies a new rule. Precedents are to be found in Law Reports and are divided up into ‘Binding’ and ‘Persuasive’.
Known standards must be recognized and followed so that possession is obtained legally, evidence is marked appropriately samples are properly preserved, and the acquisition process is reported accurately. A complete chain of custody must be documented. Missing evidence or gaps in the chain of custody can produce doubt regarding the validity of the evidence. Doubt can lead to a ruling that evidence not be considered in a court of law because it lacks value in the prosecution. A ruling of not guilty, a mistrial or a complete dismissal of the case could ensue based on whether or not key evidence was dismissed from consideration, or how physical evidence is handled. In the case “Incredible Evidence” illustrated in our textbook on pages 68 and 69, a jury issued a verdict of not guilty in the high profile case involving O.J. Simpson, based on how the evidence was handled during the