CASE COMMENTS Bowman v Fels [2005] EWCA Civ 226, [2005] 1 WLR 3083 It has been stated that “a person commits an offence if he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement which he knows or suspects facilitates (by whatever means) the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person.” In Bowman v Fels, the courts concluded that this section of the act was not interpreted in a way by which it intended to cover or affect the ordinary conduct of litigation by legal professionals, which was the issue that arose here. The facts of the case are somewhat straightforward. Jennifer Mary Bowman, the claimant, lived with the defendant, William John Fels, over a span of ten years between the period of May 1993 and April 2003. The premise they were residing in was registered in the defendant’s sole name. After the relationship between the claimant and the defendant ended, the claimant asserted a right to a beneficial interest in the said property they had jointly occupied. The claimant held that she rightly had an authority over the house as before it was purchased, the defendant had expressly agreed to share the purchase of the premise with her. This argument was brought before the House after the defendant had gone back on his word, to which legal proceedings started. In preparing for the trial, Bowman’s solicitors had suspicions that Fels had wrongly included certain expenses to be business costs in his accounts as well as VAT returns carried out at the premises. Bowman’s solicitors notified the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) of this by their assumed obligation under section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, but consequently had to seek to delay the trial as the... ... middle of paper ... ... be caught by this section. The chance that an authorised disclosure would arise by the defence of privilege to a statutory legal profession is quite unlikely. In conclusion, I think that the court was justified in upholding the order of Judge Cowell and dismissing the appeal made. Although there remain some grey areas which the case has not solved, it remained correct in affirming that it should not indeed cover or affect the ordinary conduct of litigation by legal professionals. For the courts to conclude anything otherwise would lead to a plethora of unwelcome criticisms and result in problems that the drafters of the statute would not have anticipated otherwise. In adopting the orders made in this case, I think that it would have affirmed the position of this statute and will be able to act as a point of reference for the other courts in cases to follow.
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
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
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.
The role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law, not to make it. In some cases an approach that gives slightly more emphasis to the text may be seen to be more in line with the judiciary’s constitutional position. The law is written in the words of the statutes, and Parliament has an obligation to express law correctly. The role of the court courts is not to ensure that Parliament hits the target every time, especially when the legislation does not clearly display those targets.
Procedural History: Claim was filed against decedent 's (Jack Tallas) estate to recover on written agreement to make the claimant (Peter Dementas) an heir for the amount of $50,000. The Third District Court of Salt Lake County held in favor for the estate. Dementas challenged the initial verdict in Utah’s Court of Appeals, Orme, J.. In this appeal, the court held that agreement was not an enforceable contract in that it constituted a promise for past services performed gratuitously.
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
The Schenck case in the early 1900s dealt with the freedom of speech as it related to the draft of World War I. Charles Schenck sent mass mail that stated “the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system” (Schenck v. United States). The federal government found this to be in violation of the Clear and Present Danger Test as well as the Espionage Act and arrested Schenck for his actions. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court and was ruled in favor of the United States unanimously. The opinion of the court violates the free speech clause as well as a right to have peaceful protest by denying Schenck to share his opinions of the draft with others despite the opinion of the government on this action. Due to these violations the ruling on the Schneck v. United States case should be overturned in order to protect the right of free speech and protest to all citizens.
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
17 years old at the time of the crime, Simmons was tried as an adult. Simmons confessed to the crime and his sole defence at trial was an attempt to dongrade his punishment through the introduction of character evidence. The jury recommended the death penalty, which was imposed by the judge. In the judgment of the US Supreme Court, the laws of other countries and international authorities were instructive for the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. International consensus as reflected in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child provided respected and significant confirmation of the conclusions drawn. International agreement on the juvenile death penalty
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
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 v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1999] All ER (D) 1173.
Hird and Blair, ‘Minding your own business – Williams v Roffey revisited: Consideration reconsidered’ [1996] JBL 254
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...