Indubitably, all human beings are equally entitled human rights without discrimination. It is very important as it is inherent to all human beings and it enables effective functioning of the administration and dispensation of justice. If the authority or respect for law is weakened, then the public will diminish their confidence in the administration of justice. If the courts authority is not adhered to in court administration of legal proceedings, then it reduces the chances for a fair trial for the persons involved in the case. Hence, the courts reserves the right to punish those preside or wilfully interfere with its authority.
Contempt of court was instigated by the notion that the court administration must be liberated to adjudicate on those matters before it, unimpeded by any outside influences including that may prevent the flow of justice. It seeks to punish those whose conduct that tends to obstruct, prejudice or abuse the administration of justice, whether in a particular case or in general (Bradley and Ewing 1993). Therefore, anything which plainly tends to create disdain of the authority of the courts of justice such as the open insult or the resistance to the judges who preside there or disobedient to their orders is deemed as contempt of court. It may be categorized as civil or criminal contempt. The law governing contempt of court is found in the Contempt of court Act 1981 and in common law. In the Caribbean, the law that supports contempt of court is a generally is common law. Common law articulates the ideas and judicial theory of one of the greatest justices of the Supreme Court. (Holmes, 2009). In essence, common law is fundamentally reliant on previous decisions made in judicial pronouncements. The contempt ...
... middle of paper ...
...publication was merely reporting and comment based from the witness’ testimony and not his personal opinion. Nevertheless, if it is that the accused is suppressed of a fair trial due to prejudicial publicity, then the case may be dismissed and if the accused was guilty, he could walk free.
In conclusion, though the media serves as a platform to relay legal proceedings, it is evident that the media can pose serious negative influences upon the accused. Undue, unjust, and misconstrued comments by media houses will eventually lead to an unfair and prejudiced trial. Hence, the media must be regulated by exerting the law of contempt of court to prevent interference in the courts administration of justice including to reprove those found in violation of the basic code of conduct. However, the media can utilize the defence options available if he/she can prove otherwise.
Publication bans have been a part of the Criminal Code since 1988. A publication ban is a court law that prohibits trial information from leaving the case. Since these bans were first introduced in Canada, they have become a very useful tool in Common Law. These bans have been frequently used over the years for many purposes including avoiding the risk of adverse consequences to participants and for more accurate trial procedures. Having publication bans are beneficial, in every which-way, than not. These bans contribute positively to the environment of law and most importantly, the society within. This essay will outline why the court should have the right to impose a publication ban in Canada. It will support the debate that if Canada wishes to build towards a reputation of having trials handled efficiently, then it should not change the nature of these publication bans. It will portray the importance of these bans through a thorough explanation of how the bans work, and two solid arguments of the cause on the society and environment. First, this essay will discuss basics of publication bans and how they work. Then, this essay will point out how publication bans contribute to trial fairness in the court. Finally, this essay will touch upon how publication bans protect victims and those involved in the trials.
For criminal trials, judges must inform the jury to the best of their ability on relevant laws and offer proper guidance. Hence resulting in a consistent application of the criminal law where justice is
To the extent possible and practical, it is recommended that the court conduct meetings and phone conferences concerning media requests on the record and make all resulting orders on the record and/or in
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court.
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
Zelezny, J. (2011). Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints, and the Modern Media. Boston, MA: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning.
In this essay, I will be examining how the court system can fail to deliver justice for particular cases and people’s circumstances, as well as looking at alternatives to court, like circle sentencing, restorative sentencing and alternatives for children to the formal court system, as outlined in the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW). Crime is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law. On the other side of this is justice; the quality of being fair and reasonable.
In closing, the criminal trial process has been able to reflect the morals and ethics of society to a great extent, despite the few limitations, which hinder its effectiveness. The moral and ethical standards have been effectively been reflected to a great extent in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
The media plays a big role in shaping the people’s perceptions about the court system. Without media we would remain uneducated to the occurrences outside our social groups. Media and especially news coverage provide us with important point of contact with the rest of society. In debunking popular myths about our court system we will look at the “facts” (the truth, the actual event, a real thing). With a myth being based upon “exaggeration” or heightening of “ordinary” event in life. Myths become a convenient mortar to fill gaps in knowledge and to provide answers to questions social science either cannot answer or has failed to address. Myths tend to provide the necessary information for the construction
The issue of pretrial publicity is a maze of overlapping attentions and interwoven interests. Lawyers decry pretrial publicity while simultaneously raising their own career stock and hourly fee by accumulating more if it. The media both perpetrate and comment on the frenzy -- newspapers and television stations generate the publicity in the first place and then actively comment on the likely effect that the coverage will have on the trial. When a high profile case is brought to trial, many media outlets report not only on the details of the trial, but also details about the persons involved, in particular the defendant. Much of the information reported regarding the case is released before the trial starts. Furthermore, media outlets may not only report facts, but also present the information in a way that projects the culpability of the defendant. By allowing pretrial publicity of court cases, potential jurors are given information that could sway their opinion of the defendant even before the trial begins, and how they interpret the evidence given during the trial. The right of a criminal defendant to receive a fair trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The right of the press, print and electronic media, to publish information about the defendant and the alleged criminal acts is guaranteed by the First Amendment. These two constitutional safeguards come into conflict when pretrial publicity threatens to deprive the defendant of an impartial jury. However, there is a compromise between these two Constitutional rights, which would allow for the selection of an impartial jury and allow the media to report on the details of the case. The media should only be able to report information once the trial has...
The Trial has strongly criticized the incompetence of court system, leading to human sufferings. Particularly, causing K’s effort to redeem himself meaningless. The court system is incompetent and the court is just the human and bureaucratic embodiment of this law. Just as the law seems inhuman and unjust precisely because it is such an abstract expression of justice, the court is portrayed as equally inhuman and unjust. For instance, K. is eager to clarify its own situation in order to get rid of the trial and regain freedom, but the external environment always induces or forces him to obey the authority and consciously abide by the rules of power.
The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion.
…rights which are inherent to the human being ... human rights acknowledges that every single human being is entitled to enjoy his or her human rights without distinction as to race, [color], sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. [To add on, human] rights are legally guaranteed by human rights law, protecting individuals and groups against actions that interfere with fundamental freedoms and human dignity (Human rights for
Therefore, it is clear to see that there is no set of human rights that are more important over the other because, each set of rights improves the other set of rights, in some cases you cannot have one without the other, and that if one were to emphasize the importance of one set of rights over the other then the rights that are being neglected will ultimately cause a society to deteriorate because this will negatively impact the development towards enhancing their human rights