Diggs v. Nova Scotia: Habeas Corpus Case Spenser Jackson (A00448181) CRIM 3505-2 Jamie Livingston April 4, 2024 Introduction: The habeas corpus case being discussed focuses on Mr. Diggs’ imprisonment at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility (CNSCF) and his challenge to the lawfulness of his confinement. Mr. Diggs claims that between September 13 and November 3, 2023, he endured constant lockdowns and had limited access to time outside his cell, depriving him of his residual liberty. This form of material deprivation is characterized by confinement, such as solitary confinement, having none of the essential legal difficulties established by the Correctional Services Act, which is at the centre of Mr Diggs’ …show more content…
19). Vogelman (1968) stresses the importance of access to legal recourse for prisoners, noting, “In connection with the prisoner’s right to mail his petition to the proper officials, it has also been held that prison officials may not punish inmates for mailing false statements of deprivation until there has been a court adjudication of the allegations on the merits” (p. 393), underscoring the significance of procedural fairness even within penitentiary settings. These perspectives provide different perspectives on the complexities of material deprivation, emphasizing the importance of protecting individual rights within the criminal justice system. Analysis of material deprivation in the Diggs v Nova Scotia case: The Diggs v Nova Scotia case provides a thorough study of the concept of material deprivation of residual liberty in the setting of habeas corpus proceedings. Many key concepts appear, offering insight into the causes and consequences of material deprivation in the prison system. First, the case underlines the need for habeas corpus as a safeguard against unjustified imprisonment, particularly in prison. Emphasizing the critical role in upholding basic rights in prison …show more content…
C., Lima de Arajo, J., Borges de Vasconcelos, R., & Cosme do Nascimento, E. G. (2015). Health Profile of Freedom-Deprived Men in the Prison System, 33(2). https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.iee.v33n2a09 Richardson, G. (1984). Time to Take Prisoners’ Rights Seriously! Journal of Law and Society, 11(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/1409929 Runciman, R., & Baker, G. (2017). Delaying justice is denying justice: An urgent need to address lengthy court delays in Canada. Senate. Canada. Schwartz, Barry (1972). The Species of the World. Deprivation of privacy as a functional prerequisite: the case of the prison. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science, 63(2), 229-239. Section 10(c) – Habeas corpus. Government of Canada. 2023, June 29. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art10c.html#::text=Everyone%20has%20the%20right%20on,the%20detention%20is%20not%20lawful. Tushnet, Mark. A. (2011). The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Progressive constitutionalism: what is it? Ohio State Law Journal, 72(6), 1073-1082. Vogelman, R. P. (1968). The Species of the World. Prison Restrictions. Prisoner Rights. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 59(3), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/1141762 Pinheiro, M. C., Lima de Arajo, J., Borges de Vasconcelos, R., & Cosme do Nascimento, E. G. (2015). Health Profile of Freedom-Deprived Men in the Prison System, 33(2).
This essay will analyze the entire case R. v. Morin and evaluate the facts, issues, positions of the Crown and accused. The decisions made during this case and reasons that ultimately lead to the final verdict by the Ontario Court of appeal. This essay will evaluate the decision of whether the delay of the R. v. Morin and the cases that it set precedent for were valid decisions made by the court. This evaluation will describe the arguments made on both sides during these trials. It will discuss how the decision made by the court to decide the trial delay being reasonable were the correct decisions and that section 11(b) of the Charter was not violated. The essay will also discuss the court cases R. v. Godin...
In the case of Sandin v. Conner, DeMont Conner, an inmate at a maximum security correctional facility in Hawaii, was subjected to a strip search in 1987. During the search he directed angry and foul language at the officer. Conner was charged with high misconduct and sentenced to 30 days of segregation by the adjustment committee. Conner was not allowed to present witnesses in his defense. Conner completed the 30-day segregation sentence, after which he requested a review of his case. Upon review, prison administration found no evidence to support the misconduct claim. The State District Court backed the decision, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Sandin had a liberty interest in remaining free from disciplinary segregation. This case is significant because it confronts the question of which constitutional rights individuals retain when they are incarcerated. In Sandin v. Conner, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that prisoners have a right to due process only when “atypical and significant deprivation” has occurred. Prisons must now be vigilant in protecting the rights of inmates. It is a delicate matter in the sense that, when an individual enters prison, their rights to liberty are by and large being forfeited. The rights in question are important to prisoners because prisons are closed environments where by nature their freedoms are already very limited. They need a well-defined set of rights so that prisons do not unduly infringe on their liberty. Without court intervention, prison administrators would likely not have allowed this particular right, as it adds another layer of bureaucracy that can be seen as interfering with the efficiency of their job. Also, it could lead to a glut of prisoners claiming violations of their rights under the court ruling.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was implemented 1982 has been essential in providing justice for all Canadian citizens. Countless amounts of cases have been decided to create the Charter that is well known in today’s society. Sharon Turpin and Latif Siddiqui were accused of first degree murder and according to the law, the trial was supposed to be tried by a judge and jury. The accused demanded a trial by judge alone because they believed that they were entitled to such a right. The R. v. Turpin case was a significant case that was tough to decide upon because there were many violations of different statutes such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Criminal
"Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions." Prison Legal News - Legal articles, cases and court decisions. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 May 2014. .
Rodriguez V. Attorney General Of Canada." Issues In Law & Medicine 9.4 (1994): 389. Academic Search Complete. Web. 16 Nov. 2013.
David Milgaard’s story is one of the most striking and well know representation of wrongful conviction as it happened right here in Saskatoon. Even further than that his case has been called “one of the most famous examples of wrongful conviction in Canada” (CBC News, 2011). In January of 1970, 17-year-old ...
This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. There has been much debate over this topic, as it has quickly become implemented for the sentencing of drug offenders, drug-related crimes and banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as they result in very few positive outcomes for the offender and society, increase recidivism rates, are very expensive, and in many cases are detrimental and unjust. Throughout this essay I will discuss two main cases that represent an unjust sentencing outcome due to the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. I will stress how it should be the discretion of the judge to individualize the sentences based on the offender’s mitigating factors, aggravating factors and background. Leroy Smickle is the first case discussed through the essay, which ended with the judge striking down the mandatory minimum sentences in Ontario due to the possession of a loaded gun. Robert Latimer was also a highly controversial Canadian case about a father who killed his mentally disabled daughter out of compassion to end her severe suffering. I will be using many academic articles throughout this essay to give empirical support to the overall argument.
Mauer, Marc. 1999. The Race to Incarcerate. New York: The New Press National Research Council. 1993.
The Justice Gap (2012) [online] “Privatising prisons a step too far”, Available at: http://thejusticegap.com/News/privatising-prisons-a-step-too-far/ [last accessed on 10th November]
The 6th amendement of the U.S. Constituion gurantees the acussed the right to a speedy trial. In New York more specifically, the prosecution must be ready for trial on all felonies except murder within six months, or the charges aginst a defendant can be dissmissed. However, an article written in The New Yorker by Jennifer Gonnerman about a young man named Kalief Browder, sheds light on a situation that is should have been handled more differently. Kalief browder spend three years on Rikers Island in what could only be described as horrible conditions, and suffered appalling violence, without ever being convicted of a crime. The failure of our Criminal Justice System not only deprived Kalief Browder the right to a speedy trial, but also robbed such a young man of an education, and most importantly his freedom. - Thesis Statement .
The Canadian Criminal Justice System is, for the most part, reflective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various Supreme Court of Canada case-law. Everyone who finds themselves on the opposing end of the Criminal Justice System is entitled to certain protections every step of the way, beginning even before the arrest; laws protect us from unreasonable investigative techniques, guarantee certain rights at point of arrest, and provide us with the right to counsel. The bail court departs from the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in that the crown only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities (Kellough, 1996, p. 175) in order to take away a person’s freedom. It is for this reason I decided to limit the scope of my observations to the bail court. What I found is a systemic evidence of a two-tier justice system. In this essay, I will outline the roles of the 'regular players' of the bail court and demonstrate how the current bail process essentially transforms the Canadian Criminal Justice System into a two-tier system where the affluent and powerful are able to receive preferential treatment over the poor.
The governance of our present day public and social order co-exist within the present day individual. Attempts to recognize the essentiality of equality in hopes of achieving an imaginable notion of structure and order, has led evidence based practitioners such as Herbert Packer to approach crime and the criminal justice system through due process and crime control. A system where packer believed in which ones rights are not to be infringed defrauded or abused was to be considered to be the ideal for procedural fairness. “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” Thomas Jefferson pg 9 cjt To convict an individual because proper consideration was not taken will stir up social unrest rather then it’s initial intent, when he or she who has committed the crime is not punished for their doings can cause for a repetition and even collaboration with other’s for a similar or greater crime.
The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).
Should college athletes be paid? This is a question that has been asked and discussed a million times, and yet, there still isn't a straight answer for it yet. There are many people who say that college athletes should be paid. Although, there are also a lot of people who think otherwise, that college athletes should not be paid. I believe that college athletes should be paid because they work hard at the sport and risk getting injuries from playing the sport and they deserve something for it besides scholarships for schooling.
Mauer, Marc. "The Race to Incarcerate." The Case For Penal Abolition. Ed. W. Gordon West and Ruth Morris. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholars? Press, 2000. 89-99.