R v Brown (2015) EWCA Crim 1328
The facts of this case are the defendant was already serving life sentences for attempted murder offences. Both the victim and the defendant were admitted as patients in a hospital, while the incident of this case happened. The defendant on the day of the incident the defendant come within reach of the victim from behind, put the victim in a headlock which lead to puncturing his head and neck with a homemade weapon. Prior to this incident the defendant had mentioned that he had been considering killing his solicitor. Before the defendants trail, his solicitor had requested for special arrangements to be put in place so that the defendant would be able to consult his lawyers without custody officers, nurses and others. But on the other hand the hospital applied for an order where that the defendant should be go along with two nurses at the least when attending any meetings with solicitors etc. subsequently the order included for the defendant to be handcuffed to the nurses due to the fact of protecting others and protecting the defendant from any form of self harm. The judge rejected the idea that the defendant should be allowed to sit
…show more content…
So therefore the defendant appealed against the conviction. The defendant quoted that the judge had made a mistake when he had decided that the right to consult privately with his lawyers hadn’t been absolute but had been succeeded in a way that if wouldn’t have trumped his right of life under article 2 of the convention. Subsequently it was pointed out that the judge didn’t understand the position of the right to consult privately when two nurses from Rampton hospital listened or overheard to private conversations when it should have been police officers in that
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
The applicant Mr. Arthur Hutchinson was born in 1941. In October 1983, he broke into a house, murdered a man, his wife and their adult son. Then he repeatedly raped their 18-year old daughter, having first dragged her past her father’s body. After several weeks, he was arrested by the police and chargedwith the offences. During the trial he refused to accept the offence and pleaded for innocence. He denied accepting the killings and sex with the younger daughter.
Nimi Feghabo is an Atlanta-based consultant in Capgemini’s Custom Software Development service line. She has worked and acquired knowledge in many different industries spanning from Accounting to the Legal Industry. She brings significant leadership experience along with a proven track record. Prior to Capgemini, she has had experience in various industries which include legal, manufacturing, and international professional services. Her contributions include software implementation, ERP development, and facilitating changes. Through these projects, she has gained valuable insight and is able to develop transformative solutions into an effective facilitation strategy.
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
(7) Right to appellate review: The Supreme Court did not rule regarding appeal since their ruling was this case was to be remanded back to the lower courts.
The case State v. Snowden is an appeal by the defendant were the defendant pleaded guilty to an evidence charging Raymond Alien Snowden with the crime of murder of first degree. The trial of the defendant was represented by the district Court, 3rd Judicial District, Ada County, were Snowden entered judgment and sentenced of death but he appealed. Snowed was at a bar in the evening drinking and playing pool in a Boise pool room, he and other person visited another club near the one where they were playing pool, nearby Garden city. That same day Snowden and his friend visited several bars also drinking, at the end they stop at HiHo club. That same bar he met and starts having a conversation to this lady Cora Lucyle Dean, they start dancing and having a time together and they left together, while they were walking they start arguing in the street, because she wanted him to find her a cab and take her to back to Boise, but he said that he shouldn’t be paying her fare.
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.
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
Carrying from the trial, the first issue arising was whether the primary Judge erred in his consideration of the scope of the respondent’s duty of care. The second was whether the respondent’s failure to give evidence produced a Jones v Dunkel inference, suggesting greater elapsed time between radio adjustment and collision.
In 1971, Norma McCorvey or Jane Roe, filled a case against the district attorney of Dallas County, Henry Wade, because he enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion unless the abortion was needed medically, to save the mother’s life. Being a single, pregnant woman , Roe did not have the choice to have an abortion because the pregnancy was not endangering her life. Plus, Roe could not afford to travel to have the operation done safely. As a result, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, two lawyers that graduated from the University of Texas Law School, claimed a lawsuit against the abortion laws in Texas because they violated Roe’s constitutional rights. Besides Roe’s two laywers, Hallford, a licensed physician, and a childless married couple known as the Does supported Roe’s case. The lawsuit against Wade was filed in a Texas Federal Court. The Texas Federal Court heard the case on December 13th, 1971 and again, on October 11th, 1972. After the examination of Weddington and Coffee’s argument against Jay Floyd’s, the lawyer for Wade during the first argument, and Robert C. Flower’s, the lawyer for Texas in the second argument, the court ruled in Roe’s favor by claiming that the law did violate the Constitution. Consequently, Wade appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
a woman has the right to an abortion. The court that day, however, did not rule
Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.
Roe and her attorneys asked the federal district court to declare that the Texas abortion statute violated her rights under the Constitution. They also asked the court t...
The plaintiff is Jane Roe and the defendant is the district attorney of Dallas County. Jane Roe says that denying her the right for having an abortion violates the right of privacy guaranteed in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. The district attorney of Dallas refuses to let her have abortion unless her life is in jeopardy. ...
This case says the defendant has taken a substantial proportion of drugs mixed with the consumption of alcohol, the charges being brought by the prosecution was ABH and three counts of assault the defendant claimed he had no recollection to his violence due to intoxication, he was found guilty of all charges. He appealed the verdict contending that he could not be convicted when he lacked the mens rea of the offence due to his intoxicated