Basic Information
I attended the Magistrate’s Court on Friday the 13th of April, 2018. I attended the Victoria Police - Uni-Rowville vs Prabhedeep and Harmandeep Singh case. Mr John Hardy was the judge for this case which involved two brothers charged with child pornography possession. Prabhedeep Singh’s trial was adjourned until the 31st of May, 2018 but Harmandeep Singh case was heard on the 13th of April, 2018.
Overview of the Case
This case was a criminal matter and the particular stage of the proceeding was a contest mention. A contest mention is a hearing where all parties and the magistrate try to decide whether a case can be resolved by finding common ground between them.
In May 2016, a human trafficking investigation was carried
…show more content…
A year later, on the 31st of May, 2017, a search was done on Harmandeep Singh’s mobile phone. Child exploitation material was found on Mr Singh’s phone. There was a total of 10 files, 2 of the files being still images and 8 of the files being video images. The prosecution stated that there are 3 categories that child pornography files fall under. Category 1 is low-end images, this includes no sexual activity between two children or between children or adults. This may include a child in a sexually suggestive position. Two of the files found on Mr Singh’s device were deemed as category 1. Category 2 is non penetration images between two children. Images such as masterbation fall under this category. 6 of the files found of Mr Singh’s phone fell under category 2 images. Category 3 were described as non penetration videos between children and adults (anyone over 18). 2 of the files on Mr Singh’s device were category 3 images. Harmandeep Singh was charged with possession of child pornography and the substantive law that was breached was the ‘Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996’. The prosecution bore the burden of proof and the standard of
A summary of the case details (provide the circumstances surrounding the case, who, what, when, how)
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.
In this case entitled Gulash v. Stylarama there was a contract entered regarding the construction of pools. The pool was built and constructed but after a period of time the pool began to tilt, in which that’s when Gulash decided to sue Stylarama. The suit was that Stylarama violated provisions of article 2 of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Due to the fact the cost of the materials and the labor were not written out in detail but instead of in a lump sum it would make it hard to come up with a sum for the exact cost of the damages. Furthermore, since this is a contract with a mix of goods and services, article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code would not apply the services only to the goods but the common law would to the services. And
Statement of the Case: This part has the summary of the dispute, and what happened in the lower court and present court by the time that the brief was filed. Also, this part provides important facts and a word by word recall of the case (Statsky, pg. 545).
6-9. When the litigants settle their case by compromise, let the magistrate announce it. If they do not compromise, let them state each his own side of the case, in the comitium of the forum before noon. Afterwards let them talk it out together, while both are present. After noon, in case either party has failed to appear, let the magistrate pronounce judgment in favor of the one who is present. If both are present the trial may last until sunset but no later.
...d to follow the approach of NSWCA, after considering the reasoning in Dao. Now it is consistent in this issue across NSW and Victoria.
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Where as in the case of R v Manunta , he stated that where an apparent non-compliance with Browne v Dunn was followed by judicial comment to the jury, it is vital to consider the substance of the comment, as the purpose of the comment may differ based on circumstances. Furthermore, the case of R v MAP where the courts consideration that whether Browne v Dunn applied to the defense councils failure to cross-examine is consistent with the principles outlined in MWJ v R . It elaborates on the explication of the rule in Browne v Dunn by exploring the circumstances which may surround the failure to cross examine on a fact in issue. The facts of the revolve around a conviction of rape, according to section 349 of the criminal code 1899 (QLD), the offence of rape covers various nonconsensual sexual penetration.
The judge was identified as Colefax SC, DCJ. There were two solicitors: Mr. Ginges, Adam Phillip Hunter’s counsel, and Mr. Van Treifeldt, who would go on to become Mr. Emmet, the Commonwealth DPP. Mr. Engstorm, Mr. Ahovisi, and the coffee man were also part of this case.
Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant's Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm. 7. The Australian Encyclopaedia.
Lights, camera, action! The light switches on, and shines brightly in the center of the stage. Two people walk towards it, these are actors that were told to come out at this exact moment by the director. After days of intense rehearsals. The two young actors burst. “We are tired of working for you” the two participants yell towards the director. The director in a surprising manner walks up to the stage, stares down at the performers and laughs. “You are going nowhere; I have your contract and your pay, now back to your positions!” The performers stand and continue their roles with no opinion in the matter. The camera turns off, the shadows of the actors disappear. The common person stands up and is face to face with the director. The director
The name of the parties are (appellant) commissioner of the police of the metropolis,(respondent) Mr. Michael Rottman . The judgment has been held in the house of lords. The judges on this were- Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Roger of Earlsferry. The barristers and solicitors in this case were, Mr. Perry, on behalf of the appellant and Miss Montgomery, for the respondent. The date of the judgment was 16th may 2002.
There are three criteria for child pornography; (1) the child gets to be hurt in the proses of making. (2) Signs of struggle have to be present. (3) The legal guardian of the child is forcing them to take pictures or make videos of sexual behavior. When a teen is sexting pictures none of these criteria are meet. The pictures are took and sent voluntarily, there is not enough evidence to say that the teens are pressured into taking the picture from there partner.
Braden R. Morgan English 11, 8th block Mr. Johnson 3 May 2018 Sports Enhancing Drugs Professional and college sports are growing and getting more competitive as the year are going by, but a big issue in todays sports is the use of sports enhancing drug. Coaches and athletes wonder if they should do them and when should they do them, but most sport enhancing drugs like Steroids, GHG and others are illegal but athletes still get sport enhancing drug just in other ways. Sports enhancing drug will make sports and athletes better and will help with braking their plateau. I believe Top level athletes should be allowed to take sports enhance drugs because of athlete’s potential, competitiveness, and salaries. First reason Top level athletes
Child Pornography, as stated in section 18 of the United States Constitution, defines child pornography as generally “any visual depiction involving the use of a minor in sexually explicit conduct.” Sexually explicit conduct is defined as “actual or simulated” sexual intercourse, which includes genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or anal-anal, “whether between persons of the same or opposite sex.” Sexually explicit conduct also entails the crucial “lascivious exhibition of genitals or pubic area,” which will be explored in more detail in the case study. Finally, section 18 depicts the transportation of such conduct through the use of computers. Basically, digital cameras, scanners, video capture cards etc. are all used to convert any image or such to the desired and needed format to easily store or transport child pornography.