Once you have chosen a case, begin conducting your research. Your research should cover the following details:
1. The individual or group that had their rights infringed—who were they?
The husband (L) believed that a married woman does not have the right to refuse sexual intercourse. He believed his rights were infringed as there were inconsistencies between state and commonwealth law (R) The wife had her rights to her own body and choice infringed. The common law now follows the ruling from the RVL case and now longer recognises a husband’s right to force his wife to participate in sexual intercourse against her will.
2. Which right(s) was infringed? How was the right(s) infringed?
In this case the wife’s (r) rights to deny participation in
…show more content…
With the section stating that consent will not be recognized merely because there is a marital relationship between the parties involved
- L argued that the South Australian Government had no jurisdiction to legislate in such matters as to altering laws relating to marriage or to create laws. Therefore under section 109 of the constitution this section was invalid and thus the common law view or irrevocable consent remained.
- L based his argument on Section 114(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Commonwealth) which allowed the Family Court to include as a condition in an injunction, that a party be relieved from their obligation to perform marital and conjugal services. L argued that the section in the state Act and the section in the Commonwealth Act were inconsistent as one took away the obligation to perform conjugal services while the other assumed that the right existed.
- L asked the court to determine whether there was an inconsistency in the law and to find in his favour, that a law of a state cannot remove the legal rights of marriage, including a husband’s right to have sexual intercourse with his wife without her consent.
- The High Court held that there were no inconsistencies between the two Acts.
The milestone judicial decision in Cole v Whitfield pronounced a pivotal moment in Australian jurisprudence in relation to the interpretation of s92 of the Australian constitution. This essay will critically analyse the constitutional interpretation approach utilised in Cole v Whitfield. This method will be compared with the interpretational methods exemplified in Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory. Although within these two cases there appears to be a preference towards a particular interpretational method, each mode has both strengths and weaknesses. Accordingly, the merit of each should be employed in conjunction with one another, where the court deems fit, complementing each other. This may provide a holistic approach to interpreting the constitution.
The main case that will be discussed in this paper is Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Walsh. This paper will argue that Bastarache J delivers the significant argument due to the recognition that individual’s choice to marry or not to marry must be respected; benefits arise from both married and common law relationships therefore, the Matrimonial Property Act does not discriminate unmarried heterosexual couples. This essay will address the facts, the legal issues, the decision, and an analysis of the decision.
Article 42A.1°1- This article relates to the "natural and imprescriptable" rights of all children. It also continues to mention that the state, albeit as far as practicable, will vindicate the rights of all children. G v An Bord Uchtála2 was a case relating to Article 42.5°3 (which will now be deleted and replaced), related to the "natural and imprescriptable" rights of the child which will now be protected under Article 42A.1. This case which concerned the rights of an unmarried mother saw the Supreme Court trying to expand the rights provided for under the now replaced article with no real continuity. The previous article relating to this placed no real emphasis on State intervention except in exceptional circumstances which will now be changed following the addition of the amended articles. Another interesting aspect of this amended article is the reference to "all children". Previously marital families enjoyed a specific set of rights and it was permissible to discriminate in favour of marital families in some cases. This discrimination arises from the protection offered under Article 41.3.2°4,_________________________________________________...
A unanimous Supreme Court decision overturned the Lovings convictions on June 12, 1967. The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Chief Justice Warren’s opinion stated that the Constitution provide citizens “the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
Although marital privacy (and later personal privacy when Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972, extended the rights to unmarried persons ), was at the heart of this ruling, there are many other compelling arguments in ruling this law unconstitutional. To examine these other points, including; freedom of speech/ press, right of association, privacy of the person, due process of law and the violation in restricting education, we must first have an basic understanding of the case itself.
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).
What is a case study? A case study is a process or record of research in which detailed consideration is given to the development of a particular person, group, or situation over a period of time. There is many different types of cases; rape, robbery, arson, kidnapping and finally murder. Case studies lead to trials;a formal examination of evidence before a judge, and typically before a jury, in order to decide guilt in a case of criminal or civil proceedings. One famous case study that went to trial was Jodi Arias Trial. Her case was her getting convicted of brutally murdering her ex-boyfriend, Travis Alexander.
“The Parliament shall, subject to the Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (xxi) Marriage: (xxii) Divorce and matrimonial causes; and relation thereto, parental rights and the custody and guardianship of inf...
...get equal legal & financial rights for same-sex couples as opposite-sex couples. It states that while it will not allow same-sex marriage, it provides homosexual de facto couples the same rights that heterosexual de facto couples have.
"The Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the Wake of Romer v. Evans ." New
The Family Law Legislation Amendment Act of 2011 and whether it has Reduced Violence and Abuse for Women and Children
... if? The legal consequences of marriage and the legal needs of lesbian and gay male couples. Michigan Law review. Nov.1996. Pg. 447-491. http://www.jstor.org.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/stable/1290119?seq=1&uid=3739664&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103079482127
Before I start making the assignment, I have read the case to get and understanding the big picture or the situation in the case study. After that, I analyse the case first by understanding the content in the case study and think creatively the relation between the case and the topic. Then, I read the case again and actively take notes or underline passages. After that, I discussed with my team to identify the key issues in this case, to know the problem that are related with this case study. After I identify the issues in this case, I and my team member generate possible solutions, think about consequences of various paths of action, and weight the advantages and limitations of solutions.
In the light of changes to the law over the past forty five years, in Hyde v Hyde Lord Penzance argued that, ‘’a marriage may be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others’’, this has enshrined in the Matrimonial Causes Act . This argument requires a critical discussion in the light of the above case including statutes, case law, changes in society, public opinion, Human right and same sex marriage.
Kirby, M. 1997, ‘Bill of Rights for Australia – But do we need it?’, viewed 30 March 2014, < http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/&id=/A60DA51D4C6B0A51CA2571A7002069A0>