At the outset of this analysis, it is apposite to point out that Judge Swift failed to summarise the facts and evidence presented in this case. It was held in Arnado-Taylor that it is a procedural irregularity for a judge to sum without a review of the facts; particular emphasis was laid on the fact that the closing speeches of counsel were no substitute for a judicial and impartial view of the facts from the trial judge, who has the duty to focus the attention of the jury on the issues which he identified. The failure to summarise the facts to the jury is therefore an arguable ground of appeal. Also, Judge Swift failed to direct the jury as to the elements of the offence contrary to McVey , but instead told the jury that the elements of the …show more content…
It is noted that no such attention was given to Mr Balfour’s evidence in the present case. The judge’s failure is further aggravated by the fact that, contrary to the decision in Berrada , Judge Swift indulged in inappropriate sarcasm or extravagant comment on Mr Balfour instead of presenting the matters clearly, impartially and logically. The inappropriate sarcasm or extravagant comment was in relation to Mr Balfour’s wealth and age, and gave the impression of a pre-conceived conclusion that Mr Balfour was involved with drugs. It was held in Canny that if those comments have the effect of withdrawing the issue of guilt or innocence from the jury, then they will constitute good ground of appeal which is likely to succeed to quash the conviction. In the present case, it is submitted that the said comments, along with remarks about the unsuitability of Mr Balfour as Mandy Scrutton’s boyfriend, show the judge’s biased opinion and therefore effectively withdraw the issue of guilt from the jury. Furthermore, where the judge has the duty to summarise and present the defence case fairly, the aforementioned remarks have the effect of prejudicing the fairness of the trial. In the Court of Appeal decision of Marr , Lord Lane CJ held that ‘however …show more content…
It is trite law that all persons are competent and compellable to give evidence, except for the categories provided under section 53 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA). Therefore, Judge Swift should have directed the jury that Mandy Scrutton’s evidence is admissible in law, although it is for them to decide what weight to give to her evidence, given her relationship with Mr
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.
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
This case commentary discusses the different approaches used to be taken in Victoria and NSW, presuming that the admissibility of the Evidence in ss 97, 98 and 101 is of the same decision, not separate decision .
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
On the basis of this evidence, Kenneth Garlow was charged with murdering Elizabeth. Dats between his murder charge and appearance in court, a new and
make there decision, but in the end there was no way that the jury was going to believe a
This case should have the attention of the legal community in order to not have a repeat of the injustice that Sophonow and the victim's family experienced. Inadequate Legal Representation, Eyewitness Misidentification and Faulty Forensic Evidence were combined to make this
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.
A second testimony that supports the opposite of the verdict, was the fact that Mr. Ewell never called a doctor after learning of Mayella's injuries. Following the incident, there had not been any physical examination performed by a certified physician. If indeed Mr. Robinson had committed the crime, Mr. Ewell's first instinct would have been to get his daughter checked out. Upon finding his daughter 'assaulted';, he would have wanted to have her injuries treated including the injury that might been caused by rape.
The valid point is concerned with Goodhart’s article “Determining the Ratio Decidedi of a Case. Simpson accepts the Goodhart theory proposition that ‘‘the ratio decidendi of a case can be defined as the material facts of the case plus the decision thereon.” He points out that there is an opposed theory, which maybe conveniently called ‘classical theory’ which is that “the ratio is ‘the principle of law which the judge considered necessary to his decision.’’ The Supreme Court’s approach to the illegality defence in decisions, bringing tension in judicial decision between the need for legal certainty and need to achieve fair result. Therefore, quantitative research on whether extra-legal factors influenced judicial decision making has found no universally applicable answers as some variables can explain certain judicial behaviour in some situations but, both in others. When interpreting and applying legislations, to decided case, especially when cases involve ambiguous aspect of a statute which is statutory interpretation; which over time, various methods and construction has fallen in and out of favour including the primary rules (literal,mischief
...tood. This problem has persisted through many cases, clearly highlighting the lack of expertise of juries, and if they do not understand the process and basic rules, then they cannot be a reliable body in determining innocence. Jurors incapability of following evidence inevitably leads to guess work with jury’s finding defendants guilty because ‘he looked like he did it’ and ‘he looks like a nonce so he must of done it’. Moreover, cases have been reported of incredulous juries using absurd methods to ascertain a verdict, like in R v Young 1995, where a Ouija Board was used to determine if the defendant was guilty or not. It is clear that it would be better and far more effective to abolish the jury system, and leave the experts and qualified legal professionals to try defendants, as they understand the process and possess the expertise to make balanced decisions.
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.
Without accepting confessions as legitimate form of evidence to be used in the court of law, the justice system would be in complete disarray what with most suspects making confessions to the police, also having a high likelihood of going on to be convicted. Confessional evidence is of great importance seeing as it is one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Although it is of high regard in evidential law, it would be naïve to say that the law on confessions is down to perfection, especially with such high-profile cases such as the Guildford four or Birmingham six which brought to the surface the potential possibility of fabrication by police and perversion of the use of confessional evidence to bring about a certain result in a case. While known as the most powerful form of evidence to be adduced, it is also known as the “best and worst form of evidence” to deal with. Whether the implementations of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act has succeeded to remedy the dilemmas in respect to confession is up for discussion.
in criminal law and Beckett Ltd v. Lyons [1967] 1 All ER 833 the law
This shows that judges in fact, do possess a certain amount of discretion. It has even been argued that in practice, judges seemed to have first come to decisions or conclusions of their own before actually searching and relying on precedents in line with their decisions to back them up. In the case of Merritt v Merritt [1970] CA, Balfour v Balfour [1919] was a prima