R v Hunter- Case Brief By Chelsea Abrahamson. In a summary of this case, the plaintiff, Adam Phillip Hunter, bought drugs into Australia from South Africa over the border. To hide them, he took the drugs and concealed them in the arm of an excavator without anyone knowing, he was only 33 years old. Later, 384 plastic-wrapped 1 kg bricks were discovered by the Australian Federal Police inside the excavator’s arm. After being found guilty, Adam was given a 12-year, 9-month jail sentence without the possibility of being released for an additional 8 years and 3 months. The last time he appeared in court and was heard was two years later when he was 35 years of age. The parties to this case were the main plaintiff, Adam Phillip Hunter, and Regina, the Commonwealth Crown, who are currently in discussion. 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. …show more content…
At the time of the purchase, Adam was at least reckless in that the excavator contained a commercial quantity of border-controlled drugs. This case is between Regina (Commonwealth) and Adam (offender). The trial took place in the District Court of New South Wales, in Australia. The excavator was shipped but did not yet arrive in Australia at the time Adam bought it. The goods transporting firm received regular updates on the excavator’s condition throughout
Her claim of duress did not meet the presence and immediacy requirements of s. 17 of the Criminal Code. When Ms.Ruzic committed the offence, Mirkovic the man who was threatening her was not present and she was not under any type of immediate threat, death or bodily harm. Ms.Ruzic successfully argued that s. 17 of the Code was unconstitutional because it violated her right to security of the person under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ms.Ruzic was acquitted on the charge of importing heroin. The Crown appealed the acquittal on the charge of importing heroin, but the court of appeal dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court agreed that s.17 breached s.7 of the Charter because then other people would be defenseless if the threat was not directly
Elizabeth Henderson, Trials, tribunals and tribulations: Brandy v Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission [1995] Sydney Law Review Vol. 17, 587
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
There is no dispute that Mr.Nanokeesic showed an attempt to prevent the police from finding the weapon, when he ran from the police and discarded his backpack. The backpack was found by the police and searched, without a warrant.
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 .
R N Howie and P A Johnson, Annotated Criminal Legislation NSW, 2011-2102, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths 2012) 17769-1774
To begin, the events that took place in this Supreme Court Case occurred on November 17, 2003 involving Donnohue Grant and three Toronto Police Officers, two of which were dressed in plain clothes and in an unmarked car. The area had a history of student assaults, robberies and drug offences which was one of the main reasons for the obvious police presence in the vicinity. The accused was walking down the street very close to school when officer’s Worrall and Forde passed by in their unmarked car. Grant stared at the officers as they drove by him while fidgeting with his coat and pants in a particular way which caught the attention of undercover Worrall and Forde. Officer’s Worrall and Forde then informed officer Gomes that he should have a chat with the suspicious accused.
The duty of prosecutorial disclosure is one that is safely entrenched in our understanding of the legal system. The prosecution must disclose evidence that relates to the case and is favorable to the defendant. While not explicitly stated in that duty, it also means that the histories of the witnesses are available to the defense. And when police officers are called to testify at cases, their disciplinary histories come into play as a factor in their credibility. Taking all this prior information into account when addressing the dilemma of the police officer with a good record who used the department computers to look at pornography using his login information, and then lied about it only to confess when the internal investigation proved
The Supreme Court of Canada. Judgement by McLachlin J. Also present: Lamer C.J. and L’Heureux Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.
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.
Dennis Denuto, the small time lawyer, had very little power and authority during his time in court. During the hearing at the magistrates court he consistently stuttered and tripped over his own words, even pulling Darryl aside to tell him that “I have no idea what I'm doing”. On the complete contrary to this the queens council (Ron Graham) had a great deal of power. Firstly his work and his service is almost always obscured by an enormous fee, because of which Darryl must rely on charity in order to receive legal representation. Once in court Ron, while Dennis Denuto sits idle and helpless passing the occasional useless note, stands confidently providing accurate statements as to why Airlink should not be able to forcibly acquire the Kerrigan family's home along with calm, convincing rebuttals to any counter arguments provided by the Airlink
From the aforementioned cases, it is evident to see that the Australian legal system has not always been fair and just, however, over time it has been shaped and moulded to clearly represent what is now considered to be fair and just in our society. From the procedures and presumptions of how the legal system is administered to the law and regulations which determine what is the crime and punishment – these are based on the transparency, equality, freedom from bias, human rights, and established set of rules adhere to the justice and fairness of the legal system.
On March 5, 2014 at 0900 hours I observed the United States v. Soto case. I attended the opening statements and the examination of witnesses. Brandon James Kimura, the Assistant United States Attorney, acquired the government’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Hector Soto, was guilty. Attorney Michael E. Lasater assisted Kimura in his proceedings. On June 29, 2013 at 1300 hours, border patrol agents stopped the defendant in his vehicle at the point of entry. Due to the perception of nervousness, the inspecting agent passed Soto to secondary for further examination. Upon a thorough investigation, border patrol agents discovered four packages concealed behind the driver’s seat. Underneath the defendant’s jacket, lied 2.9 kilograms of pure methamphetamines worth approximately $80,000. Under the United Stated Penal Code Title 21: Section 841, Soto knowingly possessed a controlled substance with in...
Scheb, J. M., & Scheb, J. M. (2011). Criminal law and procedure. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Lippman, M. (2012). Contemporary Criminal Law Concepts, Cases and Controversies (3rd ed.). [Vitalsouce Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781452277660/5/3