Shakespeare in My Canada Desmond Manderson and Paul Yachnin created the Shakespeare Moot Court Project in 2002, aimed at exploring the interpretative nature of law and literature in relation to Shakespeare. In this court, Shakespeare is law; his plays and sonnets form a body of law used to argue cases of various topics. In 2003-2004, the project took on the issue of same-sex marriage in “Love on Trial: Same Sex Marriage and the Law of Shakespeare.” Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada, a
Pastizzi Café Pty Ltd v Hossain was the case of Supreme Court of New South Wales in July in 2011. In this Case, there were three Plaintiff named Pastizzi Café Pty Ltd, Deborah Ross, Leonard Ross and Two Defendant named Miraj Hossain, Talukder Enterprises Pty Ltd. Micheal Fitzgearld was the solicitor of Plaintiffs and Mooney & Kennedy were Defendant Solicitor. In this case, Mr Hossain and Ms Ross started the business of Pastizzi in 2007.At that time Mr Hossain and Ms Ross were the directors and
Chapter 7: At the Moot The most interesting part of the moot is the oral rounds .This is the time for which you have worked for months. The adrenaline rush you get while speaking in front of the judge is memorable. Oral Rounds augment the important skills that a lawyer needs 1) Start an argument with a conclusion, 2) Differentiate fact from opinion, and 3) To organize a legal argument by issue rather than by a chronological narrative of the facts. Moot courts also teach professionalism and ethics
down before or after Martin was backed over. This could allow a judge to find that the closing of the garage and use of the car were related enough. Therefore, the third element could be met. However, the second element makes all of the conjecture moot, because it is clearly not satisfied. He had already clocked out which was not in the authorized time and space limits of his employment. A judge should find there are no grounds to sue for respondeat superior, because the rule of scope of employment
A court system must observe and consider certain issues when a person stands trial in a court of law. Some of these issues involve competency, sanity and diminished capacity among other issues. These issues influence the decision of the court regarding the offence that the accused faces. For a court of law to make its decision, it has to ensure that the accused is in an acceptable state of health condition. There are certain standards that the court uses to determine competency level of the accused
cartoon, uses satire to describe real events that happen in society. The episode I tuned into was “The Trial of R. Kelly”, which explained how R. Kelly won his trial and the views of the people about his case. In the episode, the people outside the court house showed different cognitive frameworks of how they view R. Kelly situation. In other words, the media made sense of the reality of R. Kelly situation in different ways because of the media wanted to select certain information. In this paper
In Robert Penn Warren’s All The King’s Men, The Case of the Upright Judge is used to show Jack firsthand how a person’s actions affect others and that every action has a reaction and that chains of events is never truly broken. An irreverent former student of history, Jack Burdren abandoned his dissertation on Cass Mastern because of his inability to connect with him and to see cause and effect, to understand why Mastern wanted to die. Jack did not come to understand the importance of the past until
(typically twelve in number) sworn to give a verdict in a legal case on the basis of evidence submitted to them in court. Nullification: In United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts. Ought: Used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. Perceived: Become aware
The court acknowledged that this recommendation was negligent, since they botched to prevent destruction from happening to someone else. Should it have mattered that the former employer’s investigation was not able to confirm all of the allegations against
To understand In modern times and times of old, court cases do not always hold up the idea of reasonable doubt. The case in Twelve Angry Men was almost a case in which reasonable doubt was not explored fully. The jury almost found the man guilty before examining the evidence and making a true decision. The exploitation of reasonable doubt is something that extends beyond the crime drama. This is a scary thought that one of the major ideas of the court system isn’t always being upheld. A study done
Bad math in court is something that happens over and over again and because of it, many innocent victims have been jailed and punished unjustly over the years. The problem is not some sort of miscalculation, but the refusal of the court to recalculate. More than often enough, the judge refuses to reexamine the collected DNA in an investigation case. What the people of the court fail to realize at times is that probability is not a one off thing, it is something that should be repeated at least more
Although the dedication of Mr. Finch in “To Kill a Mockingbird”, even though it turned out against his favor due to an absence of evidence and a debauched court hearing. This court hearing makes readers question whether or not the justice system of that era was fair and in retrospect, a good question is whether or not our justice system today is fair and lawful. If you think that a false conviction was unfair, Tom is eventually killed for his false conviction under a faulty justice system. To me
Should Oscar Pistorius be found guilty for the death of Reeva Steenkamp? To what extend will his status as a celebrity affect his ruling. Oscar Pistorius is a double amputee that has been herald for his achievements as a sporting icon. His achievement at the 2004, 2008 and 2012 Olympics has made him into the first notable handicapped sporting icon who has been praised for doing what no other disabled person has done before. His athletic prowess has not only won him 7 gold medals as a Paralympic
different motor accident cases in Malaysia. For each cases, three elements will be identify, i.e. fact of the case, court held and reason. 1st case: Peter A/L Selvaraj & Anor V Cheng Bee Teik & Ors [2002] 4 MLJ 167 Fact of the case: This negligent case relating to road accident involves the collision between two motorcycles and a motorvan. This is an appeal case from Sessions Court regarding apportionment of liability for both parties. The first plaintiff was the rider of motorcycle and the second
R. v. Williams, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128 Criminal Law and Supreme Court; McLachlin J. Facts An aboriginal by the name of Victor Daniel Williams, was charged in the year 1993 with the robbery of a pizza parlour. He was elected a trial by judge and jury where he pleaded not guilty to the crime. His defence was one of mistaken identity. Nevertheless the jury convicted him of robbery . At his first trial, Williams applied to question potential jurors for racial bias under s. 638 of the Code. In support
Poole was the real perpetrator. Sadly, there are many other cases of erroneous convictions. Picking cotton is a must read for anybody because it educates readers about shortcomings of eyewitness identification, the police investigative process and the court system. Eyewitness
was arrested for the killing of a police officer there are a number of hearings he would have to go through before his case actually goes to court. The first thing that would happen would be that he gets changed with murder or the killing of the police officer. Then there will be an initial hearing which is the first time the defendant comes before the Court (Judge) (avvo.com. n.d.). At this hearing the judge is responsible for making sure that the defendant understands his constitutional rights,
First, he coaches Manion into taking up an insanity plea, and continues to pursue this argument, despite knowing Manion was in control of his actions at the time of the murder. Secondly, he adopts the persona of a “small town country lawyer,” while in court in order to make the jury sympathize with him, and get in certain arguments he might not be able to present conventionally. Most of the conversations that take place between Lt.
you’re entailed to. There will be no labels of who you are outside the court. This sets equality to everyone; the twelve judges have the right to make their own decisions. They are entailed to the same argument, to the same witness and most importantly everyone gets an equal vote on the settlement. You want to know what people outside the court have to say otherwise the court system would become corrupt. This is why our court system is one of the greatest in the world compared to other
This paper will be focusing on the courts as the specific sub-system in the criminal justice system. As said in the book the court system is responsible for charging criminal suspects, carrying out trials, and sentencing a person convicted of a crime. The fear of crime influences criminal justice policies in the court system. One way it does this is with the courts sentencing. Courts are able to give out severe punishments as a method of deterrence. This specific type of deterrence would be general