Court Assignment
James Hillier
Nolan Blackie
Date: Friday November 3rd 2006
Style: Criminal Code, section 279.1
Judge: Judge Silverman
Defence: Mr. Jettay, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Fowler
Prosecution: Mr. Huey
Summary: Johal, Johal, and Deo are the defendants in this case who are being charge with kidnapping with the intent to transport a person against his/her will. The defendants later extorted the victim and the victim’s family. The issue before the court today is whether the charge of kidnapping subsumes the charge of extortion or if the charge of extortion is an independent act from that of kidnapping.
Were the proceedings cooperative or adversarial?
The cooperative nature of the trial was characterized by the affable titles used by the lawyers and the judge when addressing each other and by the opportunities given to all parties to express their full opinion. Judge Silverman was referred to as “your honourable justice” and “your lordship” while how “my friend described” particular situations implies the careful respect the parties paid to each others.
In the issues addressed by the court, prosecuting and defending lawyers were given the opportunity to express their positions and the lawyers were additionally given numerous rebuttals as necessary for the judge to decide the matter upon. The judge stated necessity that “we can all agree” on the facts and the representing lawyers had the opportunity to present their “respectful submission” on the applicable law and precedents before the judge would render his decision.
The processions emphasized bringing all relevant evidence before the judge before he rendered his decision; this evidence came in the form citing specific statue law such as the criminal code and the details of precedent cases that had related issues. Precedent cases presented included Regina vs. Prince, Bar vs. Tours, and the Kienapple case which parties used to address how they believed the application of law in those cases was relevant
Nolan Blackie
Date: Friday November 3rd 2006
Style: Criminal Code, section 279.1
Judge: Judge Silverman
Defence: Mr. Jettay, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Fowler
Prosecution: Mr. Huey
Summary: Johal, Johal, and Deo are the defendants in this case who are being charge with kidnapping with the intent to transport a person against his/her will. The defendants later extorted the victim and the victim’s family. The issue before the court today is whether the charge of kidnapping subsumes the charge of extortion or if the charge of extortion is an independent act from that of kidnapping.
Were the proceedings cooperative or adversarial?
The cooperative nature of the trial was characterized by the affable titles used by the lawyers and the judge when addressing each other and by the opportunities given to all parties to express their full opinion. Judge Silverman was referred to as “your honourable justice” and “your lordship” while how “my friend described” particular situations implies the careful respect the parties paid to each others.
In the issues addressed by the court, prosecuting and defending lawyers were given the opportunity to express their positions and the lawyers were additionally given numerous rebuttals as necessary for the judge to decide the matter upon. The judge stated necessity that “we can all agree” on the facts and the representing lawyers had the opportunity to present their “respectful submission” on the applicable law and precedents before the judge would render his decision.
The processions emphasized bringing all relevant evidence before the judge before he rendered his decision; this evidence came in the form citing specific statue law such as the criminal code and the details of precedent cases that had related issues. Precedent cases presented included Regina vs. Prince, Bar vs. Tours, and the Kienapple case which parties used to address how they believed the application of law in those cases was relevant