1 2 CASE NOTE: AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION V STODDART1 I INTRODUCTION The High Court of Australia held in Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart (2011) that a privilege against spousal incrimination does not exist at common law. This provides that a spouse sworn in as a witness loses the right to call on the privilege to refuse to answer a question at the risk of incriminating the other spouse. This case note will outline the key issues of the case‚ analyze both the High Court majority
Premium Common law Law Crime
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-19650 September 29‚ 1966 CALTEX (PHILIPPINES)‚ INC.‚ petitioner-appellee‚ vs. ENRICO PALOMAR‚ in his capacity as THE POSTMASTER GENERAL‚ respondent-appellant. Office of the Solicitor General for respondent and appellant. Ross‚ Selph and Carrascoso for petitioner and appellee. CASTRO‚ J.: In the year 1960 the Caltex (Philippines) Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Caltex) conceived and laid the groundwork
Premium Mail Contract
dfgh dgh dfh dfgh dgh dfgh dfh gh h gh dfgfghd fgh fgh gh dfgh df gh dhdhd dh dh dh dh dh dhd hjyjgh jgfhj fghj gfj fghj fgj fghj fghj fh cghjfgh vnmvnm vbnm vbm vnm vn vbnmvbnm vn vbnm vbnm vbnm vbnm vbnm vbnm vbn m vbnm vbnm v bnm vbnm vbnm v vvbnm vbnm vbnm bmvbnm vbnm vbnm vbnm vbm vbnm vbnm bnm vbm bvm bm bnm gfjhdgjngfhgf Question:Do you believe that premarital sex and sex before marriage
Premium Marriage Fornication
of assisted suicide under the Suicide Act 1961 s.2(1)‚ whilst those who carried out euthanasia would be guilty of murder. After the decision in R. (on the application of Purdy) v DPP [2009] UKHL 45‚ [2010] 1 A.C. 345‚ the DPP had set out in a policy statement the factors to be taken into account when considering whether to prosecute assisted suicide cases. The court was required to determine whether (i) to grant a declaration‚ as sought by L‚ that necessity should be a defence to a charge of euthanasia
Premium Suicide Law
death. In the Atkins v. Virginia (2002) case‚ Supreme Court ruled that execution of such a person constitutes cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the 8th amendment (Bethany A. Young-Lundquist‚ 2012). Standardized tests were the method used to test intellect. The purpose of this study was the focus on potential limitations of adaptive functioning. It has been thought that individual s with high levels of psychopathic
Premium Psychopathy Antisocial personality disorder Mental disorder
ruled that a Kentucky statute and the United States First Amendment did not authorize his refusal to identify his informers. When Branzburg appealed‚ the Kentucky Court of Appeals denied his petition. This appeal was not the end of Branzburg’s case. A second case arose from a story published on January 10‚ 1971‚ and involved him describing details about the usage of drugs in Frankfort‚ Kentucky. In order for him to accurately report this story‚ he had to spend two weeks interviewing dozens of drug users
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution Grand jury
Between Criminal and Civil Cases PA101: The Paralegal Professional Unit 8 Dianna Marsh 11/13/2012 In today ’s society there are rules and regulations in place that determine how citizens are to behave. When these rules are not upheld‚ a need to resolve or punish the offending parties exist. Whether the offense is criminal or civil‚ the case is settled in a court of law. Although there are similarities between civil and criminal cases‚ there are many differences in the way these cases are
Free Criminal law Jury Law
Hawkins v Clayton [1988] HCA 15; (1988) 164 CLR 539 (8 April 1988) High Court of Australia Case Title: HAWKINS v. CLAYTON [1988] HCA 15; (1988) 164 CLR 539 F.C. 88/012 Medium Neutral Citation: [1988] HCA 15 Hearing Date(s): 1987‚ May 13 1988‚ April 8 Decision Date: 20 June 2011 Jurisdiction: High Court of Australia Before: C.J Mason J. Wilson J. Brennan J. Deane J. Gaudron Catchwords: Negligence - Duty of care - Solicitor - Will held by solicitor
Premium Tort Supreme Court of the United States Law
McWilliams V Dunn Supreme Court of the United States Introduction The Dunn v. McWilliams case is a famous court case that was heard before the supreme court of United States in April 24‚ 2017. The case involved James McWilliams as the petitioner against Jefferson Dunn was the commissioner and was representing the Alabama department of corrections. The focus of the case was the sixth amendment of the US constitution was useful in providing for the right to the assistance of an attorney to represent
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court decided to put the case on trial; it related back to the Betts v. Brady case of 1942. Unlike Betts v. Brady’s 6-3 ruling in which Betts had lost‚ Gideon won the case with an astounding 9-0 majority. The main issue of the case centers on proper representation of the defendant. In order for the reader to fully understand the scope of the case‚ he or she needs to consider Betts v. Brady. 1Gideon’s case originally started in the lower courts. 2He went to the 13th
Premium Gideon v. Wainwright United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution