R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 is a case most law students could tell you the facts of even years after graduating‚ so remarkable are they. The House of Lords‚ by a 3–2 majority‚ decided that the consensual infliction of harm on another person for sexual gratification was not an act the law should permit. The judgment has received criticism in some academic circles because‚ it is thought‚ if the facts had been different and involved heterosexual sadomasochistic activity it would have been found lawful
Premium Law Sexual intercourse Common law
1.) The legal issue in R V Brown case that the house of lord had to determine was "Is consent a defence to an assault causing grievous bodily harm" This is a case of sado-masochism where the group of men were engaged in act of violence against each other particularly on their genital parts‚ by branding or genital torture for sexual pleasure. The victims in each case consented to this ritual (activity) and didn’t suffer any permanent injury. Each of the defendants faced assault ABH charges and unlawful
Premium Law Human rights
Title: R. v. Hufsky‚ [1988] 1 S.C.R 621 Parties: Werner E. J. Hufsky – Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen - Respondent Decision: Appeal was dismissed Notions/Concepts: Constitutional Law Criminal Law Equality before the law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Arbitrary detention Unreasonable Search Refusal to provide breath sample Facts: Appellant was stopped at a random spot check by police Nothing unusual about his driving at the time of the spot check Spot check was for the purposes
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States
Litonjua v. L&R Corporation December 9‚ 1999 Facts: Litonjua obtained loans from L&R Corporation secured by a mortgage. Without knowledge of L&R‚ Litonjua sold to PWHAS the parcels of land they had previously mortgaged to L & R Corporation. When Litonjua defaulted in the payment of their loans‚ L & R Corporation initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings and L & R Corporation was the only bidder. When L & R Corporation presented its corresponding Certificate of Sale for registration‚ it
Premium Mortgage
Introduction Comedy is a form of entertainment that brings laughter and uses wit and humor. Comedy is a performed humor which covers scripted or improvised dialogue done by a group‚ duo or in solo; in any medium; television‚ radio or theatre. Plato asserts that comedy is a mixture of pleasure and pain causing laughter at the ridiculous situations of those who are ignorant of their own weaknesses. For Plato‚ comedy is destructive; it is ‘dark‚’ (Aichele‚ 1980). On the other hand‚ for Aristotle‚ comedy
Premium Comedy Theories of humor GMA Network
Case: R v. Hebert Facts of Case Judges: Dickson‚ Robert George Brian; Lamer‚ Antonio; Wilson‚ Bertha; La Forest‚ Gérard V.; L’Heureux-Dubé‚ Claire; Sopinka‚ John; Gonthier‚ Charles Doherty; Cory‚ Peter deCarteret; McLachlin‚ Beverley Neil Hebert was suspected of having robbed the Klondike Inn. After the police located Hebert‚ they placed him under arrest and informed him of his rights‚ and took him to the R.C.M.P detachment in Whitehorse. Hebert contacted counsel and obtained legal advice regarding
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Police
involving Sef Gonzales. The case “Regina vs Gonzales (2004) NSW SC 822” involved the triple murders of Gonzales’s mother‚ father and only sister The meaning of justice is that everyone is treated equally and fairly under the law. The law was effective in this case because justice was achieved‚ for the accused‚ for the victims and for society. Former Sydney student Sef Gonzales has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the triple murder of his parents‚ solicitor Ted Gonzales‚ Mary Loiva Gonzales and then
Premium Life imprisonment Murder Crime
R. V. Keegstra : In Support of the Dissent Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirement for PHL613‚ Philosophy of Law Sean Peters 500 204 129 April 11‚ 2012 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Overview of R. V. Keegstra 2 Why does Freedom of Speech in Democracy Matter? 2 Factors of the Offense Principle 3 Why not Moralism? 4 Philosophical Analysis 4 Criticism 6 Recommendations 7 Conclusion 8 Appendices 9 Appendix
Premium Freedom of speech Hate speech Human rights
R. v Burns case Brief Case Facts The defendants Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay were accused to have committed aggravated first degree murder in Washington State. In a confession to an undercover RCMP officer in British Columbia‚ posing as a mob boss‚ it is clamed that Burns was a contract killer hired by Rafay to kill his parents so that Rafay could get insurance money for their deaths. It is claimed that Burns beat the victims with a baseball bat while Rafay watched (para.10). They
Premium Appeal Crime Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
dishonest. dishonesty is describing the state of mind of the defendant‚ the jury have to determine the state of mind of the defendant at the time of the appropriation whether he was dishonest or not. The court of appeal laid down a test for dishonesty in R v Ghosh 1982 which is upon the jury to apply. The test is known as the Ghosh test and involves two stages‚ both subjective and objective. The first stage is where the courts ask the question of whether the defendant had been dishonest by the ordinary
Premium Criminal law Theft Law