1. The individual or group that had their rights infringed—who were they?
The individuals/groups that had their rights infringed were Vicki Lee Roach as she was serving a sentence above three years preventing her from voting, others that also had their rights infringed were all prisoners serving a sentence more than three years.
2 Which right(s) was infringed? How was the right(s) infringed?
Vickie Lee Roach was a prisoner whose ability to vote had been taken away by Commonwealth legislation. She argued that the legislation breached her constitutional rights and argued her case in the High Court. Roach’s disqualification from voting violated both the Australian Constitution’s requirement that parliament be “directly chosen by the people”
…show more content…
What/who encouraged them? Roach was not encouraged or forced by anybody but herself to take this case to court, we know this information by her Solicitor Phillip Lynch of the Human Rights Law Research centre. He stated this information in the age, he also claimed that “she chose us rather than we choosing her.” She also had prisoners on her side agreeing to her statement and supporting her.
4 What were the facts of the case?
Roach was an Indigenous Australian, convicted on five charges under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). Roach was sentenced in 2004 to a total of six years imprisonment. At the time, the Act provided that the following people were disenfranchised (ineligible to vote) in Commonwealth elections:
● those incapable of understanding the nature and significance of enrolling and voting
● those serving a sentence of three or more years for an offence
● those convicted of treason or
…show more content…
6 What laws existed at the time of this case? How did they impact on the individual/group? That is, what specific laws affected the group/individual and compelled them to start legal action? S7 and S24 existed at the time and helped her case effectively, Roach new her right to vote and had completed her master’s degree in professional writing, she was fully aware of what offences she committed but she also had a little knowledge about the law and how she was allowed to fight against the rule “prisoners who are serving 3 years in jail are not allowed to vote” she then started legal action as she found out she was not allowed to vote and introduced herself to Phillip Lynch.
7 Which groups/individuals had opposing views on the issues in this case? What were these
She was to serve a total of 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years. Roach overcame her rocky past and became somewhat of a model prisoner, earning a Master's Degree in professional writing. Whilst
In this case, Vicki lee roach had been serving 6 years in prison for negligently causing a car accident. Q2. Which right(s) was infringed? How was the right(s) infringed? Roach has challenged the effectiveness of the 2006 amendments made to the electoral act 1918 (cth) by the passage of the electoral and referendum amendment act 2006 (cth).
FORMER delinquent and Aborigine, Vickie Lee Roach, was serving a six-year jail term for the 125 convictions she had between 1976 and 2003, from 23 court appearances. At the time of her arrest in 2002, Roach had alcohol, four types of tranquillisers, morphine and a cannabis-related substance in her blood. In an attempt to escape police by driving at a high speed, Roach hit a stationary car, which went up in flames resulting in a suffering of burns up to 45 per cent of the man in the other cars body. Roach had challenged the validity of the 2006 amendments made to the Electoral Act (1918). The amendments prohibited all prisoners from voting in federal elections.
Former delinquent takes on Government and wins Vickie Lee Roach receives her degree. August 31, 2007 The champion of prisoners ' rights had an unlikely path to High Court victory, writes Karen Kissane. VICKIE Lee Roach was taken from her mother when she was two and thinks of herself as a member of the stolen generation.
On a lesser note, Cray also examines the dichotomy between Warren’s republican background and his role in the development of progressive legislation as Chief Justice. In these controversial cases, Warren asked himself ‘what is right’ before he asked ‘what is the legal precedent.’ Cray craftily points out Warren’s seemingly paradoxical characteristics and views and explains them with great
Williamson could not gain assistance from his parents as they passed away. Williamson’s sisters however did acknowledge he needed assistance and their support before and during his trial. Unfortunately, they were left with very limited ways to help him such as convincing police to grant him limited permission to attend the family funeral before the trial. Describe District Attorney Bill Peterson’s legal tactics and motivation in convicting Williamson and
Today the trial, Scott V. Missouri, which was Dred Scott, a slave owned by Irene Emerson, suing for his freedom, had taken place. The trial had started out with a witness for prosecution, who stated that due to Dred Scott’s status as a slave, that he didn’t have any rights within the constitution. He went on to claim that the constitution only covered people and therefore, Dred Scott was only considered property and had no rights. In addition, the witness made the argument that due to Missouri law, Dred Scott was still considered a slave since he still resides within Missouri. During their argument, the Supreme Court questioned the witness about what the definition of a person was in the constitution and whose job it was to debate the Constitution.
The Compromise of 1850, a group of five different bills that were passed in the United States on September 1850. The compromise, which was drafted by Henry Clay and brokered by Stephen Douglas, in order to reduce conflict after the controversy about the Fugitive Slave provision. F.H. Hodder wrote, "The Authorship Of The Compromise Of 1850" in which Hodder went into detail about all aspects of the compromise. Hodder strongly believed that the authorship of the Compromise of 1850 should belong to Senator Stephen Douglas.
He challenged the law that took away his right to vote while in prison, he argued that s.51(e) of The Canadian Elections Act violated his Charter Rights by excluding every person who is imprisoned in a correctional facility for the commission of any offence. Sauvé claimed that it contradicted s.3 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly. Sauvé was a citizen and as a citizen under the Charter, he was guaranteed the right to vote.
The first women in Australian that were able to vote were in South Australia, in 1895 , and quickly, other states and territories followed. This leap in women’s rights changed Australia into a nation of equality, and moved the nation into the next stage of cultural independence. Vida Goldstein was a Victorian citizen who followed in her mother’s footsteps in becoming a social reformer and a suffragist. She was firmly encouraged by her parents to become educated and independent, and this led her to become the leader in Victoria for women’s equality. She was an excellent public speaker, and this enabled her to grasp her audience and effect and change their opinions on women’s equality.
This essay will analyze and evaluate Chapter 3, which is called The Color of Justice, explaining policies, Supreme Court rulings, and everyday practices. The chapter starts off by
Throughout her life, Nellie McClung strove to improve life, not just for women but for all Canadians. She was an active suffragette, writer, and politician. McClung was born in Chatsworth, Ontario, on October 20, 1873. When she was seven years old, she moved to Manitoba, which was where she contributed to the suffragette movement later in her life. When she was 23, she married and moved to Winnipeg, where she continued to fight for change for women.
Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.
In “The Dark Side of Human Rights,” Onora O'Neill holds that rights to goods and services require that the good or service is guaranteed, which entails that someone is responsible to supply them. For example, with rights to food and health care the accountable individuals are “the farmer and the physician” (O'Neill 427). These rights contrast liberty rights, which are negative and include rights preventing physical harm and interference. Liberty rights demand that first-order obligations (to respect them) be universal, and second-order obligations (to guarantee they are respected) be particular (428). Until the obligations associated with rights to goods and services are clarified, the question remains: “what is required of the farmer, the physician and others who actually have to provide food and health care?”
In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.