The enormously significant decision of JC will have wide ranging implications in both the vindication of rights and the administration of justice in the near future. Despite it being the appropriate time to re-write the Kenny decision, it is clear that “the wrong move on evidence” has been made. While the criticisms of the JC case, will no doubt, be far and long lasting, I do believe there is a glimmer of hope in looking towards the Canadian position of R v Grant. However, this is not without its problems and could come in for some constitutional questioning if adopted. In the hope of achieving change, it is imperative that our courts adopt a more of assertive posture in the near future in setting down a balanced and workable exclusionary
The Paramount decision happened in 1948. This was a supreme court case. The ruling of this case decided if movies studios would also own movie theaters and hold exclusive rights to their theaters. The movie studios were monopolizing the industry. This court decision changed the way Hollywood was run. It changed the way movies were produced and distributed. Before this ruling, certain theaters would play certain movies. They would only play the movies that were made by the same company. This is basically making people go to a certain theater just to see a certain dilm that they want to see. This is now illegal. The Paramount decision is used as a reference for other court cases that are similar. The result in this decision is that
Horton Automatics and the Industrial Division of the Communications Workers of America, the union that represented Horton’s workers, negotiated a collective bargaining agreement. If an employee’s discharge for a workplace-rule violation was submitted to arbitration, the agreement limited the arbitrator to determining whether the rule was reasonable and whether the employee violated it. When Horton discharged employee Ruben de la Garza, the union appealed to arbitration. The arbitrator found that de la Graza had violated a reasonable safety rule, but “was not totally convinced” that Harton should have treated the violation more seriously than other rule violations. The arbitrator ordered de la Graza reinstated. Can a court set aside this order?
How well does the Australian Legal System deal with the contemporary issue (drug use and the law)
In the year 1803, an ambivalent, undetermined principle lingered within the governing minds. The government and its “justified” Constitution were thought to be fully explained, until a notion occurred that would bring individuals to question the authority and their limit for empowerment. To end his days as president, John Adams named fifty-eight people from his political party to be federal judges, filing positions created by the Judiciary Act of 1800, under the frequently listed Organic Act. His secretary John Marshall delivered and sealed most of the commissions, however seventeen of them had not yet been delivered before Adams’s departure in 1801. On top of that, Thomas Jefferson refused to appoint those seventeen people because they were
Another relevant United States Supreme Court case is Doe v. Bolton. In 1968 the Georgia legislature passed a law outlawing abortion except where an abortion doctor determines that the continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the mother 's life or seriously and permanently injure her health, that the baby would be born with a grave mental or physical defect, or that the pregnancy resulted from rape. “Mary Doe” (Sandra Cano), who was 9 weeks pregnant filed suit claiming she was entitled to an abortion under the Constitution because she would not be able to support another child since she already had three children. Several abortion doctors, nurses, clergy, and social workers joined in her suit. The Supreme Court agreed and ended up creating
A judge should be the only one able to decide a person’s fate because they use fact over feelings. For
Ever wondered how the court systems go about making their decisions and if they are just in doing so? There have been cases where the process of the law has been questioned. These cases can only be straightened out by the due process of law. The guarantee of due process, in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, prevents the government from unfairly depriving individuals of their basic rights to life, liberty, and property. (Strasser)
Never before have there been so many democracies in the world or so many competitive elections conducted at national, subnational and region levels. Democracy is now prescribed as inseparable from good governance and an antidote to corruption. The key aspects of what makes Australia a democracy being the electoral role, Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), referendumsm, the rule of law
For instance, in the case of Ainan Bin Mahamud v Syed Abu Bakar Bin Habib Yusoff , the court held that Section 112 of Evidence Enactment 1950 was a statute which was implemented to all people whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims. Thus, by virtue of this provision, a child was born by a womanless than six months after the marriage was a legitimate child even though according to Islamic law, the said child is considered to be an illegitimate child. In this case, it had been proven that the Evidence Enactment prevailed over Islamic Law even though it has been mentioned as the religion of federation and Civil court has the jurisdiction to hear the
The controversy whether international law is a law or not resolves on the divergent definitions of the word “law” given by the jurist. If we subscribe to the view of Hobbes, Austin and Pufendorf, that law is a command of sovereign enforced by a superior political authority then international law cannot be included in the category of law. On the other hand if, we subscribe to the view that the term“law”cannot be limited to rules enacted by superior political authority, then international law can be included in the category of law. Lawrence aptly remarked that everything depends upon the definition of law which we choose to adopt.
Being the customs law at a certain time in a certain place, adat is flexible and adaptable to social needs and not suitable for codification. The Malay law was not be taken seriously as representing the adat law in a certain state. An abundant number of adat rules put a limit to their freedom.
The hierarchy of courts of Malaysia begins with the Magistrates’ Court, followed by the Sessions Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and finally is the Federal Court of Malaysia. There are generally two types of trials, criminal and civil. The jurisdiction of the courts in civil or criminal matters are contained in the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 and the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Article 121 of the Constitution provides for two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the High Court in Malaya, and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak. Thus this creates two separate local jurisdiction of the courts – for Peninsular Malaysia and for East Malaysia. The highest position in the judiciary of Malaysia is the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Malaysia (also known as the Chief Justice of Malaysia), followed by the President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge of Malaya, and the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak.
The Case report is about Gnych & Anor v Polish Club limited, Canberra High court, (High Court Of Australia, 2015). In 2012, Polish Club Limited being the licensee of a premise allowed Mr Jacek Gnych & Sylwia Gnych to lease and operate a restaurantb which comprised of the first floor with a capacity of fifty seats and ground floor with the entry to the restaurant along with storage area and toilet. Connected to the restaurant is the Mirror hall (which was not included in the agreement initially but was later included on certain terms) with 80 seat capacity which contains a bar where customers are allowed to purchase liquor. However, all the lease agreement papers were prepared and submitted but nothing was ever signed nor finalised.
Executive Branch is the oldest government in Malaysia, a place where government take place to bring up political issues or a place in the framework of federal representative democratic consultation monarchy and also a place that where exercised by the federal government of the 13 states. Executive Branch in Malaysia usually is to formulate and implement the policies in the country Executive brunch is chosen by the public through election and government will bring great impact on political system in Malaysia. Executive power is vested in the cabinet led by the Prime Minister and The Malaysian constitution stipulates that the Prime Minister must be member of the Lower House of parliment. The cabinet is chosen from among of both houses of Parliament