Since s 62(1) only applies to general damages for personal injury and the other damages which the appellants were claiming were not personal injury damages, the relevant provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (“CLA”) did not apply. The issue of whether an award for aggravated damages was precluded in s 52(1) of the CLA, was based on whether it was ‘an award “in relation to” a claim for personal injury damages’. Fraser JA referred to the Acts Interpretation Act to support the narrower construction of ‘in relation to’. He added that to interpret the legislative purpose as limiting damages for the insult if injury was added is ‘very odd’.
The decision affects the whole of Australia... Although the formal declaration of the Court is limited to the land specified in the plaintiff 's claims, the comments of the judges regarding the recognition of native title are applicable to Australia as a whole. As Justice Toohey states: 'While this case concerns the Meriam people, the legal issues fall to be determined according to fundamental principles of the common law and colonial administrative law applicable throughout Australia ... no basic distinction need be made, for the purposes of determining what interests exist in ancestral lands of indigenous peoples of Australia, between the Meriam people and those who occupied and occupy the Australian mainland. The relevant principles are the same. '
The last standard set forth is one in which the court asserts the right to concealed carry does not extend beyond the home and therefore good cause statutes do not implicate Second Amendment protections. The ninth circuit and third circuit courts follow this standard. In Peruta, the court held that an individual of the general public does not have the right to carry a concealed weapon outside the home under the 2nd amendment. Id. at 924.
Supreme Court, in Burstyn v. Wilson, declared that the right of Americans to communicate, and receive ideas must be given and the states and cities were given fair warning that the era of total state interest was over. The majority of the Court did not follow Justice Frankfurter and simply declare the New York law void for vagueness. Instead they declared that movies were entitled to free speech protection. And even though this might not mean the application of the identical rules that govern other media of communication, it meant some protection, yet to be defined
If a defendant caused a witness to be absent but had not done so prevent that witness from testifying then the exception cannot apply. Id. Thus, the United States Supreme Court has noted that the exception does not apply “outside the context of deliberate witness tampering.” Id. at 366. The Missouri Supreme Court has also held that there must be an “intent to prevent the witness from testifying.”
I Introduction In McCloy v New South Wales, the High Court upheld the validity of provisions in the Electoral Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (NSW) that imposes caps on political donations, prohibits donations from property developers and restricts indirect campaign contributions in New South Wales. The majority did so on the grounds that whilst each of the provisions burdened the implied freedom of political communication, they had been enacted for legitimate purposes and hence, did not impermissibly infringe upon the implications within the Commonwealth Constitution.
On 3 June 1992 the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in Mabo vs The State of Queensland, ruling that the treatment of the Indigenous property rights based on the principle of terra nullius was wrong and racist towards the Aboriginals. The court ruled that indigenous ownership of land has survived where it has not been extinguished by a valid act of government and where Aboriginal people have maintained traditional law and links with the land. This legal recognition of Indigenous ownership called Native Title. The court ruled that in each case native title must be determined by reference to the traditions and customary law of Indigenous owners of the land.
The denial of equal protection claim that was filed was remanded. The courts decided that the Officers involved have qualified immunity. Qualified immunity would not have been granted if the Officer conduct violated Sinthasommphone’s constitutional rights. Analysis
Stephen Blanks, secretary for the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, said the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination were generally recognised international standards “which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure". Both instances of Australian law manifest an erosion of our civil liberties, and thus, an urgent requirement for our laws to consider a balance between the rights of the individual with the needs for community safety, taking into account the liberty of the individual and the rule of
Our class should study amendment number eight. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This amendment prohibits the federal government from imposing unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants, either as the price for obtaining pretrial release or as punishment for crime after conviction. (Constitutioncenter.org) states that, "The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause clearly prohibits cruel methods of punishment. " This means that if the federal government tried to bring back the rack, or thumbscrews, or gibbets as types of punishment, such efforts would violate the Eighth Amendment This amendment still
The Supreme Court cited the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to justify their ruling. The Fourth Amendment provides an individual protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but it itself was not binding enough to negate the use of illicitly acquired evidence in a criminal case. Though, when combined with the Fifth Amendment, an Amendment that provides protection from self-incrimination, the use of this type of evidence is considered unconditional. (Laws)
United States, because the question is being whether the federal obscenity statute violates the First Amendment of the constitution, is different from one dealing with state legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment. The federal government should not be allowed to suppress an individual only because the state has also done it. Justice Harlan states that since the government may protect itself from any revolution, the federal government then has the power to deprive speeches that threaten that security. Nevertheless, given that these cases deal with obscenity, they deal directly with the States, and not the federal government mainly because Congress has no power over sexual moralities. Justice Harlan does not support this conviction being
In 1833, the Supreme Court confronted with the argument that a state government had violated one of the provision of the Bill of Rights. In the case of Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution 's Bill of Rights restricts only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments (McBride, 2017). This is the doctrine that considered settled law within the judicial establishment. There was a debate concerning the nature of Bill of Rights. The debate focused on the positive law that deals with the restriction on the power of government, either if it was just federal, or both federal government and states, which would not exist if they repealed; or if recognitions of fundamental rights that exist
The 14th Amendment right to equal protection as recognized under Baker v Carr designed on the surface to ensure fair participation in the democratic process, however, it is more so a check on the majority. As Baker v Carr introduces, the 14th Amendment does not cover all types of discrimination. For example, discrimination by the means of improper districting of a state, intentional or not, is not covered by the Constitution. However, what the 14th Amendment does do effectively is put a check on the majority will through rights. The majority rules and the only way to prevent this is through rights, which dictate what people are and are not allowed to do.
Have you ever been watching a movie or a crime T.V. show and there is a police officer arresting someone and saying something along the lines of, “You have the right to remain silent..”? Not only does that happen in shows and movies, it does happen in real life. The Miranda Rights were officially established in 1966 when Ernesto Miranda, was arrested and confessed to his crimes but his confession was later thrown out because the officer who arrested im did not read Miranda his rights. Officially, every police officer who is taking someone into custody must recite the Miranda rights. Now, does Miranda v. Arizona ensure justice and preserve liberty?