The term “misrepresentation” is defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary as “any manifestation by words or other conduct by one person to another that, under the given circumstances, amounts to an assertion not in accordance with the facts. An untrue statement of fact. An incorrect or false representation. That which, if accepted, leads the mind to an apprehension of a condition other and different from the one which exists.” In spite of the fact that Malaysia is having its own particular contract law now, which is known as Contracts Act 1950, yet, the principles of English law was used. It has been changed to suit the local conditions.
On page 2, lines 12 and 13 with reference to the statement of the witness with respect to Mr. Michelson's “reputation is very good in the community...who will never start an argument and never hold a grudge against anyone”; Federal Rule of Evidence Rules 405(a) and 608(a). There can only be testimony as to a point of view or the character and not testimony in support of the point of view. The witness' declaration is testimony to prove the Mr. Michelson had a good name in the community. That testimony is not permitted. Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 401(a) shows also that it would be immaterial as Mr. Michelson was arraigned with the crime of bribery and not provoking altercations or having ill will is not relevant to the bribery that Mr. Michelson had been charged.
A man is not at risk for false detainment unless his or her demonstration is ruined the motivation behind forcing a repression or with information that such a control, to a generous assurance will come about because of it. Vindictiveness is immaterial to this tort. It is commonly for the jury to focus from the confirmation, as an issue of reality, the expectation of the litigant in an activity for false detainment. Indeed, even careless acts can qualify as false detainment. Case in point, if a man locks somebody inside a room without uninformed of the way that there is somebody in the room than he is held subject for false
14). Using torture as a way to extract evidence is an inhumane way to treat those under accusation.The argument that a confession given under these circumstances is legitimate, is a false claim. This is due to the victim's mindset being compromised from the extreme and extensive methods of torture. Another example of the unacceptable evidence used in court against those accused is the presence of the “devil’s mark”. “The belief was that the devil branded the bodies of witches with symbolic yet concrete corporeal malformations such as marks and growths” (Darr, 361).
Furthermore, there can be several factors at play when a wrongful conviction occurs and each case is unique. Three of the more common and detrimental factors that will be explored in this essay are eyewitness error, the use of jailhouse informants and professional and institutional misconduct. Firstly, eyewitness testimony can be a major contributor to a conviction and is an important factor in wrongful conviction (Campbell & Denov, 2016, p. 227). Witness recall and, frankly, the human emory are not as reliable as previously thought. In fact there has been much research showing the problems with eyewitness testimony such as suggestive police interviewing, unconscious transference, and malleability of confidence (Campbell & Denov, 2016, p.227).
prosecution, which led them to believe that there were many issues within the system that led to the wrongful conviction that needed to be fixed so another minority was not charged with a murder that was not committed by them. The Inquiry found that the investigation was not done suitably for the standards that the police, and the Crown have. The case’s evidence was insufficient due to lack of investigation at the crime scene, of the witnesses, and of the charges pursued. There was also an insufficient amount of sensitivity of this case due to the fact that it was the prosecution of a visible minority and the lack of training done on the respect to sensitivity on visible minorities. As well as the absence of sufficient review led to the wrongful conviction because they didn’t review the first eyewitness reports and relied only on the second report, which were influenced by an incompetent and unprofessional
In the search of the car they also find a few of his tools, and Bobs fingerprints on the car. This is Forensic evidence, the staple of modern investigative process. Since it is running through a computer and matched up microscopically there are no mistakes to be made. This is a game changer, if you can prove something that helps your case is one hundred percent true, then the case is basically just won. That is why forensic evidence is the most used and most reliable evidence that all prosecutors and defense attorneys use.
It is the case of misrepresentation of fact. Here in this case Abigail misrepresents the fact to Bernard to convey the contract of sale of business. We here discuss the stand of Bernard in the light of Misrepresentation Act (cap 390, 1994) and the position of Abigail in this case. Misrepresentation shall mean one contracting party gives false statements to another contracting party to convey the contract. It is illegal method of contracting as the falsification statement influence the decision of another party (van Erp, 2013).
Both parts have caused great concern, especially a radical departure from the current rules of evidence. Part VII eliminate any protection given to the accused by the Evidence Act 1950. The use of the summary of evidence (contrary to the evidence itself) and lower the threshold of admissibility would pose a serious obstacle to a fair trial. Above all, a radical departure from the ordinary rules of evidence could negatively affect the right of the accused to a fair trial. Admissibility of statements made by any person who is dead or cannot be found or is incapable of giving evidence would be unfair and unjust because such person / witness cannot be cross-examined on his statement (Section 8).
The court here is in line with the idea of Augustine Paul in Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s case where, Section 54 should prevail over Section 11, being so SFE cannot be brought in under Section 11. For example, the possession of a number of documents suspected to be forged by a person is no evidence to prove that he has forged that document, with the forgery of which he is charged with. Even though it is coaching, if is not connected then SFE cannot be brought in. In this Indian case, the West J decided that when a person charges another with having forged a promissory note, and denies having ever executed any promissory note at all, the evidence that a note, similar to the one alleged to be forged, was in fact executed by that person is not