TheSexTree
SexTree News - where you the user upload the news
Author: gothiclight Date Posted:April 10, 2019 Last Modified:August 22, 2019
E-mail E-mail this to a Friend E-mail Printable Version

Front Page >> Education >> Canada
Law Read of The Day PBU Starson
PBU Starson

Average Rating: 0 out of 10 Article Download Link: View Article

Hannibal





starson v swazye, Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada 2003

pbu & nje judgement of the supreme court of Victoria

Shivy, shiv, shiv

solar?

Two Sudden and Unexpected Deaths of Patients with Schizophrenia Associated with Intramuscular Injections of Antipsychotics and Practice Guidelines to Limit the Use of High Doses of Intramuscular Antipsychotics


Haloperidol Doubles Risk of Death in Institutionalized Elderly
Haloperidol increases in-hospital mortality after acute MI compared to atypical antipsychotics
[Sudden death following a single oral administration of haloperidol].





Comparison of the risk of adverse events between risperidone and haloperidol in delirium patients.

Comparison of the risk of adverse events between risperidone and haloperidol in delirium patients

aripriprazole deaths


733-2003scr1_722.pdf
733-9406813.pdf

Nuremburg code
Gareth bryn bowen
problem solving weigh your choices, make your decision and communicate it well
maths
judgement
beverage break?

presumption of innocence: Woolmington v DPP [1935]
presumption of sanity: i.e. R v Daniel McNaughten (1843), H v UK ECHR 1990
17.3 of R v Ian Macpherson judgement 27th July 2005 criminal court of appeal
'The relevant statutory framework is as follows. Section 53 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 ("the 1999 Act") provides, so far as material as follows:

"(1) At every stage in criminal proceedings all persons are (whatever their age) competent to give evidence.
(2) Subsection (1) has effect subject to subsections (3) and (4).
(3) A person is not competent to give evidence in criminal proceedings if it appears to the court that he is not a person who is able to-
(a) understand questions put to him as a witness, and
(b) give answers to them which can be understood."'

Right to silence: Saunders v uk ECHR 1996

Right To Confront, Question Cross Examine Witnesses Accusors:
R v Davis 2008

5. It is a long-established principle of the English common law that, subject to certain exceptions and statutory qualifications, the defendant in a criminal trial should be confronted by his accusers in order that he may cross-examine them and challenge their evidence. This principle originated in ancient Rome: see generally Coy v Iowa 487 US 1012, 1015 (198Cool; Crawford v Washington 124 S Ct 1354, 1359 (2004); David Lusty, "Anonymous Accusers: An Historical & Comparative Analysis of Secret Witnesses in Criminal Trials", 24 Sydney Law Rev (2002) 361, 363-364. But in continental Europe the principle was greatly attenuated in early mediaeval times and the procedure of the Inquisition, directed to the extirpation of heresy and the preservation of society, depended heavily on evidence given secretly by anonymous witnesses whom the suspect was denied the opportunity to confront. In England, where proof of crime depended on calling live evidence before a jury to convince it of a defendant's guilt, there was no room for such procedures. But concern as to national security and intimidation of witnesses did lead to reliance on secret, anonymous evidence and evidence not adduced in court, and thus to departures from the rule of confrontation, notably in the Court of Star Chamber and in common law trials for treason, as notoriously at the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh. The Court of Star Chamber, popular at first, came over time to attract the same popular loathing as the Inquisition, its procedures regarded as foreign, cruel, oppressive and unfair. It was promptly abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641, and steps were taken (as, for example, by the statute 13 Car.2 c.1) to bring the procedure of treason trials into line with that required at common law. Thus, in 1720, in a civil case, the court declared in Duke of Dorset v Girdler (1720) Prec. Ch. 531-532, 24 ER 238, that
"the other side ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of confronting the witnesses, and examining them publicly, which has always been found the most effectual method of discovering of the truth."
The practice of confronting defendants with their accusers so that the latter may be cross-examined and the truth established was recognised by such authorities as Sir Matthew Hale (The History of the Common Law of England (6th ed, 1820, pp 345-346), Blackstone (Commentaries on the Law of England (12th ed, 1794, Bk III, p 373) and Bentham (Rationale of Judicial Evidence (1827), Vol II, Bk III, pp 404, 408, 423). The latter regarded the cross-examination of adverse witnesses as "the indefeasible right of each party, in all sorts of causes" and criticised inquisitorial procedures practised on the continent of Europe, where evidence was received under a "veil of secrecy" and the door was left "wide open to mendacity, falsehood, and partiality." The common law right to be confronted by one's accusers was included within the colonial constitutions of several North American colonies (among them Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia: see Alvarado v Superior Court of Los Angeles County 23 Cal 4th 1121, 1137-1140 (2000)) and other states adopted similar declarations at the time of independence. By the sixth amendment to the United States constitution adopted in 1791 it was provided that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him …". The rule has been strictly applied: in Alford v United States 282 US 687 (1931) a conviction was quashed where a government witness had been excused from answering a question about where he lived.
Disclaimer: all stories are the oppinion of the author and not the site. If you dispute the facts then we suggest you upload a new story with your facts and evidence in!

No Reviews for this Article
Why Not Join and Add One


Desktop Site
About Us | Faq | Corporate Blurb
This Site Run, Developed And Maintained By Gareth Bowen available here or at garethbowen.co.uk