Case Study Of Mr. Gittany's Case

The purpose of this report is to discuss the matter The Queen V Bayley, which took place on the 29th of September 2012. Adrian bailey (serial rapist) was found guilty on charges of murder and rape, this report will discuss in detail the court proceedings that lead up to the imprisonment of Adrian Bayley and also the events prior to the kidnapping of Jill Meagher. The purpose of this report is to discuss the purpose of law in our society and how it applies to people who commit crimes in our community. As well as the purpose of criminal law in our community.

At first, the NSW Supreme Court found that the Public Relation Oriented Security was not vicariously liable as the assault was motivated by guard’s blood lust and want beyond the reasonable acts. In Sprod bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Ltd[1], the court of appeal was faced with complex difficulty concerning the employee’s authority either the authority of the employee is within the scope of employment or not which may resulted in vicarious liability.

When Alexander McLeod- Lindsay was take from hospital to Sutherland police station he was interviewed/ interrogated like a suspect as the case had been turn to a sexual assault case and he was told that, “in the case of assault upon a wife, we always check out the husband’s story first”, (McLeod-Lindsay, A, 1984). Another role of investigators is to collect evidence. The police had bought a change of clothing for Alexander McLeod- Lindsay, so that they can take the clothes that he had wearing as evidence. Alexander McLeod- Lindsay had now become the suspect of sexually assaulting and attempting to murder his wife and son. Alexander McLeod- Lindsay was found guilty of attempted murder due to the circumstantial evidence that was bought forward before the jury such as the blood splatter that was on the wall and blood stains found on the accused Alexander McLeod-Lindsay’s clothing. Despite the fact that there was no form of direct evidence such as someone eye witnessing the incident or even to point the finger that Alexander McLeod- Lindsay had committed the attempted murder of his wife and 4 year old son Bruce, the jury still convicted him of committing the offence, all based on circumstantial evidence. This highlights that Alexander McLeod-Lindsay experienced miscarriage of justice due to the fact the jury based their decision on the circumstantial evidence of blood stains that were found on Alexander

Words alone, even aggressive ones, can not constitute an assault and must be accompanied by some bodily act or gesture that indicate a present ability to effect a purpose. In R v Secretary it was held that the reference to ‘present ability’ meant an ability, based on known facts as present at the time of the making of the threat, to effect a purpose, and that the threat may be one of future violence, and not an apprehension of immediate violence. In this case, it was Livingstone’s aggressive nature in addition to the knife in his hand that instilled in Blyton an apprehension of a future threat of personal violence which constitutes assault pursuant to s 245 and satisfies the first condition of s

Merits: The respondent, Daniel Murphy, was convicted by a jury in an Oregon court of the second-degree murder of his wife. The victim died by strangulation in her home in the city of Portland, and abrasions and lacerations were found on her throat. There was no sign of a break-in or robbery. Word of the murder was sent to the estranged husband, Daniel Murphy. Upon receiving the message, Murphy promptly telephoned the Portland police and voluntarily came into Portland for questioning. Shortly after the respondent’s arrival at the station house, where he was met by retained counsel, the

After the attack, “the authorities concluded that there was some basis for Linda’s fears” (Riss qtd. in Jung 140), but it was too late. If the proper protection was given to Riss, who’s life was being threatened, she would not have faced the gruesome consequences of her attacker. The result of the crime, as a result of negligence, became the basis for its prevention. Only time could establish Riss ' credibility as a victim, but in said time, the crime had unfolded. A detective stated to Riss that “…she would have to be hurt before the police could do anything for her” (Riss qtd. in Jung 142). This completely contradicts the basic principle of crime prevention, which is a primary fundamental right of the government. If the police had taken Riss’ threats as evidence rather than her attack itself, she would not have been victim to a malicious attack.

Question 4 - Assess the use of the defence of provocation in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society. (10 marks)

1. Type of Homicide On 21 October 2013 Simon Gittany stood charged with the murder of Lisa Harnum. It was alleged that on the morning of Saturday 30 July Mr Gittany deliberately threw Ms Harnum off the 15th floor balcony of the apartment they shared (R v Gittany, 2013).

On the day of October 21, 2015 the accused, Johnny Joshua Uy was nearing the end of his trial. Mr. Uy's case was presided over by Madam Justice Power and was tried on the Supreme Court Criminal level; Mr. Uy also elected to be tried by judge and jury. Mr. Uy was charged with three serious indictable offences. The charges laid against the accused was importing/exporting a controlled substance, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of a controlled substance. All three charges can be found under the Canada's Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The first charge importing/exporting a controlled substance can be found under section 6(1) of the act. Section 6(1) states: “Except as authorized under the regulations, no person

Many stories become classics because they develop themes which readers can relate to and understand. In the short story ‘’Killings’’ by Andre Dubus demonstrates the psychological concept of guilt. After the murder of his son Frank, Matt, is damaged physically and emotionally. It is a tale of not just two physical killings, but of many killings on different levels. The moral choices these characters have made, creates a pattern of legal and psychological distress on both families.

This particular scenario is cumulative but still has two issues that must be dealt with separately. The first is psychiatric injury suffered by the claimant . Also, it must be established whether Bricks R Us can apply negligent contribution as their defence against Ronnie's claims. The final issue concerns the stabbing and if Ronnie was rightfully imprisoned.

Gina and Brian would be charged with possession, possession with intent to distribute, and manufacture. Karen would be charged with DUI because she was in the charged passed out with the keys in the ignition. The keys were in the ignition, so the automobile was being operated. Karen may have been passed out, but she was still operating an automobile. It was also very likely that was driving before she had passed out. Jonathan would be charged with possession because he had marijuana in his hand. Brain and Gina would be charged with these charges because the drugs were in their apartment, which is possession. They would also be charged with manufacture because they were growing marijuana. They would be charged with intent to distribute because

When working on an ambulance for a large ambulance service a case was given of a 27-year-old male who had been assaulted. On arrival at scene the crew were met at the entrance to a block of flats

The Supreme Court case, R v Vollmer[8], states that the appellant was convicted of murdering his de facto partner – where evidence as to the deceased’s past violent history in a previous relationship was available at the time of trial but not relied on by defence counsel – where there was no evidence led at trial or on appeal of a history of violence between the appellant and the deceased – where the appellant sought to rely on the defences of self-defence and provocation at trial under sections 271(2), 304 and 668E(1)[9]. Where the cases R v Hajistassi[10], R v Mogg[11] and Re Knowles[12] were applied as precedent to the final decision of the case.

Thank you for your attention in this matter. Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, I have come before you to state the matter of a magazine article that I can simply not believe made headlines. My client Princess Diana has been defectively represented on plentiful occasions by Princess Camilla and the Woman's Day magazine who has positioned my client to be viewed as a woman who has sent death threats and a bad mother to her two children Harry and William. On July 10, 2017 Woman's Day released their weekly magazine which featured a front page article on Camilla’s outlandish claims against my client claiming that she threatened to kill Camilla. These ludicrous accusations portray Diana as threatening, psychotic and insane.