DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Cases

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Cases Table of Cases Australia Adam v The Queen [2001] HCA 57 Antoun v The Queen [2006] HCA 2 Azzopardi v The Queen [2001] HCA 25 Bunning v Cross [1978] HCA 22 Clarke v The Queen [2007] HCA 39 Coates v R [2005] HCA 1 Coco v The Queen [1994] HCA 15, (1994) 179 CLR 427 Collins v The Queen (1980) 31 ALR 257 Controlled Consultants Pty Ltd v Commissioner for Corporate Affairs [1985] HCA 6 Cornwall v The Queen [2007] HCA 12 Das v Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2009] VSC 381 Davis v The Queen [2001] HCA 25 Dawson v The Queen [1961] HCA 74 Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57 Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Alderman (1998) 45 NSWLR 52627 Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Attallah [2001] NSWCA 171 Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2015] FCA 47 DPP v Cook [2006] TASSC 75 DPP v Phillip Andrew Bayley (No. 3) [1996] SASC 5807 Driscoll v The Queen [1977] HCA 43 Dupas v The Queen [2012] VSCA 328 Edwards v The Queen [1993] HCA 6 Em v The Queen [2007] HCA 46 EPA v Caltex [1993] HCA 74 © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 351 F.M.W. Billing, The Right to Silence in Transnational Criminal Proceedings, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-42034-9 352 Table of Cases Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1999] HCA 67 Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550 George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26 Hamberger (Employment Advocate) v Williamson and CFMEU [2000] FCA 1644 Hamilton v Oades [1989] HCA 21 Hammond v The Commonwealth of Australia (1982) 152 CLR 188 Heatherington v The Queen [1994] HCA 19 Hill v The Queen [2007] HCA 39 JB v Regina [2012] NSWCCA 12 Jones v R [2005] NSWCCA 443 Kelly v The Queen [2004] HCA 12 King v McLellan (1974) VR 773 King v The Queen (1986) 15 FCR 427 KMJ v. Tasmania [2011] TASCCA 7 Lee v NSW Crime Commission [2013] HCA 39 Lee v The Queen [1998] HCA 60 Lee v The Queen [2014] HCA 20 Mann v Carnell [1999] HCA 66 The Queen [2005] HCA 68 Marks v The Queen [2007] HCA 39 McDermott v The Queen [1948] HCA 23; (1948) 76 CLR 501 McKinney v The Queen [1991] HCA 6 Michael George Valentine v Technical and Further Education Commission & Anor [2007] NSWCA 208 Nicholls v The Queen [2005] HCA 1 Palmer v The Queen [1998] HCA 2 Papakosmas v The Queen [1999] HCA 37 Petty and Maiden v The Queen [1991] HCA 34 PGA v The Queen [2012] HCA 21 Pollard v The Queen [1992] HCA 69 Pyneboard Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission [1983] HCA 9 Rees v. Kratzmann (1965) 114 CLR 63 Ridgeway v The Queen [1995] HCA 66 R v Amad [1962] VR 545 R v Anderson [2002] NSWCCA 141 R v Barrett [2007] VSCA 95; (2007) 16 VR 240 R v Burt [2000] 1 Qd R 28 R v Carr [1972] 1 NSWLR 608 R v Clarke (1997) 97 A Crim R 414 R v Dalley [2002] NSWCCA 284 R v Esposito (1998) 105 A Crim R R v Frangulis [2006] NSWCCA 363 RvGH[2000] FCA 1618; (2000) 105 FCR 419 R v Horton (1998) 45 NSWLR 426 R v Hughes [2000] HCA 22 Table of Cases 353 R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321 R v Kempley (1944) 18 ALJR 118 RvL[1998] NSWSC 225 R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133 R v Lowe [1997] 2 VR 465 RvM[2002] QCA 486; (2002) A Crim R 324 R v Mario Perfili [1995] VSC 222 R v Medcalfe [2002] ACTSC 83 R v Phan (2001) 123 A Crim R 30 R v Phung and Huynh [2001] NSWSC 115 R v Pimental [1995] NSWCCA 401 R v Quach (2002) 137 A Crim R 345; [2002] NSWCCA 519 R v Schaeffer [2005] VSCA 306 R v Sean Sonnet (Ruling No. 2) [2011] VSC 551 R v Sharp (2003) 143 A Crim R 344 R v Simmons; R v Moore (No. 3) [2015] NSWSC 189 R v Smith [1984] 1 NSWLR 462 R v Suckling [1999] NSWCCA 36 R v Swaffield; Pavic v R [1998] HCA 1; (1998) 192 CLR 15 R v Tang [2008] HCA 39 R v Taylor [1999] ACTSC 47 R v Thomas [2006] VSCA 165 R v Ul-Haque [2007] NSWSC 1251 R v Villar; R v Zugecic [2004] NSWCCA 302 R v Walker [2000] NSWCCA 130 RvXY[2013] NSWCCA 121 R v Yammine and Chami [2002] NSWCCA 289 RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 620 Rush v Commissioner of Police [2006] FCA 12 Sinclair v The King [1946] HCA 55; (1946) 73 CLR 316 Sonnet v The Queen [2010] VSCA 315 Sorby v Commenwealth [1983] HCA 10 The Queen v Joseph Terrence Thomas [2006] VSCA 165 The Queen v Stephen Albert Hutton [2011] VSC 484 The Queen v Willis (Ruling No. 1) [2015] VSC 261 Thorson v Pine (2004) 139 FCR 5 Tofilau v The Queen [2007] HCA 39 Van Der Meer v The Queen (1988) 35 A Crim R 232 Weininger v The Queen [2003] HCA 14 Weissensteiner v The Queen [1993] HCA 65 X7 v Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29 Zhao v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2014] VSCA 137 354 Table of Cases Denmark Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen U.1965.410H U.1968.68H U.1970.901V U.1972.164V U.1976.236.Ø U.1979.912V U.1990.866Ø U.1991.255H U.1991.881Ø U.1992.300H U.1993.512V U.1995.426H U.1995.752H U.1995.856H U.1996.6V U.1996.699V U.1996.1384V U.1996.1434/2Ø U.1996.1488V U.1997.82H U.1997.336V U.1997.1422/1V U.1999.1744Ø U.2000.1309H U.2001B.337 U.2001.661V U.2001.945Ø U.2002.15H U.2002.2729V U.2003.903V U.2003.1029H U.2003.1896V U.2005.3007V U.2005.3287V U.2005.753H U.2005.3108H U.2006.1967Ø U.2006.2895H U.2009.2287Ø U.2009.2640V Table of Cases 355 U.2010.1250Ø U.2012.272H Tidsskrift for Kriminalvidenskab TfK 2003.435/1Ø TfK 2004.760E TfK 2008 209 V TfK 2008.710Ø Tidsskrift for Strafferet TfS 1996, 313 TfS 2007, 199 Rulings Glostrup Court, Udskrift af dombogen, 4 June 2012, Court no. 15-3547/2012 England and Wales AF v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 29 Andrew Symeou v Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Appeals, Patras, Greece [2009] EWHC 897 (Admin), 1 May 2009 Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 43 A v Secretary of State [2005] UKHL 71; [2005] 3 W.L.R. 1249 Brown v Stott (Procurator Fiscal, Dunfermline) [2001] 2 All E.R. 97; [2003] 1 A.C. 681 Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43 DPP v Lawrence [2007] EWHC 2154 (Admin); [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. 10 DPP v Kavanagh [2005] EWHC 820 Fernandes (Charles) v Governor of Brixton Prison [2004] EWHC 2207 (Admin) Governor of Pentonville Prison ex Chinoy [1992] 1 All ER 317 Hamilton and Others v Naviede [1995] 2 A.C. 75 Hutton v Australia [2009] EWHC 564 Ibrahim v R [1914] A.C. 599 Lam Chi-Ming v The Queen [1991] 2 A.C. 212 356 Table of Cases Loosely v R [2001] UKHL 53 Morgans v DPP [2001] 1 A.C. 315 Omar v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire [2002] EWHC 3060 Public Prosecution Service v McKee [2013] UKSC 32 Rangzieb Ahmed, Habib Ahmed v The Queen [2011] EWCA Crim 184 Re Attorney General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1999), Re [2001] 2 W.L.R. 56 Roche Registration Limited, R (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health (Rev 2) [2014] EWHC 2256 (Admin) (9 July 2014) R v Armstrong [2009] EWCA Crim 643 R v Aspinall [1999] 2 Cr. App. R. 115 R v Aujla [1998] 2 Cr App R 16 R v Bailey (1993) 897 Cr. App. R. 365 R v Baker [1895] 1 Q.B. 797 R v Becouarn [2993] EWCA Crim 1154 R v Benn [2005] EWCA Crim 2100 R v Betts; R v Hall [2001] EWCA Crim 224 R v Birchall [1999] Crim. L.R. 310 R v Bowden (Brian Thomas) [1999] 2 Crim. App. R. 176 R v Brophy [1982] A.C. 476 R v Bryce [1992] 4 All E.R. 567; (1992) 95 Cr. App. R. 320 R v Cadette [1995] Crim. L.R. 229 R v Christie [1914] AC 545 R v Compton [2002] EWCA Crim 2835 R v Cowan [1996] Q.B. 373 R v Christou and Wright [1992] 1 Q.B. 79 R v Dervish [2001] EWCA Crim 2789; [2002] 2 Cr. App. R. 6 R v Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Ex p. Smith [1993] A.C. 1 R v Dougall [2010] EWCA Crim 1048 R v Drake [1996] Crim L.R. 109 R v Dunn (1990) 91 Cr. App. R. 237 R v Essa [2009] EWCA Crim 43 R v Friend [1997] 2 All E.R. 1011 R v Goodway (1994) 98 Cr. App. R. 11 R v Governor of Belmarsh Prison Ex p. Francis [1995] 3 All E.R. 634 R v Hasan (Aytach) [2005] 2 A.C. 467 R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14 R v Howell [2003] EWCA Crim 1; [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. 1 RvJ[2003] EWCA Crim 3309 R v Johnstone [2003] UKHL 28; [2003] 1 W.L.R.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Protecting the Right to a Fair Trial in the 21St Century – Has Trial by Jury Been Caught in the World Wide Web? Roxanne Burd and Jacqueline Horan*
    Protecting the right to a fair trial in the 21st century – has trial by jury been caught in the world wide web? Roxanne Burd and Jacqueline Horan* The growing availability of information is challenging the right to a fair trial in the 21st century. For decades courts have maintained the integrity and impartiality of the jury by shielding jurors from pre-trial publicity. However, as the traditional forms of media have expanded into the world wide web, it has become increasingly difficult to control both the dissemination of information and the conduct of jurors. This article explores the level of prejudicial impact of publicity on high profile trials. Remedies to alleviate such an impact are discussed. INTRODUCTION In 2010, an order was made to suppress the identity of an 18-year-old South Australian man being investigated for the murder of three of his family members. However, a Facebook site dedicated to the memory of the victims had been used to identify and abuse the alleged murderer.1 Not only did this publication hinder the police investigation but there is a risk that the right of the defendant to a fair trial will be compromised. There is nothing preventing jurors from downloading Facebook pages, online news, blogs, and videos on YouTube, using their mobile internet service. In an era of digital communication, the question must be asked: can, and if so how, should the right to a fair trial be maintained in high profile criminal matters? This article argues that the increasing proliferation of prejudicial publicity justifies a shift away from the Australian strategy of prevention and towards reforming the jury trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Capital Territory
    AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Imperial Acts Application Ordinance 1986 No. 93 of 1986 I, THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL of the Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, hereby make the following Ordinance under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. Dated 18 December 1986. N. M. STEPHEN Governor-General By His Excellency’s Command, LIONEL BOWEN Attorney-General An Ordinance relating to the application in the Territory of certain Acts of the United Kingdom Short title 1. This Ordinance may be cited as the Imperial Acts Application Ordinance 1986.1 Commencement 2. (1) Subject to this section, this Ordinance shall come into operation on the date on which notice of this Ordinance having been made is published in the Gazette. (2) Sub-section 4 (2) shall come into operation on such date as is fixed by the Minister of State for Territories by notice in Gazette. (3) Sub-section 4 (3) shall come into operation on such date as is fixed by the Minister of State for Territories by notice in the Gazette. Authorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au Imperial Acts Application No. 93 , 1986 2 Interpretation 3. (1) In this Ordinance, unless the contrary intention appears—“applied Imperial Act” means— (a) an Imperial Act that— (i) extended to the Territory as part of the law of the Territory of its own force immediately before 3 September 1939; and (ii) had not ceased so to extend to the Territory before the commencing date; and (b) an Imperial Act, other than an Imperial
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Max Hill, QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation for the United Kingdom by Sam Mullins1
    PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM Volume 12, Issue 2 Policy Brief Interview with Max Hill, QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation for the United Kingdom by Sam Mullins1 Abstract The following text is a transcript of an interview between the author and the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (IRTL) for the United Kingdom, Max Hill, QC, which took place on March 9, 2018 in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. Topics discussed included the role of the IRTL, prosecution of terrorism in the UK, returning foreign fighters, terrorism prevention and investigation measures (TPIMs), deportation of terrorism suspects, the involvement of children in terrorism, hate-preachers, and the British government’s efforts to counter non-violent extremism. The transcript has been edited for brevity. Keywords: terrorism, counter-terrorism, prosecution, security, human rights, civil liberties, United Kingdom. Introduction Security versus civil liberties. How to safeguard the population from the actions of terrorists, while at the same time preserving fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, movement and association? This is the age-old debate that lies at the heart of counter-terrorism (CT) in liberal democracies. The precise balance varies from country to country and across time but in the aftermath of attacks it is particularly likely to tip in favour of security, sometimes at the expense of certain liberties. The UK is no stranger to terrorism, but - similar to many other countries around the world - it has been on a heightened state of alert since 2014 when ISIS declared its caliphate, and last year the UK was rocked by a string of successful attacks, resulting in 36 fatalities [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Terrorism Control Orders in Australia and the United Kingdom: a Comparison
    Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services Parliamentary Library Information, analysis and advice for the Parliament RESEARCH PAPER www.aph.gov.au/library 29 April 2008, no. 28, 2007–08, ISSN 1834-9854 Anti-terrorism control orders in Australia and the United Kingdom: a comparison Bronwen Jaggers Law and Bills Digests Section Executive summary • Control orders have been part of Australian anti-terrorism legislation since December 2005. A control order is issued by a court (at the request of the Australian Federal Police) to allow obligations, prohibitions and restrictions to be imposed on a person, for the purpose of protecting the public from a terrorist act. The types of obligations, prohibitions and restrictions may include a curfew at a particular address, wearing of an electronic monitoring tag, restrictions on use of telecommunications, regular reporting to police, and a range of other measures. Two control orders have been issued in Australia to date, those applying to Jack Thomas and David Hicks. • Australia’s control order scheme is in part based upon the United Kingdom model, however there are significant differences. • Criticisms of the Australian control order regime include concerns about the ex-parte nature of court hearings for interim control orders, reporting and accountability mechanisms, and questions surrounding whether the restrictions which may be imposed by control orders are sufficiently balanced with human rights protections. Contents Executive summary ..................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................ 1 The Australian legislation .............................................. 1 Obtaining a control order ............................................. 2 Urgent interim control orders .......................................... 3 Ex-parte court proceedings and provision of documents ...................... 4 Terms of a control order ............................................. 5 Reviews/sunset clause ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Crime (International Co-Operation) Act 2003
    Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/32 Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 2003 CHAPTER 32 An Act to make provision for furthering co-operation with other countries in respect of criminal proceedings and investigations; to extend jurisdiction to deal with terrorist acts or threats outside the United Kingdom; to amend section 5 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and make corresponding provision in relation to Scotland; and for connected purposes. [30th October 2003] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— PART 1 MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS CHAPTER 1 MUTUAL SERVICE OF PROCESS ETC. Service of overseas process in the UK 1Service of overseas process (1)The power conferred by subsection (3) is exercisable where the Secretary of State receives any process or other document to which this section applies from the government of, or other authority in, a country outside the United Kingdom, together with a request for the process or document to be served on a person in the United Kingdom. (2)This section applies— (a)to any process issued or made in that country for the purposes of criminal proceedings, (b)to any document issued or made by an administrative authority in that country in administrative proceedings, (c)to any process issued or made for the purposes of any proceedings on an appeal before a court in that country against a decision in administrative proceedings, (d)to any document issued or made by an authority in that country for the purposes of clemency proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • R V Ul-Haque
    ARTICLES AXIOMS OF AGGRESSION Counter-terrorism and counter-productivity in Australia WALEED ALY t did not take Australia long to reach for a legislative that ‘[t]he questioning and detention powers which response to the terrorist attacks of September I I, were passed in 2003 by both Houses of Parliament 2001. Within months, the Federal government was have proved important in progressing a number of proposing new anti-terrorism legislation promoting investigations,’ while simultaneously affirming that ‘ASIO whatI has since become a familiar scheme: new species has not yet had to use the detention powers which were of offences relating to a statutorily-defined terrorism, always intended to be used only in the most exceptional and expanded powers for police and the Australian circumstances.’4 Presently, as the British government Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) enabling is facing considerable opposition to its proposal to REFERENCES them to detain and question a person who may have extend the available period of detention of terror 1. This ultimately found its expression in July 2002 in the form of the Security information useful in countering a terrorist attack suspects without charge from 28 days to 42, Home Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 — possibly without access to a lawyer for 48 hours.1 Secretary Jacqui Smith’s description of the new limit as (Cth), and a year later in the Australian a ‘safeguard’ to be used in exceptional circumstances Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Thus began the most dramatic era in Australia’s counter­ rather than a ‘target’ rings familiarly. All the while Smith Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2003 (Cth).
    [Show full text]
  • Desk Review: United Kingdom
    COUNTRY REVIEW REPORT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM Review by Greece and Israel of the implementation by the United Kingdom of Chapter III. “Criminalization and law enforcement” and Chapter IV. “International cooperation” of the United Nations Convention against Corruption for the review cycle 2011 - 2012 1 I. Introduction 1. The Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Cor- ruption (hereinafter referred to as UNCAC or the Convention) was established pursuant to Article 63 of the Convention to, inter alia, promote and review the implementation of the Convention. 2. In accordance with Article 63, paragraph 7, of the Convention, the Conference estab- lished at its third session, held in Doha from 9 to 13 November 2009, the Mechanism for the Review of Implementation of the Convention. The Mechanism was established also pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention, which states that States parties shall carry out their obligations under the Convention in a manner consistent with the principles of sover- eign equality and territorial integrity of States and of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other States. 3. The Review Mechanism is an intergovernmental process whose overall goal is to as- sist States parties in implementing the Convention. 4. The review process is based on the terms of reference of the Review Mechanism. II. Process 5. The following review of the implementation by the United Kingdom of the Conven- tion is based on the completed response to the comprehensive self-assessment checklist re- ceived from the United Kingdom, and any supplementary information provided in accord- ance with paragraph 27 of the terms of reference of the Review Mechanism and the outcome of the constructive dialogue between the governmental experts from Greece, Israel and the United Kingdom, by means of telephone conferences and e-mail exchanges and involving the following experts: United Kingdom: - Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourteenth Report: Draft Statute Law Repeals Bill
    The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 211) (SCOT. LAW COM. No. 140) STATUTE LAW REVISION: FOURTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Presented to Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor and the Lord Advocate by Command of Her Majesty April 1993 LONDON: HMSO E17.85 net Cm 2176 The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the Law. The Law Commissioners are- The Honourable Mr. Justice Brooke, Chairman Mr Trevor M. Aldridge, Q.C. Mr Jack Beatson Mr Richard Buxton, Q.C. Professor Brenda Hoggett, Q.C. The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Collon. Its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WClN 2BQ. The Scottish Law Commissioners are- The Honourable Lord Davidson, Chairman .. Dr E.M. Clive Professor P.N. Love, C.B.E. Sheriff I.D.Macphail, Q.C. Mr W.A. Nimmo Smith, Q.C. The Secretary of the Scottish Law Commission is Mr K.F. Barclay. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. .. 11 THE LAW COMMISSION AND THE SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION STATUTE LAW REVISION: FOURTEENTH REPORT Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill To the Right Honourable the Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, and the Right Honourable the Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Q.C., Her Majesty's Advocate. In pursuance of section 3(l)(d) of the Law Commissions Act 1965, we have prepared the draft Bill which is Appendix 1 and recommend that effect be given to the proposals contained in it.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law
    The Law Commission Working Paper No 62 Criminal Law Offences relating to the Administration of Justice LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE 0 Crown copyright 7975 First published 7975 ISBN 0 11 730093 4 17-2 6-2 6 THE LAW COMMISSXON WORKING PAPER NO. 62 CRIMINAL LAW OFFENCES RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE CONTENTS Paras. I INTRODUCTION 1- 7 1 I1 PRESENT LAW 8- 25 5 Common Law 8- 17 5 Perverting the course of justice 8- 11 5 Examples of conspiracy charges 12- 13 8 Contempt of Court 14- 15 10 Escape and avoiding trial 16 11 Agreeing to indemnify bail 17 11 Statute ~aw 19- 25 12 Perjury 19- 20 12 Other statutory offences 21- 24 13 Summary 25 15 I11 PROPOSALS FOR REFORM 26-116 16 General 26- 33 16 Relationship with contempt of court 27- 29 17 Criminal and civil proceedings 30- 33 18 Outline of proposed offences 34- 37 20 1. Offences relating to all proceedings 38- 88 21 (i) Perjury 38- 60 21 iii Paras. Page Ihtroductory 38- 45 21 Should perjury be confined to false statements? 46 24 Oral evidence not on oath 47- 53 25 Extra-curial unsworn statements admissible as evidence 51- 59 28 Summary 60 31 (ii) Tampering with or fabricating evidence 61- 65 32 (iii)Preventing the attendance of witnesses 66- 67 34 (iv) Intimidation of a party 68- 84 35 (v) Improperly influencing a court 85- 91 43 2. Offences relating only to criminal matters 92-107 45 (i) Impeding the investigation of crime 93-101 45 (ii) Avoiding trial 102-105 50 (iii)Agreeing to indemnify bail 106-110 52 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Has the Evidence Act Been a Successful Codification? Is It a True Code?
    Sarah Croxford Has the Evidence Act Been a Successful Codification? Is it a True Code? LLM RESEARCH PAPER LAWS 546: LEGISLATION FACULTY OF LAW 2015 II Sarah Croxford 300223766 Contents Abstract I Has the Evidence Act been a Successful Codification? Is it a True Code? A Introduction II Why the Law Change? A The Law was too Complex B Public Opinion III The Actions of the Law Commission IV What is the definition of a code? A Origin B Modern interpretation C Codification in Australia D Criminal Codification in the United Kingdom E The New Zealand Law Commissions Definition V What is the function of a code? What are its qualities? A A Fresh Start B Purpose and Principles C Gapless D Efficient E Legitimacy of Criminal Law F Society G But why then, are some People Against Codification? VI Jurisdictions A Australia B Canada C America D England E New Zealand II III Sarah Croxford 300223766 VII An analysis of the Evidence Act 2006 A Section 10 Interpretation – Are the Values of a Code Accomplished? 1 Section 10(1)(a) 2 Section 10(1)(b) 3 Section 10(1)(c) 4 The Law Commissions commentary B Purpose of the Act – Does this Achieve the Values and Advantages of a Code? 1 Section 6(b) 2 Section 6(c) 3 Section 6(e) 4 Section 6 (f) C Section 7 Relevance Principle – Does this Achieve the Values of a Code? D Section 8 Probative Value Principle – Does this Achieve the Values of a Code? E Section 12 Gapless – Does this Achieve the Values of a Code 1 Inclusion of the Common Law 2 Future Developments of Electronic Evidence F Section 5 Inconsistencies G Section 202 Periodic Review – Does this Achieve the Values of a Code? H Size VIII Changes due to the reform – Do these Achieve the Values of a Code? A Propensity B Improperly Obtained Evidence IX By and large has the Act and Codification been worthwhile? III IV Sarah Croxford 300223766 Abstract This paper examines the Evidence Act 2006 to determine whether it has been a successful codification of the law of evidence in New Zealand.
    [Show full text]
  • R V Horncastle and Others (Appellants) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)
    Michaelmas Term [2009] UKSC 14 On appeal from: [2009] EWCA Crim 964 JUDGMENT R v Horncastle and others (Appellants) (on appeal from the Court of Appeal Criminal Division) before Lord Phillips, President Lady Hale Lord Brown Lord Mance Lord Neuberger Lord Kerr Lord Judge JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 9 December 2009 Heard on 7, 8 and 9 July 2009 Appellants (Horncastle Appellants (Marquis and Respondent and Blackmore) Graham) Tim Owen QC Shaun Smith QC David Perry QC John Gibson James Beck Louis Mably Janet Reaney (Instructed by The (Instructed by The Johnson (Instructed by Crown Johnson Partnership Partnership Solicitors ) Prosecution Service) Solicitors ) LORD PHILLIPS, PRESIDENT This is a judgment with which all members of the court agree. Introduction 1. Each of the appellants has been convicted on indictment of a serious criminal offence. Each has had an appeal against conviction dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Each appeals on the ground that he did not receive a fair trial, contrary to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“article 6”) (“The Convention”). The appeal of each is based on the fact that there was placed before the jury the statement of a witness who was not called to give evidence. In each case the witness was the victim of the alleged offence. 2. Mr Horncastle and Mr Blackmore were convicted of causing grievous bodily harm, with intent, to Mr Peter Rice. Mr Rice made a witness statement to the police about what had happened to him. He died before the trial of causes not attributable to the injuries that had been inflicted upon him.
    [Show full text]
  • Get Licensed Contents
    SIA licensing criteria January 2021 Get Licensed Contents Getting a Licence 5 Training and Qualifications 9 Criminal Records Checks 21 Relevant Offences for all Applicants 37 Refusing a Licence 41 Notifying Applicants of the SIA’s Conclusions 45 Conditions of a Licence 47 Revoking a Licence 51 Suspending a Licence 54 Annex A: List of relevant offences for all Applicants 57 SIA | Get Licensed January 2021 Introduction The Security Industry Authority (SIA) is the public body that regulates the private security industry in the United Kingdom. The Private Security Industry Act 2001 (“the Act”) established the SIA and sets out how regulation of the private security industry works. Section 3 of the Act makes it a criminal offence for individuals to engage in licensable conduct unless they have a licence. The SIA is responsible for granting, renewing and revoking these licences. Applicants and Licence Holders The people who are applying for licences whether someone can or cannot be are referred to as “Applicants” in this lawfully employed in regulated activities. document. They are called Applicants However, the SIA is not Applicants’ and even if they have had a licence in the Licence Holders’ employer. past and are applying for this licence to be renewed. The people who have active licenses are called “Licence Holders” even if they do not have a Criteria security job at the moment. The SIA uses rules called “criteria” to decide whether or not to grant a The relationship that Applicants and licence. Criteria are also used when the Licence Holders have with the SIA is a SIA applies its powers under the Act to relationship with a regulatory body.
    [Show full text]