DOCSLIB.ORG

Jury Service 1975 Act Following Broad Consultation and Discussion

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jury Service 1975 Act Following Broad Consultation and Discussion C The Law Reform Commission is an independent statutory ON body established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1975. S U The Commission’s principal role is to keep the law under LTATI review and to make proposals for reform, in particular by recommending the enactment of legislation to clarify and ON modernise the law. PAP E This role is carried out primarily under a Programme of R CONSUltatiON papER Law Reform. The Commission’s Third Programme of Law Reform 2008-2014 was prepared and approved under the JURY SERVICE 1975 Act following broad consultation and discussion. The JURY SERVICE Commission also works on specific matters referred to it by the Attorney General under the 1975 Act. Since 2006, the Commission’s role also includes two other areas of activity, Statute Law Restatement and the Legislation Directory. Statute Law Restatement involves incorporating all amendments to an Act into a single text, making legislation more accessible. The Legislation Directory (previously called the Chronological Tables of the Statutes) is a searchable guide to legislative changes. lrc CP 61 – 2010 €15 AddrEss TELEPHONE FAX EMail WEBsitE (lrc CP 61 – 2010) 35-39 Shelbourne Road Dublin 4 Ireland +353 1 6377600 +353 1 6377601 [email protected] www.lawreform.ie The Law Reform Commission is a statutory body established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1975 111860 - LRC Juries Consultation 1 19/03/2010 10:53 www.lawreform.ie 111860 - LRC Juries Consultation 2 19/03/2010 10:53 CONSULTATION PAPER JURY SERVICE (LRC CP 61-2010) © COPYRIGHT Law Reform Commission FIRST PUBLISHED March 2010 ISSN 1393-3140 i LAW REFORM COMMISSION‘S ROLE The Law Reform Commission is an independent statutory body established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1975. The Commission‘s principal role is to keep the law under review and to make proposals for reform, in particular by recommending the enactment of legislation to clarify and modernise the law. Since it was established, the Commission has published over 150 documents (Consultation Papers and Reports) containing proposals for law reform and these are all available at www.lawreform.ie. Most of these proposals have led to reforming legislation. The Commission‘s role is carried out primarily under a Programme of Law Reform. Its Third Programme of Law Reform 2008-2014 was prepared by the Commission following broad consultation and discussion. In accordance with the 1975 Act, it was approved by the Government in December 2007 and placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Commission also works on specific matters referred to it by the Attorney General under the 1975 Act. Since 2006, the Commission‘s role includes two other areas of activity, Statute Law Restatement and the Legislation Directory. Statute Law Restatement involves the administrative consolidation of all amendments to an Act into a single text, making legislation more accessible. Under the Statute Law (Restatement) Act 2002, where this text is certified by the Attorney General it can be relied on as evidence of the law in question. The Legislation Directory - previously called the Chronological Tables of the Statutes - is a searchable annotated guide to legislative changes. After the Commission took over responsibility for this important resource, it decided to change the name to Legislation Directory to indicate its function more clearly. ii MEMBERSHIP The Law Reform Commission consists of a President, one full-time Commissioner and three part-time Commissioners. The Commissioners at present are: President: The Hon Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness Former Judge of the Supreme Court Full-time Commissioner: Patricia T. Rickard-Clarke, Solicitor Part-time Commissioner: Professor Finbarr McAuley Part-time Commissioner: Marian Shanley, Solicitor Part-time Commissioner: Mr Justice Donal O‘Donnell, Judge of the Supreme Court iii LAW REFORM RESEARCH STAFF Director of Research: Raymond Byrne BCL, LLM (NUI), Barrister-at-Law Legal Researchers: John P Byrne BCL, LLM, PhD (NUI), Barrister-at-Law Chris Campbell B Corp Law, LLB Diop Sa Gh (NUI) Siobhan Drislane BCL, LLM (NUI) Gemma Ní Chaoimh BCL, LLM (NUI) Bríd Nic Suibhne BA, LLB, LLM (TCD), Diop sa Gh (NUI) Jane O‗Grady BCL, LLB (NUI), LPC (College of Law) Gerard Sadlier BCL (NUI) Joseph Spooner, BCL (Law with French Law) (NUI), Dip. French and European Law (Paris II), BCL (Oxon) Ciara Staunton BCL, LLM (NUI), Diop sa Gh (NUI) STATUTE LAW RESTATEMENT Project Manager for Restatement: Alma Clissmann, BA (Mod), LLB, Dip Eur Law (Bruges), Solicitor Legal Researcher: Catriona Moloney BCL (NUI), LLM (Public Law) LEGISLATION DIRECTORY Project Manager for Legislation Directory: Heather Mahon LLB (ling. Ger.), M.Litt, Barrister-at-Law Legal Researcher: Rachel Kemp BCL (Law and German), LLM (NUI) iv ADMINISTRATION STAFF Executive Officers: Deirdre Bell Simon Fallon Darina Moran Peter Trainor Legal Information Manager: Conor Kennedy BA, H Dip LIS Cataloguer: Eithne Boland BA (Hons), HDip Ed, HDip LIS Clerical Officers: Ann Browne Ann Byrne Liam Dargan Sabrina Kelly PRINCIPAL LEGAL RESEARCHER FOR THIS CONSULTATION PAPER Charles O'Mahony, BA, LL.B (NUI), LL.M (Lond), LL.M (NUI) v CONTACT DETAILS Further information can be obtained from: Law Reform Commission 35-39 Shelbourne Road Ballsbridge Dublin 4 Telephone: +353 1 637 7600 Fax: +353 1 637 7601 Email: [email protected] Website: www.lawreform.ie vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Commission would like to thank the following people who provided valuable assistance, a large number of whom attended the Commission‘s roundtable discussion on this project on 18 June 2008: Ms Claire Bruton, Barrister Ms Patricia Casey, Courts Service Mr Mark Coen, School of Law, Trinity College Dublin Ms Rebecca Coen, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Ms Eileen Creedon, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Dr Penny Darbyshire, School of Law, Kingston University, London Mr Noel A Doherty, Courts Service Mr Bobby Eager, Solicitor, Garret Sheehan & Partners Mr Michael Farrell, Solicitor, Free Legal Advice Centres Mr Remy Farrell, Barrister Ms Mary Feerick, Courts Service Mr Kevin Fidgeon, Courts Service Ms Aine Flynn, Solicitor, Terence Lyons & Co Mr James Hamilton, Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Conor Hanly, Faculty of Law, NUI Galway Dr Niamh Howlin, Faculty of Law, Queen‘s University Belfast Ms Liz Hughes, Courts Service Ms Claire Loftus, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Tony McGillicuddy, Barrister Ms Kate Mulkerrins, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Ronan Munro, Barrister Mr David Nolan, Senior Counsel Mr Thomas O’Malley, Barrister, Faculty of Law, NUI Galway Ms Clare O’Regan, Solicitor, McGuill & Co Ms Emer O’Sullivan, Solicitor, Emer O‘Sullivan & Co Mr Robert Purcell, Solicitor, Hanahoe & Hanahoe Mr Noel Rubotham, Courts Service Ms Susan Ryan, Courts Service Mr Damian Sheridan, Barrister Ms Pauline Walley, Senior Counsel Ms Aisling Wall, Barrister Mr Thomas Ward, Courts Service Full responsibility for this publication lies, however, with the Commission. vii viii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 A Background to the Project 1 B The role of juries in Ireland‘s court system 1 C The Constitution and representative juries 2 D Scope of the Project 4 E Changes made in 2008 Act and other developments since 2007 5 F The Commission‘s general approach to jury service 7 G Outline of the Consultation Paper 8 CHAPTER 1 JURY SELECTION IN IRELAND: FROM HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT TO PRESENT TIMES 1 A Introduction 1 B The Emergence of Jury Trial 2 (1) The Brehon non-jury trial system 2 (2) The Anglo-Norman introduction of juries 2 (3) Special Juries: an historical note 3 (4) Juries as fact finders and independent of the judge 6 th C Trial by Jury in Ireland to the 19 Century 7 th (1) The political setting in the 19 century 8 (2) Regulation of Qualification for Jury Service in th the 19 century 10 D Jury selection since the Foundation of the State 15 (1) Main elements of Juries Act 1927 16 (2) 1965 Reports of the Committee on Court Practice and Procedure on Juries 18 (3) 1965 Report on Jury Service in England 20 E de Burca v Attorney General and the Juries Act 1976 21 (1) De Burca v Attorney General 22 (2) Key matters and principles arising from the de Burca case 26 (3) The impact of the English 1974 Act on the 1976 Act 28 (4) Key elements of the 1976 Act 28 (5) Changes made in 2008 Act 29 CHAPTER 2 CITIZENSHIP, RESIDENCY AND JURY SERVICE 31 ix A Introduction 31 B Jury Selection 31 (1) Objectives of Jury Selection in Ireland 32 C Citizenship and Demographics in Eligibility for Jury Service 38 (1) The 1976 Act and changing demographics in Ireland 38 (2) England and Wales 40 (3) Australia 41 (4) New Zealand 44 (5) Citizenship as an Eligibility Requirement for Jury Service in Ireland 45 D The Potential Use of the Register of electors for European and Local Elections 48 CHAPTER 3 INELIGIBILITY AND EXCUSAL FROM JURY SERVICE 53 A Introduction 53 B Concern with Ineligibility and Excusal from Jury Service 53 C Ineligibility and Excusal: The Law Reform Trend 55 D Ineligibility from Jury Service 61 (1) Background to Ineligibility for Jury Service 62 (2) Discussion of categories of Ineligible Persons under the Juries Act 1976 63 E Excusal from Jury Service 80 (1) Background to Excusal from Jury Service 80 (2) Developments since 1976 81 (3) Persons Excusable from Jury Service in the 1976 Act 82 (4) Effectiveness of Reform 84 F Deferral of jury service 86 (1) Comparative Review 86 (2) Length of deferral 88 (3) The Commission‘s View 88 CHAPTER 4 CAPACITY TO UNDERTAKE THE DUTIES
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Impact of Trial Consultants on Perceptions of Procedural Justice and Juror Verdicts: an Empirical Investigation
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2011 The Impact of Trial Consultants on Perceptions of Procedural Justice and Juror Verdicts: An Empirical Investigation Jennifer Burke Katz The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1949 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] THE IMPACT OF TRIAL CONSULTANTS ON PERCEPTIONS OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND JUROR VERDICTS: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION by JENNIFER B. KATZ A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Psychology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2011 Trial Consultants ii ©2011 JENNIFER BURKE KATZ All Rights Reserved Trial Consultants iii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Psychology in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Harold Goldstein__________________________________ _____________________ ________________________________________________ Date Chair of Examining Committee Maureen O’Connor________________________________ _____________________ ________________________________________________ Date Executive Officer Harold Goldstein_____________________________ Kristin Sommer______________________________ Charles Scherbaum____________________________ Supervisory Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK Trial Consultants iv Abstract THE IMPACT OF TRIAL CONSULTANTS ON PERCEPTIONS OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND JUROR VERDICTS: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION by Jennifer B. Katz Adviser: Professor Harold Goldstein Despite the proliferation of the trial consulting industry in recent years, we know virtually nothing about the impact that the use of a trial consultant may have on a jury.
    [Show full text]
  • Crosby K. Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Juror Punishment in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century England. Legal Studies 2015 DOI: 10.1111/Lest.12098
    Crosby K. Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Juror Punishment in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century England. Legal Studies 2015 DOI: 10.1111/lest.12098 Copyright: This is the peer reviewed version of the above article, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lest.12098. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. Date deposited: 27/07/2015 Embargo release date: 21 December 2017 Newcastle University ePrints - eprint.ncl.ac.uk Before the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Juror Punishment in Nineteenth- and Twentieth- Century England Kevin Crosby* The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 has created several new offences regarding juror misconduct. While this legislation has been passed in response to jurors accessing improper ‘evidence’ online, it is wrong to treat juror misconduct as a new problem. The most famous case on this topic (Bushell’s Case) did not completely prohibit juror punishment, but the rhetorical force of the decision was such that penal practices have until recently been overlooked in the academic literature. This article argues that assessing the new offences is greatly helped by understanding how juror misconduct has been responded to in the past. Drawing on the language of Bushell’s Case itself, as well as new archival research, it argues that previous practices of juror punishment have largely depended on whether particular instances of misconduct related to the juror’s ‘ministerial’ or ‘judicial’ functions; and that ‘judicial’ offences (those relating to verdict formation) have been much less likely to be punished.
    [Show full text]
  • Issues Paper on Consolidation of Evidence Legislation
    Issues Paper Number 3 Consolidation of evidence legislation (LRC IP 3-2013) This is the third Issues Paper published by the Law Reform Commission. The purpose of an Issues Paper is to provide a summary or outline of a project on which the Commission is embarking or on which work is already underway, and to provide readers with an opportunity to express views and to make suggestions and comments on specific questions. The Issues Papers are circulated to members of the legal professions and to other professionals and groups who are likely to have a particular interest in, or specialist knowledge of, the relevant topic. They are also published on the Commission’s website (www.lawreform.ie) to ensure they are available to all members of the public. These Issues Papers represent current thinking within the Commission on the various items mentioned. They should not be taken as representing settled positions that have been taken by the Commission. Comments and suggestions are warmly welcomed from all interested parties and all responses will be treated in the strictest confidence. These should be sent to the Law Reform Commission: via email to [email protected] with the subject line Evidence or via post to IPC House, 35-39 Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, marked for the attention of Evidence Researcher We would like to receive replies no later than close of business on 13th September 2013 if possible. ACTS CONSIDERED IN THIS ISSUE PAPER 1. WITNESSES ACT 1806 (REPEAL WITH RE-ENACTMENT PROPOSED) 2. EVIDENCE ACT 1843 (REPEAL WITH PARTIAL RE-ENACTMENT PROPOSED) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Juries Act 1974 Is up to Date with All Changes Known to Be in Force on Or Before 23 May 2021
    Status: Point in time view as at 01/12/2016. Changes to legislation: Juries Act 1974 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 23 May 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) Juries Act 1974 1974 CHAPTER 23 An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to juries, jurors and jury service with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. [9th July 1974] Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Act amended by S.I. 1986/1081, regs. 2, 51(6) C2 By Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53, SIF 39:1), s. 101(1), Sch. 12 para. 23; S.I. 1991/2208, art. 2(1), Sch.1 it is provided (14.10.1991) that in relation to any time before the commencement of s.70 of that 1991 Act (which came into force on 1.10.1992 by S.I. 1992/333, art. 2(2), Sch. 2) references in any enactment amended by that 1991 Act, to youth courts shall be construed as references to juvenile courts. Commencement Information I1 Act wholly in force at 9. 8. 1974 see s. 23(3) [F11 Qualification for jury service (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person shall be qualified to serve as a juror in the Crown Court, the High Court and [F2the county court] and be liable accordingly to attend for jury service when summoned under this Act if— (a) he is for the time being registered as a parliamentary or local government elector [F3and aged eighteen or over but under seventy six] ; (b) he has been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for any period of at least five years since attaining the age of thirteen; and F4(c) .
    [Show full text]
  • Jury Selection in Federal Court
    Resource ID: 1-613-5747 Jury Selection in Federal Court JONATHAN S. TAM, DECHERT LLP, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION Search the Resource ID numbers in blue on Westlaw for more. This Practice Note addresses selecting a jury Exercising juror challenges (see Exercising Juror Challenges). in a federal civil case, including the applicable Conducting post-trial interviews (see Conducting Post-Trial Interviews). rules on picking a jury, the process and method for jury selection, researching prospective OVERVIEW OF THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS jurors and building juror profiles, conducting Although how a jury is selected varies among courts and judges, the voir dire, exercising peremptory challenges, process in federal court generally occurs in the following order: The court may first mail a preliminary, administrative questionnaire challenges for cause, and Batson challenges, to a randomly selected pool of prospective jurors from registered and interviewing jurors post-trial. voter or licensed driver lists to determine if these individuals appear qualified for federal jury service based on their age and ability to understand English (see Juror Qualifications). The prospect of a jury trial often keeps counsel and their clients The court mails summonses to an initial pool of randomly selected awake at night. Juries can be unpredictable, and jurors may have prospective jurors. The court then randomly selects a narrower preconceived ideas or biases that can escape counsel during the pool of prospective jurors from the initial pool, and calls them for a selection process. Some cases may be won or lost during jury specific case. selection, before opening statements or a single piece of evidence The judge presiding over the case determines whether any jurors is introduced.
    [Show full text]
  • South Australia Law Reform Institute
    Issues Paper 3 October 2013 South Australian Law Reform Institute Nothing but the truth Witness oaths and affirmations The South Australian Law Reform Institute was established in December 2010 by agreement between the Attorney-General of South Australia, the University of Adelaide and the Law Society of South Australia. It is based at the Adelaide University Law School. Postal address: SA Law Reform Institute Adelaide Law School University of Adelaide North Terrace Adelaide SA 5005 Contact details: (08) 8313 5582 [email protected] www.law.adelaide.edu.au/reform/ Publications All SALRI publications, including this one, are available to download free of charge from www.law.adelaide.edu.au/reform/publications/ If you are sending a submission to SALRI on this Issues Paper, please note: the closing date for submissions is Friday 17 January 2014; there is a questionnaire in downloadable form at www.law.adelaide.edu.au/reform/publications/ we would prefer you to send your submission by email; we may publish responses to this paper on our webpage with the Final Report. If you do not wish your submission to be published in this way, or if you wish it to be published anonymously, please let us know in writing with your submission. The cover illustration is from The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Magic Pudding by Norman Lindsay. The eBook may be read or downloaded from <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23625/23625- h/23625-h.htm> Contents ABBREVIATIONS 2 PARTICIPANTS 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3 TERMS OF REFERENCE 4 OVERVIEW 4 1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
    [Show full text]
  • Running Head: JURY DECISION MAKING RESEARCH 1
    Running head: JURY DECISION MAKING RESEARCH 1 Jury Decision Making Research: Are Researchers Focusing on the Mouse and Not the Elephant in the Room? Narina Nuñez & Sean M. McCrea Department of Psychology, University of Wyoming Scott E. Culhane Department of Criminal Justice, University of Wyoming Preprint of Nuñez, N., McCrea, S. M. and Culhane, S. E. (2011), Jury decision making research: Are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room?. Behav. Sci. Law, 29: 439–451. doi: 10.1002/bsl.967 Full version JURY DECISION MAKING RESEARCH 2 Abstract The concerns of jury research have extensively focused on subject selection, yet larger issues loom. We argue that observed differences between students vs. non-students in mock juror studies are inconsistent at best, and that researchers are ignoring the more important issue of jury deliberation. We contend that the lack of information on deliberating jurors and/or juries is a much greater threat to ecological validity and that some of our basic findings and conclusions in the literature today might be different if we had used juries, not non-deliberating jurors, as the unit of measure. Finally, we come full circle in our review and explore whether the debate about college and community samples might be more relevant to deliberating versus non-deliberating jurors. JURY DECISION MAKING RESEARCH 3 Jury Decision Making Research: Are Researchers Focusing on the Mouse and Not the Elephant in the Room? The tension between experimental control and ecological validity is present in many applied psychological research endeavors but is probably crucial in jury decision making studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Gekekal Statutes
    ' ,0~~.0 X-^t-^ GEKEKAL STATUTES OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: REVISED BY. COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED UNDER AN ACT APPROVED FEBRUARY 17, 1863, AND ACTS SUBSEQUENT THERETO, AMENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE, AND PASSED AT THE SESSION OF 1866. TO WHICH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE ORGANIC ACT, THE ACT AUTHORIZING A STATE GOVERNMENT, AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, ARE PREFIXED ; AND A LIST OF ACTS PREVIOUSLY REPEALED, A GLOSSARY, AND INDEX, ARE ADDED. «II»II» Edited and. Ihiblished under the authority of Chapters 15 and 16 of the Laws of 1866. «!•«••» ST. PAUL. PUBLISHED BY DAVIDSON & HALL, STATE PRINTERS, 170 THIRD STREET. 1872. MINNESOTA STATUTES 1866 114.] ISSUES AND MODE OP TRIAL. 655 c EAPTEE CXIT./^^ % ISSUES AND MODE OP TRIAL, r jC v SECTION SECTION " 1. Issue of fact arises, when. 14. What papers jury may take on retiring for 2. Shall be tried by jury. deliberation. > 3. Trial had in absence of defendant, when. 15 Jury may return into court for information 4. Continuance may be granted. concerning law or testimony. 5. Court may order defendant to bo committed. 16. Jury may be discharged, if one falls sick. 6. Separate trial in case of two or more defend- 17. Cause may be tried second time, when. ants allowed, when. 18. "What verdict jury may find in certain cases. 7. One joint defendant may be discharged to be 19. Jury may render verdict as to part of several witness for the state. defendants. 8. Defendant may be discharged to be witness for 20. Jury may be polled.
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Revision Bill 2007 ————————
    ———————— AN BILLE UM ATHCHO´ IRIU´ AN DLI´ REACHTU´ IL 2007 STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL 2007 ———————— Mar a tionscnaı´odh As initiated ———————— ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Definitions. 2. General statute law revision repeal and saver. 3. Specific repeals. 4. Assignment of short titles. 5. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1896. 6. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1962. 7. Miscellaneous amendments to post-1800 short titles. 8. Evidence of certain early statutes, etc. 9. Savings. 10. Short title and collective citation. SCHEDULE 1 Statutes retained PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 [No. 5 of 2007] SCHEDULE 2 Statutes Specifically Repealed PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 ———————— 2 Acts Referred to Bill of Rights 1688 1 Will. & Mary, Sess. 2. c. 2 Documentary Evidence Act 1868 31 & 32 Vict., c. 37 Documentary Evidence Act 1882 45 & 46 Vict., c. 9 Dower Act, 1297 25 Edw. 1, Magna Carta, c. 7 Drainage and Improvement of Lands Supplemental Act (Ireland) (No. 2) 1867 31 & 32 Vict., c. 3 Dublin Hospitals Regulation Act 1856 19 & 20 Vict., c. 110 Evidence Act 1845 8 & 9 Vict., c. 113 Forfeiture Act 1639 15 Chas., 1. c. 3 General Pier and Harbour Act 1861 Amendment Act 1862 25 & 26 Vict., c.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Race in Jury Impartiality and Venue Transfers Darryl K
    Maryland Law Review Volume 53 | Issue 1 Article 5 The Role of Race in Jury Impartiality and Venue Transfers Darryl K. Brown Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Darryl K. Brown, The Role of Race in Jury Impartiality and Venue Transfers, 53 Md. L. Rev. 107 (1994) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol53/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ROLE OF RACE IN JURY IMPARTIALITY AND VENUE TRANSFERS DARRYL IL BROWN* I. INTRODUCrION A. Two Cases in Point In 1990, Washington, D.C., Mayor Marion Barry was indicted on fourteen charges of drug possession and perjury arising from a federal investigation that yielded a videotape of Barry smoking crack cocaine in Washington's Vista Hotel.1 Barry and his attorney chose not to seek a change of venue for the trial, despite overwhelming pretrial public- ity about the case that included constant replays of the incriminating videotape on local television stations.2 The jury, drawn from the Dis- trict and comprised mostly of African Americans,3 convicted Barry, an African American, of only one misdemeanor possession charge-not the one arising from the videotape.4 The verdict was generally viewed as a victory for the defendant.' * Staff Attorney, University of Georgia School of Law Legal Aid Clinic.
    [Show full text]
  • SCC File No. 39062 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL from the COURT of APPEAL for ONTARIO)
    SCC File No. 39062 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN APPELLANT (Respondent) – and – PARDEEP SINGH CHOUHAN RESPONDENT (Appellant) – and – ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALBERTA, ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICES, ADVOCATES' SOCIETY, DEBBIE BAPTISTE, BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION, CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF BLACK LAWYERS, CANADIAN MUSLIM LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AND FEDERATION OF ASIAN CANADIAN LAWYERS, CRIMINAL LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION (ONTARIO), DAVID ASPER CENTRE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, DEFENCE COUNSEL ASSOCIATION OF OTTAWA, SOUTH ASIAN BAR ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO, ASSOCIATION QUÉBÉCOISE DES AVOCATS ET AVOCATES DE LA DÉFENSE INTERVENERS FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER DEFENCE COUNSEL ASSOCIATION OF OTTAWA (Pursuant to Rule 42 the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) MICHAEL JOHNSTON JAMES COULTER SOLOMON FRIEDMAN Shore Johnston Hyslop Day | LLP James Coulter Law 200 Elgin Street (Suite 800) 200 Elgin Street (Suite 800) Ottawa, ON / K2P 1L5 Ottawa, ON / K2P 1 L5 Telephone: 1-613-233-7747 Telephone: 1-613-371-3884 Facsimile: 1-613-233-2374 Facsimile: 1-613-233-2374 E-mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected] Counsel for the Intervener Agent for the Intervener Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa i MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY NADIA EFFENDI GENERAL Crown Law Office – Criminal Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 10th Floor, 720 Bay Street World Exchange Plaza
    [Show full text]
  • Children and Young Persons Act 1933
    Children and Young Persons Act 1933 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/23-24/12 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 1933 CHAPTER 12 23 and 24 Geo 5 An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to persons under the age of eighteen years. [13th April 1933] Annotations: Extent Information E1 Act: does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland save as therein otherwise expressly provided see s. 109(3) . Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Act extended (except ss. 15, 19) by Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) , s. 1(5) . C2 Act amended by Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33, SIF 39:1) , s. 170(1) , Sch. 15 para. 9 C3 By Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53, SIF 39:1) , S. 101(1) , Sch. 12 para.23 ; S.I. 1991/2208 , art. 2(1) , Sch. 1 it is provided (14.10.1991) that in relation to any time before the commencement of s. 70 of that 1991 Act (which came into force on 1.10.1992 by S.I. 1992/333 , art. 2(2) , Sch. 2 ) references in any enactment amended by that 1991 Act, to youth courts shall be construed as references to juvenile courts. C4 Power to modify conferred (5.2.1994) by 1993 c. 47 , ss. 22(3) , 33(2) . C5 Act (except ss. 53, 58, 79-81, Sch. 4): transfer of functions (W) (1.7.1999) by S.I. 1999/672 , art. 2 , Sch. 1 Commencement Information I1 Act partly in force at Royal Assent by s. 109(2) (now repealed); Act wholly in force at 1.11.1933.
    [Show full text]