DOCSLIB.ORG

Criminal Code 2003.Pmd 273 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 274 No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

273 No. 9 ] Criminal Code [2004. SAINT LUCIA ______ No. 9 of 2004 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS CHAPTER ONE General Provisions PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Application of Code 4. General construction of Code 5. Common law procedure to apply where necessary 6. Interpretation PART II JUSTIFICATIONS AND EXCUSES 7. Claim of right 8. Consent by deceit or duress void 9. Consent void by incapacity 10. Consent by mistake of fact 11. Consent by exercise of undue authority 12. Consent by person in authority not given in good faith 13. Exercise of authority 14. Explanation of authority 15. Invalid consent not prejudicial 16. Extent of justification 17. Consent to fight cannot justify harm 18. Consent to killing unjustifiable 19. Consent to harm or wound 20. Medical or surgical treatment must be proper 21. Medical or surgical or other force to minors or others in custody 22. Use of force, where person unable to consent 23. Revocation annuls consent 24. Ignorance or mistake of fact criminal code 2003.pmd 273 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 274 No. 9 ] Criminal Code [2004. 25. Ignorance of law no excuse 26. Age of criminal responsibility 27. Presumption of mental disorder 28. Intoxication, when an excuse 29. Aider may justify same force as person aided 30. Arrest with or without process for crime 31. Arrest, etc., other than for indictable offence 32. Bona fide assistant and correctional officer 33. Bona fide execution of defective warrant or process 34. Reasonable use of force in self-defence 35. Defence of property, possession of right 36. Force to repel trespasser 37. Force to remove trespasser 38. Force for recovery of possession of goods 39. Defence of right 40. Unlawful fight not justifiable 41. Force against interferer 42. Force in execution of a sentence 43. Force to preserve order 44. Preservation of order on vessel 45. Force within statutory authority justifiable 46. Force against riotous or unlawful assembly 47. Automatism 48. Duress of circumstance 49. Duress by Threat 50. Necessity 51. Proof of defence of automatism, duress or necessity PART III LIABILITY AND MENS REA 52. Causing event by involuntary agent 53. Several persons causing event 54. Event caused by intervening circumstances 55. Liability for attempts and negligence or recklessness 56. Intent 57. Transferred Intention 58. Definition of negligence 59. Negligence where act likely to cause unjustifiable event criminal code 2003.pmd 274 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 275 No. 9 ] Criminal Code [2004. 60. Recklessness 61. Definition of threat PART IV PARTICIPATION AND INCHOATE OFFENCES 62. Aiding and abetting a crime 63. Aiding and abetting crime within, from outside jurisdiction 64. Aiding and abetting crime committed 65. Punishment where crime aided and abetted is not committed 66. Punishment where different crime is committed 67. Aiding and abetting riot, etc. 68. Trial of accomplices 69. Trial of more than one accomplice 70. Exemption, etc. available for any accomplice irrespective of others 71. Punishment for aiding and abetting 72. Punishment for non-prevention of crime 73. Conspiracy to commit crime 74. Conspiracy to aid and abet a crime 75. Person within jurisdiction agreeing with person outside jurisdiction to commit or abet crime 76. Punishment of conspiracy 77. Attempt to commit crime 78. Punishment for attempt to commit crime 79. Application of exemption, justification etc., provisions to attempt 80. Preparation for commission of crime CHAPTER TWO Offences PART I OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON Sub-Part A — Homicide 81. Part III of Chapter One to apply to causing death 82. Causing death of a child 83. Unlawful command to kill. Special provision as to aiding and abetting 84. Death outside from harm within jurisdiction of Courts 85. Murder criminal code 2003.pmd 275 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 276 No. 9 ] Criminal Code [2004. 86. Capital murder 87. Non-capital murder 88. Attempt to murder 89. Attempted murder by inmate 90. Diminished responsibility 91. Provocation 92. Death caused by gross negligence or recklessness 93. Penalty for manslaughter 94. Aiding and abetting of suicide, attempt to commit suicide 95. Suicide pacts 96. Administering noxious substance 97. Reckless harm 98. Grievous harm 99. Maim or dangerous harm 100. Wounding 101. Using corrosives, explosives, weapons, or dangerous means 102. Harm with aggravation 103. Harm with violence 104. Hindering escape from wreck, or protection from harm 105. Harm by omission explained 106. Duty to prevent harm 107. Duty to supply necessaries of health and life 108. Duty constituted by office, under taking or conduct 109. Provisions as to causing event to apply 110. Punishment of careless surgical or medical treatment 111. Negligent harm 112. Negligent grievous harm 113. Negligent harm or negligence endangering life 114. Threat of death Sub-Part B — Assaults 115. Offence of assault 116. Aggravated assault on male under twelve years or female 117. Acts not constituting assaults 118. Stalking 119. Report of suspected cases of abuse 120. Kidnapping 121. False imprisonment criminal code 2003.pmd 276 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 277 No. 9 ] Criminal Code [2004. Sub-Part C — Sexual Offences 122. Interpretation 123. Rape 124. Unlawful sexual connection 125. Inducing sexual intercourse or sexual connection by force, duress, etc. 126. Sexual intercourse with a person under twelve 127. Sexual intercourse with a person between twelve and sixteen 128. Sexual intercourse with an adopted minor, etc. 129. Sexual intercourse with a minor employee 130. Indecent assault 131. Indecent act 132. Gross Indecency 133. Buggery 134. Bestiality 135. Unlawful detention of a person with intent to have sexual intercourse 136. Hearings in camera 137. Court may forbid publication of report 138. Anonymity of complainant and accused 139. Soliciting sexual favours in the workplace 140. Transmission of HIV 141. Procuring or aiding and abetting 142. Procuring defilement or abetment of defilement by guardian or parent 143. Keeping brothel 144. Power if lessor to require assignment of lease on conviction of lessee or occupier 145 Liability of landlord on failure to determine lease after notice 146. Liability of landlord leasing again to same person after determination of former lease 147. Trading in prostitution 148. Spouse competent witness 149. Trading in prostitution by female 150. Soliciting prostitution 151. Living on earnings of prostitution 152. Preventing or delaying police entry into suspected brothel 153. Conspiracy to defile by false pretence or means 154. Defilement of male or female suffering from mental disorder 155. Defilement of inmate of asylum 156. Permitting or aiding and abetting defilement of male or female 157. Incest criminal code 2003.pmd 277 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 278 No. 9 ] Criminal Code [2004. 158. Attempt to commit incest 159. Divesting guardian of authority over minor 160. Abduction 161. Special provisions 162. Abduction of unmarried male or female under sixteen 163. Abduction of male or female of any age with intent to marry or defile Sub-Part D — Termination of Pregnancy And Childbirth Offence Causing Harm to Child at Birth 164. Medical or surgical treatment 165. Explanation as to termination of pregnancy 166. Termination of pregnancy 167. Explaination as to causing harm to child at birth 168. Penalty for causing harm to child at birth 169. Abandoning child under five at hospital, etc 170. Exposing child under seven to grievous harm 171. “Child stealing” defined and explained 172. Stealing child under twelve 173. Pretending, child legitimate, or substituting one child for another 174. Concealment of body of child 175. Concealment of birth, existence, or death of child Sub-Part E — Offences Relating To Marriage 176. Compulsory marriage of person 177. Proof of former marriage 178. Definition of bigamy 179. Plea of divorce 180. Penalty for bigamy 181. Causing marriage by force or duress 182. False declarations or statements for purposes of marriage 183. False impediment to marriage 184. False solemnization of marriage 185. Feigned marriage 186. Marriage by unmarried person with other person known to be married 187. Personating or marrying under false name or description criminal code 2003.pmd 278 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 279 No. 9 ] Criminal Code [2004. PART II OFFENCES A GAINST PROPERTY Sub-Part A - Theft And Related Offences 188. Basic definition of theft 189. Dishonest appropriation 190. Meaning of appropriation 191. Property capable of being stolen 192. Belonging to another 193. With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it 194. Penalty for theft 195. Common stealing 196. Stealing from dwelling, place of business or worship 197. Stealing by employee 198. Stealing from person 199. Stealing telegraph or telephone parts 200. Stealing from vessels 201. Liability of part owner for breach of trust or stealing 202. Proof to rebut proof of lawful appropriation 203. “Fraudulent breach of trust” defined 204. Person undertaking to hold his or her own property as trustee 205. Fraudulent breach of trust 206. Robbery 207. Burglary 208. Aggravated burglary 209. Removal of articles from places open to the public 210. Abstracting of electricity 211. Obtaining property by deception 212. Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception 213. Obtaining services by deception 214. Evasion of liability by deception 215. Making off without payment 216. Issuing cheque or negotiable instrument with intent to defraud 217. Fraud by pawner of property 218. Fraud by person evading intended execution against his or her property 219. False accounting 220. Liability of company officers for certain offences by company 221. False statements by company directors, etc. 222. Suppression, etc., of documents criminal code 2003.pmd 279 11/27/2004, 12:35 PM 280 No. 9 ] Criminal Code [2004. 223. Blackmail 224. Handling stolen goods 225. Advertising rewards for return of goods stolen or lost 226. Scope of offences relating to stolen goods 227. Going equipped for stealing, etc. 228.
Recommended publications
  • FATE MANAGEMENT: the Real Target of Modern Criminal Law

    FATE MANAGEMENT: the Real Target of Modern Criminal Law

    FATE MANAGEMENT: The Real Target of Modern Criminal Law W.B. Kennedy Doctor of Juridical Studies 2004 University of Sydney © WB Kennedy, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT vii PREFACE ix The Thesis History x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xiii TABLE OF CASES xv TABLE OF LEGISLATION xix New South Wales xix Other Australian jurisdictions xix Overseas municipal statute xx International instruments xx I INTRODUCTION 1 The Issue 1 The Doctrinal Background 4 The Chosen Paradigm 7 The Hypothesis 9 The Argument 13 Why is This Reform Useful? 21 Methodology 21 Structure ............................................................................24 II ANTICIPATORY OFFENCES 27 Introduction 27 Chapter Goal 28 Conspiracy and Complicity 29 Attempt 31 Arguments for a discount ......................................................33 The restitution argument 33 The prevention argument 34 Arguments for no discount .....................................................35 Punishment as retribution 35 Punishment as prevention 35 The objective argument: punish the violation 35 The subjective argument: punish the person 37 The anti-subjective argument 38 The problems created by the objective approach .......................39 The guilt threshold 39 Unlawful killing 40 Involuntary manslaughter 41 The problems with the subjective approach ..............................41 Impossibility 41 Mistake of fact 42 Mistake of law 43 Recklessness 45 Oppression 47 Conclusion 48 FATE MANAGEMENT III STRICT LIABILITY 51 Introduction 51 Chapter Goal 53 Origins 54 The Nature of Strict Liability
  • The Human Right of Self-Defense, 22 BYU J

    The Human Right of Self-Defense, 22 BYU J

    Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law Volume 22 | Issue 1 Article 3 7-1-2007 The umH an Right of Self-Defense David B. Kopel Paul Gallant Joanne D. Eisen Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/jpl Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, and the Second Amendment Commons Recommended Citation David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne D. Eisen, The Human Right of Self-Defense, 22 BYU J. Pub. L. 43 (2007). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/jpl/vol22/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Human Right of Self-Defense David B. Kopel,1 Paul Gallant2 & Joanne D. Eisen3 I. INTRODUCTION “Any law, international or municipal, which prohibits recourse to force, is necessarily limited by the right of self-defense.”4 Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws? The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms.5 The UN and allied NGOs further declare that 1. Research Director, Independence Institute, Golden, Colorado; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., http://www.davekopel.org.
  • 1.1 Compare Criminal Behaviour and Deviance

    1.1 Compare Criminal Behaviour and Deviance

    1.1 Compare criminal behaviour and Year 12/Unit 2. Criminology deviance AC 1.1 Defining deviance Acts that are criminal Key Vocabulary 1 Behaviour that is Such as heroically risking your own 1 Summary Less serious e.g. speeding. Tried by 1 Norms Specific rules or socially accepted unusual and good life to save someone else. offences magistrates. standards that govern behaviour in particular situations. 2 Behaviour that is Such as talking to the trees in the 2 Indictable More serious e.g. rape/murder. Tried in unusual and park, or hoarding huge quantities of offences crown court with jury. More severe 2 Values General principles or guidelines for eccentric old newspapers. sentences. how we should live our lives. 3 Behaviour that is Such as physically attacking 3 Violence E.g. murder, manslaughter, assault 3 Moral A set of basic rules, values and unusual and bad or someone for no reason. against the codes prinicples, held by an individual, group, disapproved of person organisation or society as a whole. 4 Sexual E.g. rape, sex trafficking, grooming. 4 Formal Punishments for breaking formal offences Defining Criminal behaviour sanction written rules or laws. Imposed by Offences official bodies e.g. courts, schools etc. Legal Any action forbidden by criminal law – 5 E.g. burglary, theft, robbery. 1 against definition 5 Informal Disapproval shown to a person for usually involves actus rea and mens rea property sanction breaking unwritten rules, such as telling 2 Social This includes consideration of differing 6 Fraud and E.g. frauds by company directors, benefit off or ignoring them.
  • Dismantling the Purported Right to Kill in Defence of Property Kenneth Lambeth*

    Dismantling the Purported Right to Kill in Defence of Property Kenneth Lambeth*

    Dismantling the Purported Right to Kill in Defence of Property Kenneth Lambeth* Two of the most fundamental western legal principles are the right to life and the right to own property. But what happens when life and property collide? Such a possibility exists within the realm of criminal law where a person may arguably be acquitted for killing in defence of property. Unlike life, property has never been a fundamental right,1 but a mere privilege2 based upon the power to exclude others. Killing in defence of property, without something more,3 can therefore never be justified. The right to life is now recognised internationally4 as a fundamental human right, that is, a basic right available to all human beings.5 Property is not, nor has it ever been, such a universal right. The common law has developed “without explicit reference to the primacy of the right to life”.6 However, the sanctity of human life, from which the right to life may be said to flow, predates the common law itself. This article examines two main sources to show that, wherever there is conflict between the right to life and the right to property, the right to life must prevail. The first such source is the historical, legal and social * Final year LLB student, Southern Cross University. A sincere and substantial debt of gratitude is owed to Professor Stanley Yeo for his support, guidance and inspiration. 1 The word ‘fundamental’ is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary to mean ‘essential; primary; original’. A ‘right’ is defined as ‘a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive or moral’: Delbridge, A et al (eds), The Macquarie Dictionary (3rd Ed), Macquarie Library, NSW, 1998, pp 859, 1830.
  • Criminal Law: Conspiracy to Defraud

    Criminal Law: Conspiracy to Defraud

    CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD LAW COMMISSION LAW COM No 228 The Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 228) CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD Item 5 of the Fourth Programme of Law Reform: Criminal Law Laid before Parliament bj the Lord High Chancellor pursuant to sc :tion 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 6 December 1994 LONDON: 11 HMSO E10.85 net The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Brooke, Chairman Professor Andrew Burrows Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London, WClN 2BQ. 11 LAW COMMISSION CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 1 A. Background to the report 1. Our work on conspiracy generally 1.2 1 2. Restrictions on charging conspiracy to defraud following the Criminal Law Act 1977 1.8 3 3. The Roskill Report 1.10 4 4. The statutory reversal of Ayres 1.11 4 5. Law Commission Working Paper No 104 1.12 5 6. Developments in the law after publication of Working Paper No 104 1.13 6 7. Our subsequent work on the project 1.14 6 B. A general review of dishonesty offences 1.16 7 C. Summary of our conclusions 1.20 9 D.
  • Albin Eser Grounds for Excluding Criminal Responsibility Article 31

    Albin Eser Grounds for Excluding Criminal Responsibility Article 31

    Sonderdrucke aus der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg ALBIN ESER Grounds for excluding criminal responsibility [Article 31 of the Rome Statute] Originalbeitrag erschienen in: Otto Triffterer (Hrsg.): Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. München [u.a.]: Beck [u.a.], 2008, S. 863-893 ALBIN ESER GROUNDS FOR EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY [Article 31 of the Rome Statute] Reprint from: Otto Triffterer (ed.) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court - Second Edition - C.H. Beck/Munchen • HartiVolkach • Nomos/Baden-Ba,den 2008 Article 31 Grounds for excluding criminal responsibility 1. In addition to other grounds for exc1udin4 criminal responsibility provided for in this Statute, a person shall not be criminally responsible if, at the time of that person's conduct: (a) The person suffers from a mental disease or defect that destroys that person's capacity to appreciate the unlawfulness or nature of his or her conduct, or capacity to control his or her conduct to conform to the requirements of law; (b) The person is in a state of intoxication that destroys that person's capacity to appreciate the unlawfulness or nature of his or her conduct, or capacity to control his or her conduct to conform to the requirements of law, unless the person has become voluntarily intoxicated under such circumstances that the person knew, or disregarded the risk, that, as a result of the intoxication, he or she was likely to engage in conduct constituting a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; (c) The person acts reasonably to defend himself or herself or another person or, in the case of war crimes, property which Is essential for the survival of the person or another person or property which is essential for accomplishing a military mission, against an imminent and unlawful use of force in a manner proportionate to the degree of danger to the person or the other person or property protected.
  • Stuart Dingle YEAR of CALL: 2011

    Stuart Dingle YEAR of CALL: 2011

    Stuart Dingle YEAR OF CALL: 2011 EXPERTISE Stuart undertakes criminal defence and prosecution work. He has defended in a wide range of cases, including section 18 GBHs, Fraud, trading standards infringements, aggravated burglaries, knifepoint robberies, violent disorder, indecent images, and violence including threats to kill. Stuart has a successful appellate practice and has had his cases referenced in Blackstones. Stuart defends in POCA proceedings and complex VAT/excise frauds. Stuart has particular experience of football disorder and defending against the imposition of Football Banning Orders. As well as representing private individuals Stuart has appeared on behalf of many fan support groups and travels across the country to represent fans in both Criminal cases and civil orders. Before his independent practice Stuart worked as a litigator and clerk, working on several multi-handed murders. Stuart has particular experience of considering pathological evidence. Stuart has successfully prosecuted and defended in a number of cases involving expert evidence and the consideration and cross examining of experts, including private driving, cell site, and medical causation evidence. Stuart is currently a Level 2 Panel Advocate for the CPS, and his casework includes specialist experience in domestic violence prosecution and advice. Stuart is also regularly instructed by the serious fraud division to deal with revenue, benefit and complex fraud cases. Stuart has experience advancing special hardship arguments to retain driving licences and has been sought to give advice on a variety of matters relating to driving law. In addition to crime and associated matters, Stuart also regular appears for quasi-criminal and regulatory matters including contested Football Banning Orders and Sexual Risk Orders.
  • Abolishing the Crime of Public Nuisance and Modernising That of Public Indecency

    Abolishing the Crime of Public Nuisance and Modernising That of Public Indecency

    International Law Research; Vol. 6, No. 1; 2017 ISSN 1927-5234 E-ISSN 1927-5242 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Abolishing the Crime of Public Nuisance and Modernising That of Public Indecency Graham McBain1,2 1 Peterhouse, Cambridge, UK 2 Harvard Law School, USA Correspondence: Graham McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: November 20, 2016 Accepted: February 19, 2017 Online Published: March 7, 2017 doi:10.5539/ilr.v6n1p1 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ilr.v6n1p1 1. INTRODUCTION Prior articles have asserted that English criminal law is very fragmented and that a considerable amount of the older law - especially the common law - is badly out of date.1 The purpose of this article is to consider the crime of public nuisance (also called common nuisance), a common law crime. The word 'nuisance' derives from the old french 'nuisance' or 'nusance' 2 and the latin, nocumentum.3 The basic meaning of the word is that of 'annoyance';4 In medieval English, the word 'common' comes from the word 'commune' which, itself, derives from the latin 'communa' - being a commonality, a group of people, a corporation.5 In 1191, the City of London (the 'City') became a commune. Thereafter, it is usual to find references with that term - such as common carrier, common highway, common council, common scold, common prostitute etc;6 The reference to 'common' designated things available to the general public as opposed to the individual. For example, the common carrier, common farrier and common innkeeper exercised a public employment and not just a private one.
  • Reforming the Crime of Libel

    Reforming the Crime of Libel

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE NYLS Law Review Vols. 22-63 (1976-2019) Volume 50 Issue 1 International and Comparative Perspectives on Defamation, Free Speech, and Article 7 Privacy January 2006 Reforming the Crime of Libel Clive Walker University of Leeds School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/nyls_law_review Part of the Criminal Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Clive Walker, Reforming the Crime of Libel, 50 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. (2005-2006). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Law Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. \\server05\productn\N\NLR\50-1\NLR106.txt unknown Seq: 1 20-FEB-06 12:31 REFORMING THE CRIME OF LIBEL CLIVE WALKER* I. INTRODUCTION Criminal libel has a long and troubled history — longer and even more troubled than its counterpart in civil law. In its early guises, it was notable as an instrument of state repression alongside other variants of libel such as blasphemy and sedition and, in part, as a corrective to the end of press licensing. But its usage in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries became less state-oriented. Though its status as a crime inevitably brings with it an element of official sanction, criminal libel has latterly evolved as the weapon of most destruction in the arsenal of libel law. In this role, it has be- come a rarity but has survived attempts at eradication in England and Wales and even the United States.
  • Colin Banham Crime

    Colin Banham Crime

    Colin Banham Crime Colin has over 17 years’ experience both defending and prosecuting in the criminal courts. He has been instructed as a leading Junior, led Junior and acting alone in serious and complex criminal allegations. He regularly defends and prosecutes cases including aggravated burglary, grievous bodily harm with intent, violent disorder, drugs conspiracies, robbery and large-scale fraud. Colin is graded by the CPS as a Level 4 Prosecutor and is a member of the Specialist Panels for Fraud (including fiscal fraud) and Serious Year of Call: 1999 Crime (including terrorism). Clerks Colin has extensive experience in serious road traffic offences. He is regularly instructed by insurers to represent defendants, particularly in Senior Practice Manager cases involving serious injury with underlying civil litigation. He accepts Andrew Trotter private instructions in all forms of motoring offences either directly or by referral. Chief Executive & Director of Clerking RECENT CASES Tony McDaid R v RS, DB & KM (2016): Instructed by the NCA in a multi-handed Contact a Clerk conspiracy to supply Class A drugs amounting to £50.4m. The case Tel: +44 (0) 845 210 5555 was conducted against a silk and two leading juniors. Fax: +44 (0) 121 606 1501 [email protected] R v KS-R (2016): Case involving allegations of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. R v CP (2016): Successfully defending a middle-aged lady alleged to have defrauded a pension scheme. R v ZN (2016): Defending a male alleged to have conspired to import a large amount of Khat into the UK. R v AB, PB & AE (2016): Prosecuting an allegation of conspiracy to supply cannabis amounting to almost £500,000.
  • Digest of Terrorist Cases

    Digest of Terrorist Cases

    back to navigation page Vienna International Centre, PO Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria Tel.: (+43-1) 26060-0, Fax: (+43-1) 26060-5866, www.unodc.org Digest of Terrorist Cases United Nations publication Printed in Austria *0986635*V.09-86635—March 2010—500 UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna Digest of Terrorist Cases UNITED NATIONS New York, 2010 This publication is dedicated to victims of terrorist acts worldwide © United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, January 2010. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication has not been formally edited. Publishing production: UNOV/DM/CMS/EPLS/Electronic Publishing Unit. “Terrorists may exploit vulnerabilities and grievances to breed extremism at the local level, but they can quickly connect with others at the international level. Similarly, the struggle against terrorism requires us to share experiences and best practices at the global level.” “The UN system has a vital contribution to make in all the relevant areas— from promoting the rule of law and effective criminal justice systems to ensuring countries have the means to counter the financing of terrorism; from strengthening capacity to prevent nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological materials from falling into the
  • Measuring the World's Blasphemy Laws

    Measuring the World's Blasphemy Laws

    RESPECTING RIGHTS? Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM A gavel is seen in a hearing room in Panama City April 7, 2016. REUTERS/Carlos Jasso UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESPECTING RIGHTS? Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws By Joelle Fiss and Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum JULY 2017 WWW.USCIRF.GOV COMMISSIONERS Daniel Mark, Chairman Sandra Jolley, Vice Chair Kristina Arriaga de Bucholz, Vice Chair Tenzin Dorjee Clifford D. May Thomas J. Reese, S.J. John Ruskay Jackie Wolcott Erin D. Singshinsuk Executive Director PROFESSIONAL STAFF Dwight Bashir, Director of Research and Policy Elizabeth K. Cassidy, Director of International Law and Policy Judith E. Golub, Director of Congressional Affairs & Policy and Planning John D. Lawrence, Director of Communications Sahar Chaudhry, Senior Policy Analyst Elise Goss-Alexander, Researcher Andrew Kornbluth, Policy Analyst Tiffany Lynch, Senior Policy Analyst Tina L. Mufford, Senior Policy Analyst Jomana Qaddour, Policy Analyst Karen Banno, Office Manager Roy Haskins, Manager of Finance and Administration Travis Horne, Communications Specialist This report, containing data collected, coded, and analyzed as of June 2016, was overseen by Elizabeth K. Cassidy, J.D., LL.M, Director of International Law and Policy at the U.S. Commis- sion on International Religious Freedom. At USCIRF, Elizabeth is a subject matter expert on international and comparative law issues related to religious freedom as well as U.S. refugee and asylum policy.