DOCSLIB.ORG

Book of Authorities for Submissions of the Power Workers’ Union on the Draft Regulatory Document 2.2.4 to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Volume 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Book of Authorities for Submissions of the Power Workers’ Union on the Draft Regulatory Document 2.2.4 to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Volume 2 BOOK OF AUTHORITIES FOR SUBMISSIONS OF THE POWER WORKERS’ UNION ON THE DRAFT REGULATORY DOCUMENT 2.2.4 TO THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION VOLUME 2 REGARDING REGULATORY DOCUMENT, REGDOC-2.2.4, Fitness for Duty March 7, 2016 Chris Dassios Emily Lawrence General Counsel External Counsel Power Workers' Union Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP 244 Eglinton Ave. East 155 Wellington Street West, 35th fl. Toronto ON M4P 1K2 Toronto, ON M5V 3H1 T: 416-322-2444 T: 416-646-7475 F: 416-322-2436 F: 416-646-4301 E: [email protected] E: [email protected] Richard Stephenson External Counsel Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP 155 Wellington Street West, 35th fl. Toronto, ON M5V 3H1 T: 416-646-4325 F: 416-646-4301 E: [email protected] Index Volume 1 Tab 1. IrvingPulp& Pa perL tdv C EP,Loca l 30,2013SC C 34 2. C a nadianN a tional R a ilwa y C o.a ndC A W -C a nada (Re )(2000),95L A C (4th) 341(Picher) 3. G rea terTorontoA irportsA uthorityv P.S.A .C.,Loca l 0004,[2007]L VI 3734-2, 90C L A S 177(De vlin) 4. C a nadianC ivilL ibe rties A ssn.v. TorontoD ominionB a nk (1998),163 D L R (4th)193(Fe d C A ) 5. Esso Pe trole um C a nada a ndC .E.P. L oc 614 (Re )(1994)56L A C (4th)440 (M cA lpine) 6. Trima c TransportationSe rvice s-B ulk System s v TC U (1999),[2000]L VI 3090- 2,88L A C (4th)237(Ca nA rb) 7. SuncorEnergy Inca ndC EP,Loca l 707(Woods),Re ,2008C a rswe llA lta 2503, [2008]A G A A N o11 8. B omba rdier Transportationv Te a m sters C a nada R a ilC onference – D ivision 660,2014C a nLII 5318(CA L A ) 9. R e Provincial-A m e rica nTruck Transporters a ndTe a m sters U nion,Loca l 880 (1991),18L .A .C.(4th)412(O nt.) 10. R v D ym e nt,[1988]2SC R 417 11. R v D ion,[1986]R JQ 2196(QSJ) 12. Ja ck sonv Joyce ville Pe nitentiary,[1990]3FC 55(TD ) 13. B le ncoe v B ritishC olum bia ,(2002)2SC R 307 Volume 2 Tab 14. R v C ollins,[1987]1SC R 265 15. R v G rant,2009SC C 32 16. R v O a k e s,[1986]1SC R 103 17. C hiassonv Ke llogg B rown& R oot(Ca nada )Co,2006A B Q B 302 18. C a nada (House ofC omm ons)v Va id,2005SC C 30 19. B ritish C olum bia (Publicse rvice Employe e R e lationsC omm ission)v B ritish C olum biaG ove rnme nta ndSe rvice Employe e s' U nion(B.C.G .S.E.U.),[1999] 3SC R 3 20. B ritish C olum bia (Superintende ntof M otor Ve hicle s) v B ritish C olum bia (CouncilofH um a nRights),[1999]3SC R 868 21. Entropv Im perial O ilL td,2000C a rswe llO nt2525,[2000]O J N o2689 22. W e ye rhae use rC o.v.C EP,Loca l 447 (2006),154L .A .C.(4th)3(Sims) 23. R e naud v C e ntral O k a naga nSchool D istrictN o.23,1992C a rswe llB C 257, [1992]2SC R 970 24. C a nadianPa cificL imited v U TU (1987)31L A C (3d)179 25. M e chanica l C ontractors A ssociation Sa rnia v U nited A ssociation of Journeym e na ndA pprentice s O f The Plum bing& PipefittingIndustry ofthe U nited States a ndC a nada ,Loca l 663,2013C a nLII 54951(ArbSurdyk owsk i) 26. R e G raym ountW e sternC a nada Inc. a nd C e m e nt,L ime G ypsum & A llied W orke rs,Loca l D 575 (2002),114L A C (4th)269 27. H a m iltonH e a lthScience s a ndO .N .A .(Re )(2007),167L A C (4th) Volume 3 Tab 28. B a rb B utle r a ndA ssociates,R e ce ntA lcohol a ndD rug W orkplace Policies in C a nada : C onside rations for the N ucle a r Industry (2012),prepared for C a nadian N ucle a r Sa fety C omm issino,a va ilable online: N ucle a r Sa fety < http://nucle a rsa fety.gc.ca /pubs_ca talogue /uploads/M a rch-2012-IN FO -0831- R e ce nt-A lcohol-a nd-D rug-W orkplace -Policies-in-C a nada _C onside rations-for- the-N ucle a r-Industry_e .pdf> 29. O ntarioL a w R e form C omm ission,R e portonA lcohola ndD rug Te stinginthe W orkplace ,(Toronto:O ntarioL a w R e form C om m ission,1992),online:Internet A rchive, O sgoode H a ll L a w L ibrary < http://ia700708.us.archive .org/32/item s/reportondruga lco00onta/reportondruga lco00onta.pdf> 30. B a rb B utle r & A ssociates,“Em ploye e a ssistance program s”(2006),online: B a rbB utle r& A ssociates http://www.butle rconsultants.com/bb_be nefits.html 31. R . Eva ns,Chair,D rug Te stinginthe W orkplace :R e portofthe Inde pende nt Inquiry intoD rug Te stinginthe W orkplace ,(N e w York: Jose ph R owntree Founda tion, 2004), online: Jose ph R owntree Founda tion < http://www.uk cia.org/rese a rch/DrugTe stingInWorkplace .pdf> 32. Privacy C om m issionerofC a nada ,D rug Te stinga ndPriva cy,(O ttawa :M inister of Supply a nd Se rvice s C a nada ,1990),online: O ffice of the Privacy C omm issionerofC a nada http://www.priv.gc.ca /inform a tion/02_05_12_e .pdf 33. C a nada ’s N ucle a r R e gulator,Fitness forD uty:Proposa ls forStrengthening A lcohola ndD rug Policy,Program s a ndTe sting,D iscussionPa per D IS-12-03 (O ttawa ,O N :A pril2012) 34. D e bra R . C ome r,“A C a se a ga inst W orkplace D rug Te sting”,(M a y 1994) O rga niza tionScience ,5(2):259a t260. Tab 14 R. v. Collins, 1987 CarswellBC 94 „„:„„ 1987 CarswelIBC 94, 1987 CarswelIBC 699,[1987] 1 S.C.R. 265,[1987] 3 W.W.H. 699... 1987 CarswellBC 94 pa ra 46 Supreme Court of Canada R. v. Collins 1987 CarswellBC 699, 1987 CarswellBC 94,[1987] 1 S.C.R. 265,[1987] 3 W.W.R. 699,[1987] S.C.J. No. 15, 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, 28 C.R.R. 122, 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1, 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508, 56 C.R.(3d) 193, 74 N.R. 276, J.E. 87-516, EYB 1987-66975 COLLINS v. R. 5 Dickson C.J.C., McIntyre, Chouinard , Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain and La Forest JJ. Heard: May 27, 1986 Judgment: April 9, 1987 Docket: No. 17937 Chouinard J. took no part in the judgment Counsel: G.A. Goyer, for appellant. S.D. Frankel and D.J. Avison, for respondent. Subject: Criminal; Constitutional; Public Headnote Criminal Law --- Constitutional issues in criminal law — Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Charter remedies — Exclusion of evidence Criminal Law --- Search and seizure — Unreasonable search and seizure Statutes --- Interpretation — Role of court — Bilingual legislation Civil liberties and human rights — Enforcement under the Charter ofRights and Freedoms — Remedies — Exclusion of evidence — Police officer grabbing accused by throat in process of searching for drugs — Evidence as to grounds for officer's belief under s. 10(1) of Narcotic Control Act improperly excluded at trial — In absence of evidence as to grounds of officer's belief, search unreasonable and admission of evidence bringing administration ofjustice into disrepute. i".1)A Copyright Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors (excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved. F C Lj6. 1987 u61 welLU 699,[19Bij H. 263,[1987] 3 W.W.R. 699... Civil liberties and human rights Legal rights — Unreasonable search or seizure — Police officer grabbing accused by throat in process ofsearching for drugs — Evidence as to grounds for officer's belief under s. 10(1) of Narcotic Control Act improperly excluded at trial — In absence of evidence as to grounds of officer's belief, search unreasonable and admission of evidence bringing administration ofjustice into disrepute. Criminal law — Drug offices Possession for purposes oftrafficking — Evidence Police officer grabbing accused by throat in process ofsearching for drugs — Evidence as to grounds for officer's belief under s. 10(1) of Narcotic Control Act improperly excluded at trial — In absence of evidence as to grounds of officer's belief, search unreasonable and admission of evidence bringing administration ofjustice into disrepute. Criminal law — Search and seizure — Warrantless searches — Police officer grabbing accused by throat in process of searching for drugs — Evidence as to grounds for officer's belief under s. 10(1) of Narcotic Control Act improperly excluded at trial — In absence of evidence as to grounds of officer's belief, search unreasonable and admission of evidence bringing administration ofjustice into disrepute. Members of the R.C.M.P. drug squad, who were conducting a surveillance of the accused and her husband, observed the accused in a pub.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS at COMMON LAW Edwin R
    [Vol. 102 CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS AT COMMON LAW Edwin R. Keedy t GENERAL PRINCIPLES Much has been written on the law of attempts to commit crimes 1 and much more will be written for this is one of the most interesting and difficult problems of the criminal law.2 In many discussions of criminal attempts decisions dealing with common law attempts, stat- utory attempts and aggravated assaults, such as assaults with intent to murder or to rob, are grouped indiscriminately. Since the defini- tions of statutory attempts frequently differ from the common law concepts,8 and since the meanings of assault differ widely,4 it is be- "Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Pennsylvania. 1. See Beale, Criminal Attempts, 16 HARv. L. REv. 491 (1903); Hoyles, The Essentials of Crime, 46 CAN. L.J. 393, 404 (1910) ; Cook, Act, Intention and Motive in the Criminal Law, 26 YALE L.J. 645 (1917) ; Sayre, Criminal Attempts, 41 HARv. L. REv. 821 (1928) ; Tulin, The Role of Penalties in the Criminal Law, 37 YALE L.J. 1048 (1928) ; Arnold, Criminal Attempts-The Rise and Fall of an Abstraction, 40 YALE L.J. 53 (1930); Curran, Criminal and Non-Criminal Attempts, 19 GEo. L.J. 185, 316 (1931); Strahorn, The Effect of Impossibility on Criminal Attempts, 78 U. OF PA. L. Rtv. 962 (1930); Derby, Criminal Attempt-A Discussion of Some New York Cases, 9 N.Y.U.L.Q. REv. 464 (1932); Turner, Attempts to Commit Crimes, 5 CA=. L.J. 230 (1934) ; Skilton, The Mental Element in a Criminal Attempt, 3 U.
    [Show full text]
  • Peter Rowlands
    Peter Rowlands YEAR OF CALL: 1990 Peter Rowlands has an established reputation as a tough and committed advocate and experienced leader in criminal defence work. He has a wide-ranging practice from homicide where he acts as leading junior or sole counsel to serious sexual offences, major drug importations, fraud and money-laundering. Peter is ranked for crime in Chambers UK 2019 and the Legal 500 2019. "A decent and fair opponent who is fazed by nothing." "A wonderful advocate who you can listen to all day, he is great with juries and clients. He's the archetypical jury advocate." CHAMBERS UK, 2021 (CRIME) "His thorough case preparation, unrivalled knowledge of the law and relaxed character enables clients to firstly understand and then thoroughly trust his advice and guidance." LEGAL 500, 2021 (CRIME) "His deft and intelligent cross-examination is a joy to observe." LEGAL 500, 2020 "He defends in gang and organised crime-related cases." LEGAL 500, 2019 Extremely thorough and committed, a skilled tactician and incredibly eloquent." LEGAL 500, 2017 If you would like to get in touch with Peter please contact the clerking team: [email protected] | +44 (0)20 7993 7600 CRIMINAL DEFENCE Peter Rowlands has an established reputation as a tough and committed advocate and experienced leader in criminal defence work. He has a wide-ranging practice from homicide where he acts as leading junior or sole counsel to serious sexual offences, major drug importations, fraud and money-laundering, including contested confiscation proceedings. He has been mentioned in the Legal 500 as having developed a particular expertise in murder and armed kidnapping cases and has maintained a ranking in Chambers UK Bar Guide for many years.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law Level: 6 Credit Value: 15
    2021 UNIT SPECIFICATION Title: (Unit 3) Criminal Law Level: 6 Credit Value: 15 Learning outcomes Assessment criteria Knowledge, understanding and skills The learner will: The learner can: 1. Understand the 1.1 Analyse the general nature of the actus 1.1 Features to include: conduct (including fundamental reus voluntariness, i.e, R v Larsonneur (1933), requirements of Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent (1983); criminal liability • relevant circumstances; • prohibited consequences; • requirement to coincide with mens rea. 1.2 Analyse the rules of causation 1.2 Factual causation; • legal causation: situations (for example, in the context of the non-fatal offences or homicide) where the consequence is rendered more serious by the victim’s own behaviour or by the act of a third party; • approaches to establishing rules of causation: mens rea approach; This specification is for 2021 examinations • policy approach; • relevant case law to include: R v White (1910), R v Jordan (1956) R v Cheshire (1991), R v Blaue (1975), R v Roberts (1971), R v Pagett (1983), R v Kennedy (no 2) (2007), R v Wallace (Berlinah) (2018) and developing caselaw. 1.3 Analyse the status of omissions 1.3 Circumstances in which an omission gives rise to liability; • validity of the act/omission distinction; • rationale for restricting liability for omissions; • relevant case law to include: R v Pittwood (1902), R v Instan (1977), R v Miller (1983), Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993) Stone & Dobinson (1977), R v Evans (2009) and developing caselaw. 1.4 Analyse the meaning of intention 1.4 S8 Criminal Justice Act 1967; • direct intention; • oblique intention: definitional interpretation; • evidential interpretation; • implications of each interpretation; • concept of transferred malice; • relevant case law to include: R v Steane (1947), Chandler v DPP (1964), R v Nedrick (1986), R v Woollin (1999), Re A (conjoined twins) (2000), R v Matthews and Alleyne (2003), R v Latimer (1886), R v Pembliton (1874), R v Gnango (2011) and developing caselaw.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law Robbery & Burglary
    Criminal Law Robbery & Burglary Begin by identifying the defendant and the behaviour in question. Then consider which offence applies: Robbery – Life imprisonment (S8(2) Theft Act 1968) Burglary – 14 years imprisonment (S9(1)(a) or S9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968) Robbery (S8(1) Theft Act 1968) Actus Reus: •! Stole (Satisfies the AR of Theft) •! Used or threatened force on any person →! R v Dawson – ‘Force’ is a word in ordinary use and it is a matter for the jury in each case to determine whether force had been used (or threatened) – but it need not be significant →! R v Clouden – Force may be applied to someone’s property →! S8(1) Theft Act 1968 – May be in relation to any person, but in regards to 3rd parties, they must be aware of the threat •! Force or threat of force was immediately before or at the time of the theft; and →! R v Hale – If appropriation was continuing and force was used at the time of the theft, the defendants could be guilty of robbery (jury’s decision) •! Force or threat of force was used in order to steal →! R v Vinall – Convictions for robbery were quashed because defendants were not proven to have had an intention to permanently deprive the victim of his property at the point when force was used on the victim Criminal Law Mens Rea: •! MR for Theft i.e. dishonesty and intention to permanently deprive •! Intention as to the use or threat of force Burglary Criminals who are ‘armed’ when they commit an offence of burglary can also face liability for an aggravated offence of burglary under S10 Theft Act 1968.
    [Show full text]
  • “Intoxication in Criminal Law – an Analysis of the Practical Implications of the Ivey V Genting Casinos Case on the Majewski Rule”
    “Intoxication in Criminal Law – An Analysis of the Practical Implications of the Ivey v Genting Casinos case on the Majewski Rule” Lucy Dougall Introduction The aim of this article is to consider the way intoxication works within criminal law, and how the application can differ depending on the category of the crime. In particular, it considers how the doctrine of intoxication applies to property offences, and how that application may be affected by the Supreme Court decision in Ivey v Genting Casinos. Due to the proportion of crimes committed containing an element of intoxication,1 it is important that the law in this area works effectively and consistently, in order for all members of the public to understand their legal position. Specifically, the law should be fair on defendants but also should be interpreted in a way that protects public safety. There have been numerous debates 2 amongst academics about the intoxication doctrine, and whether it works in the way that protects the people it should. Within England and Wales, many offenders commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol, making the law surrounding intoxication something of considerable importance. According to the March 2015 Crime Survey for England and Wales3; victims of violent incidents believed that the offenders were under the influence of alcohol in 47% of cases 4. Despite the vast amount of alcohol related violent incidents, there seems to have been a decreasing number over the last ten years. Violent incidents in general have also decreased suggesting the
    [Show full text]
  • Court Teasers
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. I } i ~ \ 1 COURT TEASERS Practical Situations Arising in Magistrates· Courts BY MILES McCOLL, Solicitor Clerk to the Leigh Justices ~....m_;q_r------ SB~ 0-85992-155-7 1978 C.M. McColl Published by Barry Rose (Publishers) Ltd. Little London, Chichester West Sussex Printed by The Southern Post Ltd. London Road, Bognor Regis, Sussex Criminal Law Act 1977 All provisions, except s.47, of this Act which are referred to in the text were brought into force on or before July 17 1978. ,Any reference in the text to 'an indictable offence dealt with summarily' should be construed as the summary trial of an offence triable either-way. Any reference to 'indictable offence' means an offence which, if committed by an adult, is triable on indictment, whether it is exclusively so triable or triable either-way. Any reference to a 'summary offence' means an offence which, if committed by an adult, is triable only summarily. 'Offence triable either-way' means an offence which, if committed by an adult, is triable either on indictment or summarily. (C.L. A. , 1977, s.64). iii ~~~---------.---------~----- --------------~--~-- t f; t t PREFACE t·" ~! I Although most magistrates are, by virtue of their office, lay persons, they must at all times be aware of the kind of problems which occur in their courts, in order to do justice to their important judicial appointment. In this booklet I have tried to set out in question-and-answer form, examples of the types of situation which often give cause for concern in magistrates' courts solely because the words of the relevant statutes or the decisions of the appeal courts are not closely followed.
    [Show full text]
  • Lalith De Kauwe
    Lalith de Kauwe YEAR OF CALL: 1978 Lalith specialises in serious criminal defence. He has acted in many cases of murder, serious violence, large-scale Class A drug dealing and importation, human trafficking, public order and complex, high-value fraud. Throughout, his legal practice has been informed by his belief in social justice, civil rights and a commitment to assisting disadvantaged communities. "Lalith is a fearless defender who makes his presence known in court. He is a formidable jury advocate who fights tenaciously for his clients." MANOJ RUPASINGHE, SENIOR PARTNER, LLOYDS PR SOLICITORS "Lalith has all the skills that you could wish to find in a senior advocate. He has the ability to consistently secure acquittals against the odds." AMIR AHMAD, SOLICITOR, IMRAN KHAN AND PARTNERS SOLICITORS "Lalith is an excellent leading counsel. He stays one step ahead of the opposition whilst maintaining excellent rapport with clients." SISIRA POLPITIYA, SENIOR PARTNER, POLPITIYA & CO SOLICITORS "A fearless advocate who fights tooth and nail for his clients, no matter how big or small the case. Makes his clients comfortable and is a man of principle." SEAN NEVILLE, SOLICITOR, SATHA & CO SOLICITORS If you would like to get in touch with Lalith please contact the clerking team: [email protected] | +44 (0)20 7993 7600 You can also contact Lalith directly: +44 (0)20 7993 7722 CRIMINAL DEFENCE Lalith specialises in serious criminal defence. He has acted in many cases of murder, serious violence, large- scale Class A drug dealing and importation, human trafficking, and public order. NOTABLE CASES R v R - Successfully defended at the Central Criminal Court.
    [Show full text]
  • WJEC/Eduqas a Level Law Book 2 Answers
    WJEC/Eduqas A Level Law Book 2 answers Chapter 1: The law of contract Activity 1.1 Legal authority Legal authority Rule s9 Services must be provided at a reasonable price. s10 An unfair term is not binding on the consumer. The consumer’s legal right to reject goods that are of unsatisfactory s11 quality. s20 Goods must be fi t for purpose. s23 Goods must be of satisfactory quality. If a service does not satisfy criteria, trader should redo the inadequate s49 element at no extra cost. Where repeat performance of the service is not possible, the consumer s50 can obtain a price reduction. s51 Goods must be as described. Retailer must be given the opportunity to repair or replace defective goods s52 outside the 30 days of purchase. s55 Services must be undertaken with reasonable care and skill. Any information given to the consumer before the service is provided is s56 binding. s62 Services must be provided within a reasonable time. Activity 1.2 Implied terms These are mini scenarios for which the students can use the IDA structure to construct mini answers using the relevant statute provisions. 1 WJEC/Eduqas A Level Law Book 1 answers Activity 1.3 Application question (taken from WJEC/Eduqas SAMs material) 1. The question is taken from WJEC/Eduqas sample assessment material. Refer to https://www.eduqas.co.uk/qualifi cations/law/A-level-Law-SAMs.pdf, page 35, for indicative content of a response. 2. Use the approach outlined in the SAM that covers Q1 to respond. Discus it with a classmate if you want to.
    [Show full text]
  • Mark Graffius QC
    Mark Graffius QC Year of Call: 1990 QC: 2020 020 7353 5324 Mark Graffius is a ‘no nonsense, outstanding advocate’ in the fields of serious crime and complex fraud, in which he excels and is a highly sought silk. He is skilful and articulate and has been described as ‘highly polished’ with ‘exceptional client care and judgement’. Mark’s particular specialisation is in fraud allegations of corporate crime, but he also has extensive experience in cases involving murder, drug manufacture and importation, money laundering, firearms and cash detentions. He has been involved in numerous high profile organised crime cases from Supergrass cases and gangland murders, to the Tonbridge Robbery and the first successful challenge of DNA evidence in the UK. Mark has defended directors in cases varying from substantial VAT and Duty and Excise fraud, to a national sub- contracting fraud in the construction industry, to money laundering involving Swiss banks and Swiss Banking Law. Due to his expertise in this area of financial crime, Mark often advises company directors in matters of tax, VAT and directors disqualifications, pre-charge. Business Crime & Financial Services Mark is regularly instructed in complex and substantial fraud cases and in asset forfeiture and restraint proceeding. Mark also advises company directors pre-charge and in matters of tax, VAT and director’s disqualifications. Location Contact Us 2 Hare Court T: +44 (0)20 7353 5324 Temple F: +44 (0)20 7353 0667 London E: [email protected] EC4Y 7BH DX: LDE 444 Chancery Lane Cases R v X Mark Graffius and Merry van Woodenberg represented a man who was tried at Southwark Crown Court for conspiracy to defraud.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law
    The Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 102) CRIMINAL LAW ATTEMPT, AND IMPOSSIBILITY IN RELATION TO ATTEMPT, CONSPIRACY AND INCITEMENT Laid before Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1%.5 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 25th June 1980 LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE f3.75 net 646 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 Kerr, Chairman. Mr. Stephen M. Cretney. Mr. Stephen Edell. Mr. W. A. B. Forbes, Q.C. Dr. Peter M. North. The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr. J. C. R. Fieldsend and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London, WClN 2BQ. 11 ATTEMPT. AND IMPOSSIBILITY IN RELATION TO ATTEMPT. INCITEMENT AND CONSPIRACY CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I INTRODUCTION ......... 1.1-1.9 1 PART I1 ATTEMPT ............2.1-2.143 3 A . INTRODUCTION ........... 2.1-2.2 3 B . PRELIMINARY ISSUES RELATING TO ATTEMPT .............. 2.3-2.9 4 1. Retention of separate inchoate offences ... 2.4-2.5 4 2 . The need for a general law of attempt .... 2.6 5 3 . Retention of the concept of attempt .... 2.7-2.9 6 C . THE MENTAL ELEMENT IN ATTEMPT ...2.10-2.18 8 1. The Working Party’s formulation and the present law ..........0 ... 2.11-2.13 8 2. Conclusions and recommendations ..... 2.14-2.18 10 D .
    [Show full text]
  • The Exclusionary Rule and the Good Faith Doctrine in the United States and Canada: a Comparison
    Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review Volume 14 Number 4 Article 1 10-1-1992 The Exclusionary Rule and the Good Faith Doctrine in the United States and Canada: A Comparison Robert A. Harvie Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert A. Harvie, The Exclusionary Rule and the Good Faith Doctrine in the United States and Canada: A Comparison, 14 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 779 (1992). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr/vol14/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 14 OCTOBER 1992 NUMBER 4 The Exclusionary Rule and the Good Faith Doctrine in the United States and Canada: A Comparison ROBERT A. HARVIE* I. INTRODUCTION In 1984, in the case of United States v. Leon,' the United States Supreme Court created the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule. The Court ruled admissible illegal drugs seized by the police pursuant to a warrant for which the police had failed to establish probable cause.2 In a companion case, Massa- * Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice, Montana State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Lalith De Kauwe Notable Cases
    Lalith de Kauwe Notable cases Murder R v Khan – Successfully defended murder by stabbing at the Central Criminal Court. R v Rahman – Successfully defended murder by stabbing at the Central Criminal Court. R v Rajeshkanna – Murder by stabbing and beating at Central Criminal Court. R v Hassan – Murder by stabbing at Central Criminal Court. R v Saeed – Murder by stabbing at Birmingham Crown Court. R v McIntosh – Successfully defended murder by stabbing at Central Criminal Court. R v Keleher – Successfully defended manslaughter and child cruelty at Birmingham Crown Court. R v Whittle – Murder by suffocating at Central Criminal Court. R v Collins – Murder by shooting Birmingham Crown Court. R v Michelski – Successfully defended murder by burning at the Central Criminal Court. Serious Violence R v Prasath – Successfully defended grievous bodily harm by stabbing in the context of domestic violence. Psychiatric issues. Unfit to plead. Jury found she did not do the act. R v Ayub – Successfully defended armed robbery at Stafford Crown Court. R v De Silva – Conspiracy to commit armed robbery at the Central Criminal Court. R v Foster - Successfully defended robbery re-trial at Kingston Crown Court following successful appeal against conviction. See below. R v Mylvaganam – Successfully defended grievous bodily harm at Kingston Crown Court. R v Straker – Aggravated burglary at Isleworth Crown Court. R v Docaj – Successfully defended GBH stabbing by stabbing at Inner London Crown Court. Acquittal on a submission of no case. R v Rugless – Possessing a prohibited weapon at Inner London Crown Court. R v Khan – Arson with intent to endanger life at Sheffield Crown Court.
    [Show full text]