Legal Studies: R V Campbell [2010] NSWSC 995. The elements of the offence are that Des Campbell was charged with murder under Section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Under Subsection (1)(a) Des Campbell was found guilty after trial on the 18th May 2010 of the murder of his wife Janet Campbell of 6 months on the 24th March 2005. After an 11-1 verdict all the elements of the charge were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Description
Premium Crime Guilt
Case Brief: Sutter v. Hutchings Case Name‚ Citation & Court: Sutter v. Hutchings‚ 254 Ga. 194‚ 327 S.E.2d 717‚ Georgia Supreme Court‚ decided 1985. Parties & Procedural History: Trial Court level: Plaintiff Sutter sues Defendant Hutchings. Defendant filed summary judgment motion‚ and court granted judgment in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff appealed. First appeal: Ga. Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals again to Ga. Supreme Court. Facts: Mrs
Premium Appeal Law Court
CRIMINOLOGY: R. v. Grant We can apply different theories of criminology at any time in our everyday lives as police officers. Criminology is an interdisciplinary profession built around the scientific study of crime and criminal behaviour‚ including their forms‚ causes‚ legal aspects‚ and control. In the fallowing‚ I will identify a few theories that are the essential reasoning behind the criminal in this case. The case history of R. v. Grant is that‚ Grant‚ an eighteen year old at the time
Premium Sociology Crime Criminology
Year 12 Legal Studies Crime Assessment Steven Fraser - R v Fraser - Murder of children Legal Citation: R v Fraser [2003] NSWSC 965 and R v Fraser [2004] NSWSC 53 Elements of the Offence: Steven Fraser murdered his three children – Ashley (7)‚ Ryan (5)‚ and Jarrod (4) – on the weekend of the 18 – 19 August‚ 2001. They were staying in his Caringbah apartment on a custody visit‚ where Steven was living after separating with his wife Maria Chona two months prior. Ryan and Jarrod were given doses
Premium Murder Crime Capital punishment
The reason I chose this case was due to the fact it was a popular case throughout my childhood and because my cousin was a quadriplegic and had a form of cerebral palsy where she was limited to being taken care of by medical and hospital staff I was just a small child at this time my family would have regular visits with her One summer she got extremely sick and went into a coma my aunt then had to make the decision to keep her on life support or to let her go So this case is very relevant to what
Premium Family Crime Police
Plaintiff-Appellee‚ CIVIL CASE NO. 190211 -versus - PETER PASCUAL Defendant-Appellant‚ x-----------------------------------x MEMORANDUM Defendant-appellant‚ Peter Pascual‚ through counsel‚ in compliance with the Honorable Court’s order‚respectfully submits this Memorandum Prefatory Statement Plaintiff-appellee RAUL GERONIMO and ANNA GERONIMO in the instant case claims‚ with the lower Court’s
Premium Contract 2009
1. Rule in Rylands v Flecther * Rylands v Flecther Facts | * P sued D‚ the mill owner‚ for the flooding caused by the escape of water from reservoir on D’s land. * Noted that the escape is caused by the negligence of the independent contractor‚ hired by D. * However‚ R v F is a strict liability and the negligence of the third party does not exonerate D’s liability. | Held | * Court was of the opinion that obligation on the person who lawfully brings on his land something which
Premium Causality Escape Plaintiff
Lucy v. Zehmer Case Brief Facts: Lucy made an offer to Zehmer one night while at his restaurant to purchase Zehmer’s farm for $50‚000. Zehmer and Lucy both signed an agreement that promised Zehmer would sell the farm to Lucy. Zehmer claimed later that the agreement to sell the farm was made when they were both drinking at Zehmer’s restaurant and that he only meant the acceptance as a joke. Zehmer didn’t believe that Lucy’s offer was genuine since they were both drinking and went along with
Premium Contract Supreme Court of the United States Appeal
1. Mapp v. Ohio‚ 170 Ohio St. 427‚ 166 N. E. 2d 387‚ reversed. 2. Dollree Mapp was convicted on one count in the Ohio State Court for the possession of obscene material. The possession of obscene material was illegal in Ohio and the time of the search. There was dispute of whether or not the search was permitted by search warrant. She was eventually found guilty of by the State of Ohio because the state said‚ “even if the search were made without authority‚ otherwise unreasonably‚ it is not prevented
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Mapp v. Ohio
Reports/Volume 19 /R v Worrell - (1972) 19 WIR 180 (1972) 19 WIR 180 R v Worrell COURT OF APPEAL OF BARBADOS DOUGLAS CJ‚ WARD AND WILLIAMS JJ 29 MARCH 1972 Criminal Law - Standard of proof - Directions to jury - Jury told that before there can be a verdict of guilty‚ the prosecution must make the jury feel sure that the verdict is the right one - Imprecise. Criminal Law - Defence of automatism - Unsworn statement of accused - No foundation for defence. The appellant was convicted
Premium Jury Law Appeal