against BILAL Skaf solely as opposed to his brother MOHAMMED Skaf. In addition‚ I will be concentrating on the events which the charges were given rise to on 12 August 2000 and as opposed to 2 separate cases rape cases which Bilal Skaf was also a belligerent for the month of August 2000. I will also be mentioning the recent appeal case in 2008 which reduced the sentences given for the crimes in 2006. R v Bilal SKAF Legal citation of the case: Regina v Bilal Skaf; Regina v Mohammed Skaf [2006]
Premium Crime Supreme Court of the United States
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
1.) The legal issue in R V Brown case that the house of lord had to determine was "Is consent a defence to an assault causing grievous bodily harm" This is a case of sado-masochism where the group of men were engaged in act of violence against each other particularly on their genital parts‚ by branding or genital torture for sexual pleasure. The victims in each case consented to this ritual (activity) and didn’t suffer any permanent injury. Each of the defendants faced assault ABH charges and unlawful
Premium Law Human rights
Summary R. v. Morgentaler was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada‚ a verdict which declared abortion laws in the Criminal Code of Canada as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The court ruled the laws to have violated the woman’s right to security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. After the ruling‚ you could not be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada for having an abortion without consent of the therapeutic abortion committee
Premium Abortion Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
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
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
Sefan Cini Task 1 – Legal Studies 20/11/12 Sefan Cini Task 1 – Legal Studies 20/11/12 Legal Report Hearing Date: 26 March 2010Judgment Date: 4th June 2010The Parties Involved:The CrownKathleen Worrall (Offender) | Judgment Of:Fullerton JThe Counsel:P Barrett (Crown)J Stratton SC (Offender) | Legal citation R v Worrall [2010] NSW SC 593 Legal Report Hearing Date: 26 March 2010Judgment Date: 4th June 2010The Parties Involved:The
Premium Criminal law Crime
Statement of the Case This is a formal request for an appeal against the ruling in the case of R . v. Vaillancourt. . Mr. Vaillancourt seeks to appeal the court’s decision based on the inconsistency with s.230(d) of the Criminal Code‚ and s. 7 and 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is present in this case‚ evident when Vaillancourt’s accomplice does not inform him of his plan to bring weapons to the crime scene‚ leading Vaillancourt to believe that his lack of knowledge of the presence
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law United States Constitution
Page1 R. v G R. v R House of Lords 16 October 2003 Case Analysis Where Reported [2003] UKHL 50; [2004] 1 A.C. 1034; [2003] 3 W.L.R. 1060; [2003] 4 All E.R. 765; [2004] 1 Cr. App. R. 21; (2003) 167 J.P. 621; [2004] Crim. L.R. 369; (2003) 167 J.P.N. 955; (2003) 100(43) L.S.G. 31; Times‚ October 17‚ 2003; Official Transcript Subject: Criminal law Keywords: Capacity; Criminal damage; Knowledge; Mens rea; Recklessness Summary: A person who gave no thought to the risk of damage or injury resulting
Premium Criminal law Crime
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