IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS. Police v/s 1. Peroomal Veeren 2. Vishnu Dusorath 3. Gilbert Noel Louise
|
|
- Hilary Simmons
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Police v Veeren Peroomal & ors 2017 INT 197 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS C N Police v/s 1. Peroomal Veeren 2. Vishnu Dusorath 3. Gilbert Noel Louise Judgment All three Accused stand charged with Possession of dangerous drug: buprenorphine (subutex) with aggravating circumstances in breach of sections 34(1)(b), 41(1)(i)(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act ( the Act ), to which all three of them have pleaded Not Guilty and were assisted by their respective Counsel. The information against the three Accused parties reads as follows: That on or about the 11 th day of December in the year two thousand and nine, at Cell No.23, Block B Landing 2, at Beau Bassin Central Prison, [Accused nos. 1, 2 and 3], did unlawfully and knowingly possess dangerous drug, to wit: Buprenorphine (subutex) in (i) four white pharmaceutical tablets, each in original foil pack labelled subutex, (ii) 0.09 g of grey/white solid in a foil pack, (iii) 0.2 g of grey solid in a foil pack and (iv) g of white powder wrapped in three aluminium foil papers. Complainant further avers that the offence was committed in a Penal Institution, to wit: in cell No.23, Block B, Landing 2, at Beau Bassin Central Prison. Now, it is clear that in criminal matters, the Prosecution has the legal burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the facts in issue against the Accused parties and that in criminal cases, the facts in issue are ascertained by reference to the essential elements of the offences as averred in the information. Thus, once an Accused party has pleaded Not Guilty as in the present case, the Prosecution bears the legal burden of proving each and
2 every element of the offence with which the Accused stands charged, as held by Lord Goddard CJ in Woolmington v DPP (HL) [1935] AC 462. In the present matter, the elements of the offence which the Prosecution has to prove to the required standard of proof in a criminal case are: 1. Unlawfully and knowingly; 2. Possession; 3. Dangerous drugs as averred under the information; Although not a constituent element of the offence, the Prosecution has averred an aggravating circumstance, namely that the alleged offence was committed in a penal institution, so that the Prosecution has also the duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt this aggravating circumstance. Now, since all three Accused have been charged together for the possession, it goes without saying that the Prosecution has to prove joint possession against all three Accused parties. Dangerous drugs The Prosecution has produced in Court the drugs as per the averment in the information, alleged to have been secured in the prison cell (Exhibit I refers). PC Boodhoo has confirmed in Court that he was handed over the said exhibit by Prison Officer Apasamy, following which he had left the said exhibit to Forensic Scientific Laboratory ( FSL ) for examination. The FSL report dated has been duly produced in Court and identified by PC Boodhoo (Document A refers). The said report confirms that the exhibit is subutex and contains Buprenorphine. Now, the memos from Ministry of Health (Documents B, C, D refer) confirm that subutex is a substance listed in Schedule II of the Act, and following the definition of dangerous drug under section 2 of the Act, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the exhibit allegedly secured inside the prison cell is dangerous drug, so that this element has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The memos from MOH (Documents B, C and D refer) also confirm that the Accused parties were not authorised to be in possession of those drugs so that should this Court find proved beyond reasonable doubt the element of possession against them, then it goes without saying that such possession would be for all intents and purposes an unlawful and unauthorised one.
3 In a penal institution When the offence under section 34(1)(b) of the Act has been committed in an institution mentioned under section 42(1)(i) of the Act, then this fact constitutes an aggravating circumstances. In the present matter, it has been alleged that the Accused parties were allegedly in possession of those drugs whilst inside prison cell of Beau Bassin. Now, there is no dispute whatsoever that at the material time, the Accused parties were inside the said prison cell as averred in the information. Thus, provided the Prosecution proves the presence of the drugs inside the said prison cell in possession of the Accused parties, then it goes without saying that the aggravating circumstances would also be proved beyond reasonable doubt against all three Accused. Possession All three Accused have entered a Not Guilty plea to the present charge so that it is clear that they have denied being unlawfully and knowingly in possession of those drug in the said prison cell. It is to be noted here that on when PS Tukoory interviewed the Accused parties, all three of them declined to give any statement in this matter after they were duly cautioned and informed of the charge against them. According to PS Tukoory, they only stated, Mo pas pou donne aucaine l enquete mo pou dire tout dans la cour. PC Argendra confirmed that he invited Accused nos. 2 and 3 respectively to give a statement in the present matter on but both of them again declined to give any such statement stating simply that they will state everything in Court. However, Accused no.1 did give a statement in the present matter on (Document H refers) in which he denied being in possession of those drugs. His unsworn version is to the effect that the paint tin was not inside the prison cell at the time the Security Squad removed them from the said cell. The Prosecution has relied on the versions of Prison officer ( P.O ) Apasamy as well as ASP Parboteeah so as to prove beyond reasonable doubt the element of Possession against all three Accused. PO Apasamy stated in Court that he was on duty at Beau Bassin Central Prison and formed part of the Prison Security Squad. He started his shift at hrs on At hrs, he got instructions to effect a search at Block B; when he reached the prison cell no.23 occupied by the three Accused, he tried to open the door but found same was blocked from
4 inside. ASP Parboteeah (witness no. 8) warned the occupiers to open the door on several times but the door remained blocked. Witness no.8 sought instructions from his superior officers and was instructed by DCP Gowree (witness no. 16) to break open the door, upon which a special team was called on the spot and broke open the door. He then got access inside the cell together with witness no.8 and 16; they removed all three Accused parties and started searching the cell. He secured a paint tin containing empty as well as sealed subutex foil packs beneath the paint. He informed witness no.8 of his findings and showed the exhibits partly mixed with paint to him. The three Accused were then brought to the reception by another team whilst witness no.8 informed ADSU. He brought the exhibit secured to the reception and whilst waiting for the arrival of ADSU officers, removed the contents of the tin to show the Accused parties. He then showed to ADSU officers the exhibit secured inside the cell including the tin containing the paint and handed it over to PC Boodhoo who sealed them in their presence. During cross examination, he conceded he could not remember how many persons entered the cell but added each of them had a specific task to carry out. He went towards the tin and started his search but maintain no one had told him of the presence of the tin inside the cell. He admitted that the first persons to get inside the cell were the team which broke open the door but added that he also simultaneously went inside the cell to effect the search. He however added that the said team did not remain inside the cell when he got in. He added that when he had climbed on a table to peep inside the cell through a bar, he had seen some of them blocking the door with a mop handle stick. He conceded that he had not mentioned this fact in his statement to Police but maintained having mentioned it in the statement at the Prisons. He added that the said statement he had put up at the Prison was in his possession. He also stated that the three Accused were not together holding the stick which was blocking the door, wedged against the bed. He stated that there were no other incriminating articles found. ASP Parboteeah confirmed in Court that he was on duty at Beau Bassin Prisons on and at hrs, together with witness no.7 as well as other officers, they went to effect a search in cell no.23, Block B, landing D of Beau Bassin Prisons. The door remained blocked despite having unlocked it with the key. The three Accused parties inside the cell were asked as to why they had blocked the door upon which they replied they would not let them get access inside the cell. He asked them to comply with an official order but the three detainees did not allow them access. He then informed his superior of the situation upon which witness no.16 asked him to wait for his arrival at the spot. They then waited for the arrival of witness no.16 who came at hrs. The latter asked the three Accused parties detained inside the said cell the reason they had blocked the door and to allow them get access inside the cell but they still refused access. Witness no.16 informed them that it was an official order from Commissioner to allow access so as to effect search but to no
5 avail. They were then warned they might be injured should they refuse access. Witness no.16 then instructed other officers to break open the door which they did but added that the three Accused parties resisted by leaning against the door. The door was finally opened and they got access inside the cell. They then effected search whilst there were other officers outside the cell. A pic demon, cell phone, syringe as well as paint tin containing parcel inside the paint were secured. Witness no.7 opened the tin and the Accused parties as well as the tin paint were brought to the reception. Since the Accused parties complained of pain after having leaned against the door, Dr. Dina was also called in. He then called ADSU. Whilst waiting for ADSU, they examined the contents of the tin and found it to contain 152 empty foil packs of subutex as well as other parcel and white powder amongst others. The said exhibits were then handed over to ADSU. During cross examination, he explained that the team who broke open the door moved away and he got inside the cell together with witness no. 7. He added that he and witness no.7 were the first persons to get inside the cell whilst there some ten officers outside. He could not give details as to the initial movements inside the cell. He explained that the exhibits were secured as per a list and added that witness no.7 secured some of them whilst he secured others. He denied witness no.7 would be correct if the latter had said that no other prohibited items were secured except the paint tin and its contents. When confronted with his statement in which he did not mentioned having secured pic demon and cell phone, he stated he could not remember but stated he gave his statement as things happened. He added that witness no.7 had searched the Accused parties. He explained that there were three detainees inside the cell but could not say who among the three of them had said access would not be allowed inside the cell. Learned Counsel for the Defence of all three Accused parties have pinpointed the weaknesses in the evidence adduced by witnesses no.7 and 8 respectively. Learned Counsel for Accused no.1 has submitted a catalogue of inconsistencies and contradictions in their evidence so as to invite this Court not to rely on them whereas Learned Counsel for Accused nos. 2 and 3 respectively have highlighted that at best there are circumstantial evidence available based on scanty and contradictory evidence. The inconsistencies highlighted are in respect of who entered the cell, who searched the accused parties, where the accused parties were during the search, what items were retrieved from the cell, how the pot were secured, how accused parties were allegedly blocking the door and who were blocking the door. Whilst witness no.7 stated that he entered the cell together with witnesses nos. 8 and 16 respectively and that members of the special team were the first one who entered the cell, witness no.8 stated that only he and witness no.7 went inside the cell and the members of
6 the squad only forced open the door and the moved away. Now, when these two versions are carefully analysed, I seriously do not find any contradictions in the sense that both versions can be easily reconciled. The members of the special squad would naturally be the first one to enter the cell when it is considered that they must have been exerting force to open the door and driven by the said force, they would naturally advance forward into the cell once the door is forced open. It is here pertinent to note that witness no.8 added that they then moved away to allow him to get inside the cell so that I do not find any contradictions in their two versions. Witness no. 8 stated in Court that witness no.7 searched the Accused parties. Now, when the evidence on record is considered, I find that witness no.7 did not contradict witness no. 8 on this point; he merely stated that the Accused parties were under the responsibility of the special team. He did not utter any words as regards any personal search on the Accused parties so that it would be unfair to impute any contradictions. In fact, if one reads between the lines, witness no.8 has been truthful in his account since witness no.7 had clearly stated that he was in charge of the search from which it could therefore be also inferred that he must have also searched the Accused parties. However, it is also clear that this question was never put to witness no.7 so that there is no answer from him as regards whether he or someone else searched the Accused parties. Learned Counsel for Accused no. 1 stressed on the inconsistency in witness no.7 s version as to where the Accused parties were during the search. In fact, witness no.7 stated during examination in chief that they got inside the cell, removed the three Accused parties and started the search ( noune rentre dans cell, noune retire tous les trois condamné, noune commence faire la fouille dans cachot ) whereas during cross examination, he stated that the Accused parties were inside the cell but when he entered, they were outside ( bannes la ti dans cachot mais quand mone rentré bannes la ti en dehors ). When his replies are minutely considered, I fail to find any inconsistency in his two versions, or at the very least any material and gross inconsistency which might have any negative impact on his truthfulness. He clearly stated that they were inside the cell and when he got inside the cell, the Accused parties were removed so that it would only be natural to find that when he was inside the cell, the Accused parties were outside. Now, it is true when witness no.8 s version is considered, it may give rise to some contradiction since he stated that there were five persons inside the cell, i.e., the three Accused parties and two officers. However, when his subsequent statement is considered, I find that it could only lend to some confusion and not to contradiction. In fact, he is on record to having stated that they told them to stand behind the wall ( et nous fine dire zot débouté derriere muraille ). Derriere muraille may mean several things including outside the cell.
7 As to the issue of how the pot was secured, witness no.7 was closely cross examined but did not state anything which might lead this Court to believe that he was misleading the Court. He stated he went directly towards the tin and when cross examined as to whether someone had tipped him on the presence of the tin, he denied such a suggestion without giving me the impression that he was hiding anything. When the configuration of a cell is considered, it is quite clear that it is a square room with a bed so that the presence of any other big object such as a tin strikes the vision and would be among the first things one would search. As regards how the Accused parties were blocking the door and who were blocking the door, I again do not find any serious flaws in his version. He stated that he climbed over a table and saw the three Accused parties and some of them were blocking the door with a mop handle stick by wedging it against the bed. He could have said all three Accused parties were blocking the door but did not do so since it is clear that he was in Court to state what he had personally perceived on that night without any polluted addition. He was also candid that this detail was material enough to be part of his statement which in fact was not. But he added that he had mentioned same in his statement to Prison authorities and when asked whether he had a copy of same, he replied in the positive so that he could be further cross examined on same but learned Counsel chose not to. So it cannot be said that his credibility had been knocked out. Witness no.8 was also candid when he conceded he could not say who amongst the three Accused parties had said they would not allow access inside the cell. The only contradiction which might be worth considering is in respect of the items secured inside the cell. Witness no.7 stated that no other incriminating articles had been secured inside the cell except the tin and its contents. Witness no.8 however stated that several items according to a list had been secured including cell phones, pic demon, syringes along with the tin. There is clearly a contradiction here. However, this contradiction may be explained when one considers that witness no.8 stated that he secured some items and witness no.7 secured others; furthermore, witness no.7 used the term incriminating article whereas witness no.8 referred to prohibited items thus covering a wider range of items prohibited inside a prison. Furthermore, it could also be a case of loss of memory since when he was confronted with his statement dated at hrs in which he had not mentioned pic demon and cell phones, he merely stated that he related the events exactly as it happened in his statement. It is to be noted that he did not maintain his earlier version in Court so as to become inconsistent with his earlier Police statement; he merely stated he did not remember.
8 Now can these witnesses be blamed if they have not deposed as to the facts of that night with mechanical precision? Is cross examination meant to be a memory test or rather a test of truthfulness? It is clear that cross-examination is not a memory test exercise and this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in Dhunny v R 1991 SCJ 145 which held that cross-examination of a witness in Court is not a memory test which the witness must pass before his evidence can be accepted and relied upon. Thus, one does not measure the credibility of a witness by how much he can remember but rather by the words he speaks and how truthful he is. In the present matter, it is only too normal that a witness would not remember facts of the minutest details after almost eight years so that some allowance should be given to the witness when he depones as to what he may or may not remember. Moreover, even if I had found inconsistencies and contradictions in their respective versions, this would not have been sufficient to reject outright their evidence in Court. The following extract from Hauradhun v The State 2010 SCJ 183 explains fully well as to when the evidence of a witness would be rejected or accepted: It is well established that the Court will not outright reject the evidence of a deponent merely because it contains inconsistencies. It has a duty to analyse the whole testimony of the deponent taking into consideration, inter alia, the lapse of time between the alleged offence and the time he gives evidence, his age, his apparent mental state and his demeanour in Court. The learned magistrate has then to decide whether the inconsistencies were so material that the whole of the deponent s evidence should be rejected; or whether they were of such a nature that they did not affect his credibility. No doubt each case has to be decided on its own merit. (Vide Fanfan v the State [2006 SCJ 75]; Saman v The State [2004 SCJ 3]). The same line of reasoning as regards inconsistencies is found in the following extract in Saman v The State 2004 SCJ 3: Inconsistencies are often understandable and are likely to occur when, for example, the testimony is given in Court long after the event, or for that matter the witness is a young person who may be shy or overpowered by strange Court surroundings or by the delicate nature of the testimony itself. Inconsistencies must therefore be measured by the yardstick of seriousness and materiality which must be linked with the overall issue of truthfulness. Not every inconsistency is serious and material and inconsistencies need not affect per se the appreciation by a trial Court that a particular witness s testimony is true. In the present matter, I have duly considered the considerable time lapse since the alleged offence as well as the demeanour of both witnesses in Court. I have also considered the fact that they were relating a rather eventful situation involving several persons in a very secluded area where there was force used and inevitably it was not a peaceful event. It was
9 a real commotion. In the light of all these factors as well as their overall testimonies in Court, I cannot say there are any such material and serious inconsistencies in their evidence which adversely affect their credibility. I rather find both of the witnesses to have been truthful as well as honest in Court. In the light of their respective versions in Court, I find the following facts proved: 1. That a tin containing drugs as averred in the information was secured; 2. That the door was blocked and access to the cell occupied by the three Accused on that night was denied; 3. That special team was required to force open the door of the cell; 4. That the three Accused were requested to open the door; 5. That the three Accused were then warned that it was pursuant to an official order that a search had to be effected inside the cell and that they had to comply with such an order; 6. That some of them were seen blocking the door from inside with a mop handle stick wedged against the bed; 7. That one of the Accused parties stated to the Prison officers that they would not allow them access inside the cell and to come the next morning. The question which arises is whether these facts establish joint possession in the legal sense against all three Accused. Learned Counsel for Accused no.1 rightly cited the State v Chowrimoothoo & anor 2014 SCJ 253 in respect of the issue of joint possession and its related principles. The said Judgment was upheld on appeal in Chowrimoothoo v The State 2016 SCJ 148 and the Appellate Court affirmed the principles adopted by the Supreme Court in respect of joint possession as follows: Now, the issue of joint possession of drugs has been considered in a number of Mauritian and UK cases cited by both learned Counsel. Although many cases on joint possession of drugs involved drugs being found in a vehicle or on premises in which the accused persons were present at the time (see e.g Chung Po v R [1970 SCJ 191], R v Searle [1971 Crim L. R 592] and Yow Ok Cheung v The State (supra)), it is our considered view that it is not necessary that persons in joint possession of the drugs be physically present together in the place where the drugs are secured. As the Supreme Court observed, albeit in relation to possession of articles other than dangerous drugs, in Nawoor v R (supra) to secure a conviction against any one of the ( ) accused, it was not necessary to establish manual possession but ( ) it was essential that there should be proof of some overt act or circumstance connecting each particular accused with the articles found, thus justifying the inference that those articles were at least under his control, exclusive or joint.
10 Thus, it is clear that mere knowledge that someone else in the cell has drugs in in his possession does not make the others a participator in the offence of possession of those drugs. The Supreme Court in Rossan v The State 2015 SCJ 454 held that possession is made up of two elements, namely the factual element (physical control) and mental element (knowledge of the presence of drug) and Nawoor v the King 1948 MR 104 stressed on the presence of some overt act or circumstances connecting the particular Accused with the articles found before possession may be inferred. It is from this overt act that the factual element of physical control may be inferred. From the facts proved by the evidence of witnesses nos. 7 and 8 and highlighted above, it is clear that the subsequent search resulted in securing the drugs as averred in the information, concealed in a paint tin. Now it might be argued that there is no evidence who was blocking the door and who shouted access would not be allowed so that it has not been proved who was denying access. I find that there is no substance whatsoever in this argument since it is clear that all three Accused parties were acting de concert in blocking the door and refusing access into the cell so as to prevent the prison officers from effecting search and securing the drugs. This is the only reasonable and logical inference from all the facts of this case as proved before this Court since if anyone of them was not acting jointly and together with the others, then he would have surely shouted his opposition to the blocking of the door when they were duly warned by witness no.8 but there is no such evidence on record. They could also have made this opposition known afterwards when questioned by the Prison officers and ADSU respectively but there is no such indication either. The fact that they blocked the door so as to prevent entry clearly shows that they knew of the presence of the drugs and the reason for the search. The fact that they did everything to deny access by blocking the door also shows some degree of physical control on the drugs. They acted together in such a way as to assume joint physical possession on the drugs and deny access to same. It is this denial of access to the cell by blocking the door which constitutes the overt act which connects each and every of the three Accused parties to the drugs inside the cell, thus establishing joint possession against them. Since these are circumstantial evidence, pursuant to the principles in Teper v R [1952 A.C. 489] there is a duty upon the Court to consider whether there are any other co-existing circumstances or facts which might weaken or destroy such an inference of joint possession against the Accused parties. I have duly considered all the facts and circumstances but have found none which might have such an effect on the inference reached in this case. In the light of above, I find that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that all three Accused were in joint possession of the drugs averred in the information.
11 Unlawfully and knowingly This concerns the mental element of the offence. In the State v Kanojia 1992 SCJ 381, the Supreme Court held that knowledge is an abstract concept which unless a person tells of what he has behind in his mind can only be revealed by examining his conduct in the light of the circumstances surrounding the case. In the present matter, when the above principle is applied to the surrounding circumstances of this case, I find the element of knowledge to be abundantly present; they clearly knew of the presence of the drug inside the cell, hence their deliberate act of denying the access to the prison cell. The guilty mind is therefore present. Thus, this element has also been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the light of above, I find the Prosecution has proved all the elements of the present offence as well as the aggravating circumstances against all three Accused parties beyond reasonable doubt so that I find all three Accused guilty as charged. Neerooa M.I.A Magistrate, Intermediate Court. This 31 May 2017.
???IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS?????(Criminal Division)? In the matter of :-???????C.No.313/2010
ICAC v B.M Seedeer 2012 INT 92???IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS?????(Criminal Division)? In the matter of :-???????C.No.313/2010???ICAC v Bhye Mamed SEEDEER J U D G M E N T?Accused, a Road Traffic
More informationPOLICE VS BUNGAROO PRATIMA
POLICE VS BUNGAROO PRATIMA 2017 INT 86 POLICE VS BUNGAROO PRATIMA Cause Number: 452/15 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of:- POLICE VS BUNGAROO PRATIMA Judgment INTRODUCTION The Accused
More informationPolice v Nylprakash Nunkoo IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAMPLEMOUSSES NYPRAKASH NUNKOO
Police v Nylprakash Nunkoo 2016 PMP 310 Police v Nylprakash Nunkoo IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAMPLEMOUSSES CN: 1666/13 POLICE V NYPRAKASH NUNKOO JUDGMENT Accused stands charged of having on the 9 th of
More informationICAC v LUTCHMEENARAIDOO HARISHCHANDRAH 2009 INT 266
ICAC v LUTCHMEENARAIDOO HARISHCHANDRAH 2009 INT 266 CN : 1151/07 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of :- ICAC V Harishchandrah Lutchmeenaraidoo Judgment The accused stands charged with
More informationINDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION VIS BEEKHY Nasser Osman
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS C N 1620/12 INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION VIS BEEKHY Nasser Osman JUDGMENT The accused stands charged with the offence of Limitation of payment in cash
More informationGUTTOO C. v THE STATE OF MAURITIUS
GUTTOO C. v THE STATE OF MAURITIUS 2017 SCJ 57 Record No. 103243 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of:- C. Guttoo Plaintiff v The State of Mauritius Defendant JUDGMENT The plaintiff is claiming
More informationPOLICE VS BUNDHOO KARUNA
POLICE VS BUNDHOO KARUNA 2017 INT 133 POLICE VS BUNDHOO KARUNA Cause Number: 737/15 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of:- POLICE VS BUNDHOO KARUNA Judgment INTRODUCTION The Accused
More informationWho s who in a Criminal Trial
Mock Criminal Trial Scenario Who s who in a Criminal Trial ACCUSED The accused is the person who is alleged to have committed the criminal offence, and who has been charged with committing it. Before being
More informationPolice stations. What happens when you are arrested
Police stations What happens when you are arrested This factsheet looks at what happens at the police station when the police think you have committed a crime. This factsheet may help you if you, or someone
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 9, 2003 v No. 235372 Mason Circuit Court DENNIS RAY JENSEN, LC No. 00-015696 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSHELDON THOMAS. and THE QUEEN : March 11; October
GRENADA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.11 OF 2002 BETWEEN: SHELDON THOMAS and THE QUEEN Before: The Hon. Sir Dennis Byron The Hon. Mr. Albert Redhead The Hon. Mr. Ephraim Georges Appellant Respondent
More information[1] This is an appeal, brought with leave granted by the court a quo
Republic of South Africa In the High Court of South Africa Western Cape High Court, Cape Town CASE NO: A228/2009 MINISTER OF SAFETY & SECURITY SUPERINTENDENT NOEL GRAHAM ZEEMAN PAUL CHRISTIAAN LOUW N.O.
More informationJAMAICA. JEROME ARSCOTT v R. 10 November [1] On 10 February 2011, a young lady went home to find a group of police and
[2014] JMCA Crim 52 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL RESIDENT MAGISTRATES CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 21/2013 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MRS JUSTICE McINTOSH JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA JEROME
More informationindependent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00668/17 November 2018 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland
independent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00668/17 November 2018 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland What we do We obtain all the material information from
More information3:05-cv MBS Date Filed 05/08/13 Entry Number 810 Page 1 of 16
3:05-cv-02858-MBS Date Filed 05/08/13 Entry Number 810 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION United States of America, ex rel. ) Michael
More informationICAC v Boutanive. In the Intermediate Court of Mauritius (Criminal Division) Independent Commission Against Corruption. Jean Roland BOUTANIVE
ICAC v Boutanive 2012 INT 240 Cause Number: 859-2009 In the matter of: In the Intermediate Court of Mauritius (Criminal Division) Independent Commission Against Corruption v Jean Roland BOUTANIVE Judgment
More informationIN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS
S.Boodhoo v R. Ram and anor 2017 INT 196 Cause Number : 186/2012 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS Seewan Boodhoo Plaintiff Judgment v. 1. Ravind Ram 2. Top Turf Defendants The Plaintiff claims from
More informationYouth Justice: your guide to cops and court in New South Wales. Supplement - February Transit Officers
Youth Justice: your guide to cops and court in New South Wales Supplement - February 2007 The following section is a new section and should be read following the Chapter After court which ends on page
More information2) Smuggling as defined in section 182 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act [Chapter 23:02]
1 THE STATE versus FISHER MATURA HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE MOYO J BULAWAYO 10 OCTOBER 2016 AND 9 MAY 2017 Criminal Trial W Mabhaudhi for the state A Rubaya for the accused MOYO J: The accused in this matter
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COURT (CHAMBER) CASE OF ASCH v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 12398/86) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 April
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF ŠEBALJ v. CROATIA. (Application no. 4429/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 28 June 2011
FIRST SECTION CASE OF ŠEBALJ v. CROATIA (Application no. 4429/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 28 June 2011 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
More information14. HEARSAY A. INTRODUCTION
14. HEARSAY A. INTRODUCTION 1. What is the Hearsay Rule? Hearsay is a statement that was made outside of the courtroom, asserts facts, and is now offered in court to prove the truth of the facts asserted.
More informationMEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH
MEDIA STATEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH December 23, 2014 14-28 No Charges Approved in Abbotsford IIO Investigation Victoria The Criminal Justice Branch, Ministry of Justice (CJB) announced today that
More informationPOLICE v. GOOLAUP N. S.
P v. GOOLAUP A. H. 2013 LPW 27 Cause Number 12895/12 POLICE v. GOOLAUP N. S. In the District Court of Lower Plaines Wilhems (Rose Hill) In the matter of:- POLICE v Nundkumar Sanjay GOOLAUP Judgment The
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG) THE STATE AMELIA NXUMALO REVIEW JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG) High Court Ref. No.: 2/2014 THE STATE v AMELIA NXUMALO REVIEW JUDGMENT KGOELE J [1] The accused was convicted of Theft of clothes valued
More informationCanadian Judicial Council Assaults and Other Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person (Last revised June 2013)
Canadian Judicial Council Assaults and Other Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person (Last revised June 2013) Table of Contents Offence 244... 3 Discharge Firearm with Intent (s. 244)... 3 Offence 244.1...
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JASON MCMASTER Appellant No. 156 EDA 2015 Appeal from the PCRA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Owing Goring AND. The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2011-03769 BETWEEN Owing Goring AND Claimant The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago Defendant Before the Honourable Mr.
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COURT (CHAMBER) CASE OF ISGRÒ v. ITALY (Application no. 11339/85) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 19 February
More informationCriminal Code CRIMINAL CODE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL, 2013 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES
BELIZE: CRIMINAL CODE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL, 2013 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES 1. Short title. 2. Amendment of section 12. 3. Repeal and substitution of section 25. 4. Amendment of section 45. 5. Repeal and
More informationNancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
LINDSEY RENE TEMPLE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF
More informationGovernors Adjudications. Easy Read Self Help Toolkit
Governors Adjudications Easy Read Self Help Toolkit About this document This document was made by CHANGE, a charity led by people with learning disabilities. This document uses easy words and pictures
More informationSteven M. Sharp, for appellant. Bruce Evans Knoll, for respondent. This appeal raises the question whether a defendant can
================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------
More informationAssessing the impact of the Sentencing Council s Environmental offences definitive guideline
Assessing the impact of the Sentencing Council s Environmental offences definitive guideline Summary Analysis was undertaken to assess the impact of the Sentencing Council s environmental offences definitive
More informationResponse of the Law Society of England and Wales to draft CPS guidance for consultation on 'Speaking to Witnesses at Court'
Response of the Law Society of England and Wales to draft CPS guidance for consultation on 'Speaking to Witnesses at Court' March 2015 The Law Society 2015 Page 1 of 7 Response of the Law Society of England
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No MDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SADIQ TAJ-ELIJAH BEASLEY Appellant No. 1133 MDA 2013 Appeal from
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) High Court Ref No: 13858 Goodwood Case No: C1658/2012 In the matter between: STATE And RAYMOND TITUS ACCUSED Coram: BINNS-WARD & ROGERS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Cr. App. No. 13 of 2010 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN RICK GOMES Appellant AND THE STATE Respondent PANEL: P. Weekes, J.A A. Yorke-SooHon, J.A R. Narine, J.A APPEARANCES:
More informationSTIPULATED JURY INSTRUCTIONS State v. Manny Rayfield Curr County Circuit Court Case No State of New Maine
STIPULATED JURY INSTRUCTIONS State v. Manny Rayfield Curr County Circuit Court Case No. 09-3031 State of New Maine Instruction Number Instruction Description 1. Preliminary Instructions 2. Functions of
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 19, 2005
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 19, 2005 JOSEPH W. JONES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. P-26684 Bernie Weinman,
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued April 19, 2012 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-10-00725-CR SHAWN FRANK BUTLER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 23rd District Court
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Her Majesty the Queen. and. Christopher Raymond O Halloran. Before: The Honourable Justice Wayne D.
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: R. v. O Halloran 2013 PESC 22 Date: 20131029 Docket: S2-GC-130 Registry: Summerside Her Majesty the Queen and Christopher Raymond O Halloran Before: The
More informationGENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to
GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must follow the law as I state it
More informationCriminal Litigation: Step-By-Step
Criminal Law & Procedure For Paralegals Criminal Litigation: Step-By-Step Path of Criminal Cases in Queens Commencement Arraignment Pre-Trial Trial Getting The Defendant Before The Court! There are four
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS COMMONWEALTH CARLTON HENDERSON MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON THE DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2017-00460 COMMONWEALTH v. CARLTON HENDERSON MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON THE DEFENDANT S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN NIGEL MORALES CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD & TOBAGO DEFENDANT
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2008-02133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN NIGEL MORALES CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD & TOBAGO DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HON. MADAME JUSTICE JOAN CHARLES
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LADAYA DA SHAE MITCHELL No. 1356 WDA 2016 Appeal from the Order
More informationindependent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00444/17 October 2018 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland
independent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00444/17 October 2018 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland What we do We obtain all the material information from
More informationJury Directions Act 2015
Examinable excerpts of Jury Directions Act 2015 as at 10 April 2018 1 Purposes 3 Definitions Part 1 Preliminary The purposes of this Act are (a) to reduce the complexity of jury directions in criminal
More informationEnglish as a Second Language Podcast ESL Podcast Legal Problems
GLOSSARY to be arrested to be taken to jail, usually by the police, for breaking the law * The police arrested two women for robbing a bank. to be charged to be blamed or held responsible for committing
More informationSeite 1 von 10 AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 24208/94 by Karlheinz DEMEL against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 18 October 1995, the
More informationCriminal Law- a guide for legal consumers
Criminal Law- a guide for legal consumers In Scotland, 1 in 3 men and 1 in 10 women are likely to have at least one conviction listed on the Scottish criminal history system. 1 Involvement in criminal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2005 BETWEEN: JAVIER RAMIREZ Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Evidence And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question While driving their cars, Paula
More informationSOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: SS 50/2009 DATE: 15/03/2011 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... DATE SIGNATURE In
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 26, 2006 v No. 263852 Marquette Circuit Court MICHAEL ALBERT JARVI, LC No. 03-040571-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationMr. H. C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 5 May 1986, the following members being present: MM. J. A. FROWEIN, Acting President C. A. NØRGAARD G. SPERDUTI M. A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES G. JÖRUNDSSON
More informationJustice Committee. Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. Written submission from Victim Support Scotland
Justice Committee Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill Written submission from Victim Support Scotland INTRODUCTION 1. Victim Support Scotland welcomes the introduction of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill.
More informationSection I Initial Session Through Arraignment PROCEDURAL GUIDE FOR ARTICLE 39(a) SESSION
Joi ntt ri algui de 201 9 1 January201 9 Section I Initial Session Through Arraignment 2 1. PROCEDURAL GUIDE FOR ARTICLE 39(a) SESSION MJ: Please be seated. This Article 39(a) session is called to order.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA) CASE NO:966/2015. In the matter between: GCINIBANDLA NELSON GABAYI AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA) CASE NO:966/2015 In the matter between: GCINIBANDLA NELSON GABAYI AND ANOTHER PLAINTIFFS AND MINISTER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER DEFENDANTS
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL OF THE
Privy Council Appeal No. 1 of 1999 Dharmarajen Sabapathee Appellant v. The State Respondent FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS --------------- JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY
More informationOutcomes. Updates from Radian s in-house solicitor. Drug dealing and gang activity forces possession
Issue 13 May 2018 Outcomes Updates from Radian s in-house solicitor Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) Outcomes August 2012 to April 2018 Outright possession orders 31 Suspended possession orders 18 ASB injunctions
More information1. If several suspected offenders are involved in the same criminal. accusation or indictment, no defense attorney shall be allowed to represent
Form TJ-110, INSTRUCTION FOR CRIMINAL JURY TRIAL PROCEEDINGS (Sections 6, 7, and 16, Rule 3, of the JSR) Recommendation: 1. If several suspected offenders are involved in the same criminal accusation or
More informationSyndicat Des Co-Proprietaires, Residence Koenig v Bocquee J.
Syndicat Des Co-Proprietaires, Residence Koenig v Bocquee J. 2017 INT 334 Cause Number 2249/11 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of: Syndicat Des Co-Proprietaires, Residence Koenig Plaintiff
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BORDER SECURITY FORCE ACT, 1968 Date of Decision: W.P.(C) No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BORDER SECURITY FORCE ACT, 1968 Date of Decision: 21.03.2012 W.P.(C) No.1616/2012 Ex. Constable Mohan Kumar Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2785/2009
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 03 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 BETWEEN BEFORE THE HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2785/2009 1. BASU SHANKRAPPA CHAVAN @ LAMANI,
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PIETERMARITZBURG
1 IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO. 11224/11 In the matter between: STEVEN McGREGOR APPLICANT and THE REGIONAL MAGISTRATE Ms B. ASMAL N.O. FIRST RESPONDENT THE DIRECTOR
More informationCase 0:13-cr KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2014 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:13-cr-60245-KAM Document 76 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2014 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 13-60245-CR-MARRA(s) v. Plaintiff,
More informationARBITRATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OF MICHIGAN
Daniel #2 ARBITRATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OF MICHIGAN IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN: EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE Gr. Termination 7/29/96 ARBITRATOR: WILLIAM P. DANIEL FACTS The claimant worked as a Switch
More informationGoing. A booklet for children and young people who are going to be witnesses at Crown, magistrates or youth court
Going to court A booklet for children and young people who are going to be witnesses at Crown, magistrates or youth court This book should be read with the assistance of an adult supporter who knows about
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,969 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DAVID GARCIA, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 113,969 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DAVID GARCIA, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Ford District Court; E. LEIGH
More informationJUDGEMENT. [1] This is an appeal against a decision by the Magistrate for the district
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy Not Reportable IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
More informationIN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) CASE NO.: 2013-C Defendant. ) TRANSCRIPT OF THE EVIDENCE
IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. CHRISTOPHER MAURICE BOYD, ) ) Defendant. ) ) CASE NO.: 01-C- ) TRANSCRIPT OF THE
More informationA Guide to Giving Evidence in Court
Preparation A Guide to Giving Evidence in Court It doesn't matter whether you have a lot of experience or a little - you may find that the witness box is a lonely place if you are not prepared for it.
More informationDisclosure: Responsibilities of a Prosecuting Authority
Disclosure: Responsibilities of a Prosecuting Authority Julie Norris A. Introduction The rules of most professional disciplinary bodies are silent as to the duties and responsibilities vested in the regulatory
More informationFOOD CHAPTER 236 FOOD PART I PRELIMINARY
[CH.236 1 CHAPTER 236 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART I PRELIMINARY PART II GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO 3. Offences in connection with injurious or adulterated food.
More informationDocument references: Prior decisions - Special Rapporteur s rule 91 decision, dated 28 December 1992 (not issued in document form)
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Kulomin v. Hungary Communication No. 521/1992 16 March 1994 CCPR/C/50/D/521/1992 * ADMISSIBILITY Submitted by: Vladimir Kulomin Alleged victim: The author State party: Hungary Date
More informationSIMPHIWE MABHUTI SONTSHANTSHA JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE: MTHATHA In the matter between CASE NO:121/08 THE STATE and SIMPHIWE MABHUTI SONTSHANTSHA Accused JUDGMENT PAKADE J: Background [1] The accused is charged
More informationCOMMONWEALTH : : : No. CR : AMY MORGRET, : Defendant : Omnibus Pretrial Motion OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH : : vs. : No. CR-631-2018 : AMY MORGRET, : Defendant : Omnibus Pretrial Motion OPINION AND ORDER By Information filed on May 4,
More informationTRIAL DIRECTIONS FOR THE LOCAL COURT ADVOCATE
TRIAL DIRECTIONS FOR THE LOCAL COURT ADVOCATE A paper prepared for the Legal Aid Annual Criminal Law Conference 2014 Slade Howell 1 & Daniel Covington 2 The operation of the general principles have a significance
More informationCriminal Litigation: Step-By-Step
Criminal Law & Procedure For Paralegals Criminal Litigation: Step-By-Step 2 Getting Defendant Before The Court! There are four methods to getting the defendant before the court 1) Warrantless Arrest 2)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) JUDGMENT. [1] The plaintiff claims payment from the defendant in the amount of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case No: 36428/2014 In the matter between: GERHARD PRETORIUS ll--/ < /'J
More informationTFF Conference Interviewing Fraudsters
TFF Conference 2017 Interviewing Fraudsters Mike Neumann Director ITS Training (UK) Ltd. ITS Training (UK) Ltd 2001-2017 1 Contents Part one What s it all about Part two To follow PACE or not That is the
More informationReport of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland
Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland independent and effective investigations and reviews independent and effective investigations and reviews Index 1. Role of the PIRC
More informationAppearances: Mrs. Grace McKenzie with Ms. Christilyn Benjamin for the Crown The Prisoner in Person. 2007: October 29 th, November 1 st and 6 th
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS (CRIMINAL JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL CASE NO. 22 of 2007 THE QUEEN and HUBERT McLEOD Appearances: Mrs. Grace McKenzie with Ms. Christilyn Benjamin for the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA S.C.Appeal :154/10 C.A.Appeal No.125/08 H.C.Galle : 2136 The State Complainant Vs Devunderage Nihal Accused AND Devunderage Nihal
More informationWRITING FOR TRIALS 1
WRITING FOR TRIALS 1 2017 The Writing Center at GULC. All Rights Reserved. I. Introduction Whether you are taking a trial practice class, competing in a mock trial tournament, representing a clinic client,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 2589/2012 In the matter between: MLINDELI DAVID SEPTEMBER
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) THE QUEEN AND SHAM SANGANOO
. THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) SAINT LUCIA CRIMINAL CASES NOS. SLUCRD 2007/0653, 0669 & 0670 BETWEEN: THE QUEEN AND SHAM SANGANOO Claimant Defendant Appearances:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v McVea [2004] QCA 380 PARTIES: R v McVEA, Peter Andrew (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 145 of 2004 SC No 337 of 2003 SC No 542 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Till v Johns [2004] QCA 451 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: CA No 209 of 2004 DC No 1 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: PETER TILL (applicant/applicant) v ANTHONY
More informationI. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Filed 7/13/07 In re Michael A. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationJUDGMENT THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY. Neutral citation: Minister of Safety and Security v Katise(328/12) [2013] ZASCA 111 (16 September 2013)
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: REPORTABLE Case No: 328/12 THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY APPELLANT and BONISILE JOHN KATISE RESPONDENT Neutral citation:
More informationTHE POLICE COMPLAINTS ACT 2012
THE POLICE COMPLAINTS ACT 2012 Act No. 20 of 2012 l assent RAJKESWUR PURRYAG 3 August 2012 President of the Republic ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section PART I - PRELIMINARY 1. Short title 2. Interpretation
More informationGoing to court. A booklet for children and young people who are going to be witnesses at Crown, magistrates or youth court
Going to court A booklet for children and young people who are going to be witnesses at Crown, magistrates or youth court 5051688011814 This booklet tells you: 1 2 3 4 What a witness does Who will be
More informationHEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC
HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC MARQUEZ LOPEZ, Daniel Registration No: 260732 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE JULY 2018 OUTCOME: Fitness to Practise Impaired. Reprimand Issued Daniel MARQUEZ LOPEZ, a dentist, Grado
More informationPolice V Chatoorsing P. and Anor THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS. Police. 1. CHATOORSING Parvesh 2. CHATOORSING Pahalad
Police V Chatoorsing P. and Anor 2017 INT 442 CN 46/2016 In the matter of: - THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS Police JUDGMENT Accused 1 stands charged as follows: V 1. CHATOORSING Parvesh 2. CHATOORSING
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Harrison, Goddard and Andrews JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA761/2013 [2014] NZCA 375 BETWEEN AND BENJAMIN VAINU Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 29 July 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Goddard and Andrews
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA
David S. Haeg P.O. Box 123 Soldotna, AK 99669 (907) 262-9249 & 262-8867 fax IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA DAVID HAEG ) ) Appellant, ) ) vs. ) ) STATE OF ALASKA, ) Case No.: A-09455 )
More informationE. Z. (No. 2) v. UNESCO
Organisation internationale du Travail Tribunal administratif International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal Registry s translation, the French text alone being authoritative. E. Z. (No. 2)
More information