SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
|
|
- Brook Davidson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Doig v Stephens & Hallin [2005] QSC 116 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: BS 11149/04 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: HELEN MAY DOIG (applicant) v PETER NOEL STEPHENS (first respondent) and DANIEL MICHAEL HALLIN (second respondent) Trial Application for Criminal Compensation ORIGINATING Supreme Court at Brisbane COURT: DELIVERED ON: 6 May 2005 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 15 February 2005 JUDGE: Philippides J ORDERS: 1. The first respondent is separately liable to pay the applicant $57,750 by way of compensation for the injuries suffered by him as a result of the commission of the offence for which he was convicted. 2. The second respondent pay compensation in the sum of $46,200 (80% of the above figure of $57,750) for which he is jointly and separately liable to the applicant together with the first respondent. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION where the first respondent shot the applicant and was convicted of attempted murder where the second respondent was convicted of that offence on the basis of his being a party to the offence of attempted murder committed by the first respondent where the applicant suffered physical and other injuries where more than one convicted person directly and materially contributed to the applicant s injuries where liability of each convicted person scaled according to their contribution to the injuries Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 21, s 22, s 24, s 25, s 26 Criminal Offence Victims Regulations 1995 (Qld), Reg 2
2 2 COUNSEL: SOLICITORS: Dooley v Ward [2001] 2 Qd R 436 Riddle v Coffey [2002] QCA 337 K M McGinness for the applicant No appearance for the respondents McInnes Wilson for the applicant No appearance for the respondents The Application [1] The applicant, Helen May Doig, sustained serious injuries as a result of being shot by the first respondent, Peter Noel Stephens. On 17 March 2003, the first respondent pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to murder the applicant in respect of which he was sentenced to life imprisonment, to be served concurrently with other sentences. On 26 March 2003, the second respondent, Daniel Michael Hallin, was found guilty, after trial, of being party to the offence of attempted murder of the applicant. He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment for that offence to be served concurrently with other sentences. [2] The applicant, who was born on 24 May 1943 and was 58 years of age at the time the offences were committed, seeks criminal compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995 ( the Act ) for injuries sustained as a result of the offences for which the respondents were convicted. Section 24 of the Act provides: (1) This section applies if someone (the convicted person ) (a) is convicted on indictment of a personal offence; or (b) is convicted on indictment and a personal offence is taken into account on sentence. (2) The person against whom the personal offence is committed may apply to the court before which the person is convicted for an order that the convicted person pay compensation to the applicant for the injury suffered by the applicant because of the offence. (3) The court may make an order (a compensation order ) for an amount to be paid by the convicted person to the applicant because of the injury. [3] Section 21 of the Act describes a personal offence as an indictable offence committed against the person of someone. The offences committed against the applicant by the respondents were each a personal offence within the meaning of s 21 of the Act, entitling the applicant to apply for compensation suffered by reason of that offence under s 24 of the Act. Background Facts [4] On the evening of 24 December 2001, the applicant and her son, Brett Doig, were travelling to their home along a road at Murphy s Creek, east of Toowoomba. They stopped when they saw a vehicle belonging to the applicant s other son, Kenneth Doig, parked at the side of the road. (Unbeknown to the applicant, Kenneth Doig, had earlier that evening been brutally murdered by the first respondent in the course
3 3 of a robbery and his body had been hidden in the boot of his car. The first respondent was convicted of that murder, with the second respondent being convicted as a secondary offender). [5] The applicant s son, Brett, went to investigate the presence of Kenneth Doig s car at the roadside and question the respondents. Without warning he was shot in the left arm and side by the first respondent. The applicant, who had also walked towards the parked car, ran back and got into her car. Whilst sitting there she was also shot at point blank range by the first respondent. The impact of the shot knocked her out of the car and onto the ground. The applicant recalls lying on the ground pretending to be dead as she heard the respondents walking near by her. After the respondents left the scene, the applicant was found by her son, Brett, who helped her into the car which, notwithstanding his serious injuries, he managed to drive to a farmhouse where the police and ambulance were called. Medical Evidence [6] The main impact area of the gunshot injuries received by the applicant was to her right neck and shoulder. There were further pellet wounds to the right cheek and left thumb/hand. The applicant also recalls blood coming from her ear and severe pain to her ear and shoulder and feelings of nausea. [7] She was admitted to the Toowoomba Base Hospital and was found to have sustained the following injuries as a result of the assault: (a) (b) (c) (d) Shotgun injuries to the right shoulder and neck region, including a large posterior laceration to the right shoulder and neck and loss of deltoid and trapezius muscle in the region; Shotgun injuries to the left thumb and hand; Injuries to her cheek; Multiple shrapnel wounds. [8] On 25 December 2001, the applicant underwent debridement and washout of the neck and shoulder wound, during which pieces of shrapnel were removed. She underwent further surgery on 27 December She was transferred to the Princess Alexandra Hospital for plastic review and grafting of the right shoulder wound. Her injuries included loss of 2cm from her shoulder blade which required a skin graft from her right thigh. She was discharged from hospital 28 days later but continued attendance on multiple occasions at the Plastics Outpatients. Whilst in hospital she experienced pain in her shoulder and right thigh donor site and also suffered infections. [9] The injuries to the right shoulder improved over a 6 month period and then plateaued. She continues to suffer pain, weakness and restriction of movement to her right shoulder and arm and is self-conscious about the scar to her shoulder. She has experienced repeated infections and is restricted in the clothing she can wear. She has the sensation of multiple pieces of shrapnel in the area and experiences aggravated pain during wet and cold weather. She also has decreased strength in her right upper limb interfering with her ability to carry heavy objects.
4 4 [10] The applicant continues to suffer headaches associated with neck pain as well as stinging and itching to areas of the neck where the shrapnel remains. She also has some scarring on the left side of her neck which makes her feel self-conscious. [11] The skin graft site on the right thigh healed slowly over a 12 month period and although no pain is experienced in that area, the skin remains susceptible to tearing easily. [12] She also required surgery to remove pellets from her thumb. The applicant continues to experience symptoms of numbness in her left thumb, difficulty picking up objects and decreased grip strength. [13] She now suffers from decreased hearing of the right ear, which causes difficulty hearing when background noise is present and right ear pain. She has shrapnel under the skin and within the right cheek which is itchy and causes a slight cosmetic defect. Report of Dr Campbell [14] Dr Campbell, a neurosurgeon, examined the applicant on 12 September 2003 for the purposes of providing a report. His examination revealed: (a) (b) (c) a 7cm curved surgical scar over the left thumb, with a piece of shrapnel apparent under the scar line and slight decreased range of movement of thumb; a large graft and depressed scar over the right shoulder and trapezius region, multiple shrapnel pieces adjacent to the scar with a second stellate scar over the right shoulder showing multiple shrapnel pieces. There was decreased flexion of right shoulder region by 20% and decreased abduction by 30%; the right cheek was slightly dimpled with an underlying piece of shrapnel, causing a slight cosmetic defect. [15] Dr Campbell considered that, because the symptoms were still present at the time of his examination, the applicant was likely to suffer permanent impairment as a consequence of the injuries. He concluded that the applicant was likely to suffer a 20% permanent impairment of the whole person as a result of her injuries, included injuries to the ear and the psychological injuries detailed below. Hearing problems [16] The applicant experienced hearing loss and tinnitus subsequent to being exposed to the noise blast from the gunshot and the wounds to her neck. She is still troubled by sensation blockage in the right ear, difficulty hearing in group situations and constant ringing in her right ear. Dr Broadhurst in his report of 17 July 2002 stated that audiogram testing revealed a right moderate sensorineural hearing loss with poor discrete speech discrimination on that side. [17] On 11 September 2003, Dr Black, an ear nose and throat surgeon, examined the applicant. He noted that the applicant had sustained lacerations to the external canal of the right ear and bleeding. Dr Black was of the opinion that the nature of the hearing loss was consistent with the trauma of being shot. He detailed a right sided
5 5 sensorineural hearing loss which is a permanent partial deficit. He considered that the tinnitus represented an additional 3% impairment and estimates total auditory impairment to be 47% monaural or 4.7% whole person. Mental and nervous shock [18] At the time of the incident the applicant suffered extreme emotional distress. She was clearly traumatised by the incident. She was constantly fearful until the respondents were apprehended and placed in custody. She initially saw a clinical psychiatrist at the Princess Alexandra Hospital and was placed on anti-depressant medication which she has taken since the incident. [19] Mr Johnston, a psychologist, examined the applicant on 10 September He noted the applicant was currently on anti-depressant medication, namely Zoloft. The applicant reported the following psychological symptoms: (a) Anxiety scared and distressed if sees red cars, fears at night or if travelling alone, scared to be alone at home; (b) Sleep disturbance chaotic sleep patterns and difficulty getting to sleep, wakes frequently; (c) Flashbacks experiences distressing flashbacks 5-6 times a week which causes her to sweat and her heart to pound; (d) Exaggerated startle response; (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) Irritability; Depression estimates feels sad and depressed about twice each month for up to a day including crying at times and feeling overwhelmed; Sexual difficulties substantial decrease in libido; Diminished self confidence; Poor concentration and difficulty focussing on tasks. [20] In Mr Johnston s opinion, while the applicant may be marginally more vulnerable than the average person, her psychological problems have arisen directly as a result of the 2001 shooting and its sequelae. Psychological testing conducted by Mr Johnston revealed that the applicant suffers from an extreme level of anxiety, mild range of depression and post traumatic stress disorder of moderate severity. Mr Johnston also notes the applicant could also be suffering from somatoform pain disorder. The applicant has experienced a substantial loss of quality in her life and is likely to feel anxious, worried and depressed much of the time. She becomes fearful if left alone or distressed if reminded of the trauma and is likely to experience difficulties in her relationships with others, including trust of people. He diagnoses her functional loss as 32%. Assessment of Compensation [21] Under the Act, the compensation ordered is not intended to reflect the amount of compensation which the applicant would be entitled to under common law, but rather is intended to help the applicant (sections 22(3) and 25(8)). Pursuant to s 25 of the Act, compensation is assessed by reference to a maximum amount, which is $75,000; see Reg 2 of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulations A compensation order cannot be made for an amount more than that prescribed scheme maximum.
6 6 [22] The method for the assessment of criminal compensation has been outlined by the Court of Appeal in Dooley v Ward [2001] 2 Qd R 436. An award for compensation must be made by reference to the compensation table in schedule 1 of the Act, which lists different types of injury, giving each a range of percentages of the scheme maximum: s 25(3)-(5). For each injury claimed, the court first characterises the injury according to the categories listed in the compensation table. Regard is then had to the relative seriousness of the injury to arrive at a percentage which is within the specified range. The amount of compensation is thus calculated by reference to the appropriate percentage of the scheme maximum. However, s 22(4) of the Act provides that the maximum amount of compensation is reserved for the most serious cases and the amounts provided in other cases are intended to be scaled according to their seriousness. [23] There is no question in his case that the applicant contributed in any way to the injuries she received. [24] On behalf of the applicant, it was submitted the appropriate award ought to be calculated in accordance with the assessments set out in the table below. Item of the compensation table Item 21 Neck/shoulder injury (minor/ moderate) Item 26 Gunshot Wounds (severe) Percentage of the scheme maximum under the Act Percentage claimed Compensation claimed 8% - 16% 10% $7,500 15% - 40% 25% $18,750 Item 27 Bodily Scarring 2% - 10% 10% $7,800 (minor/ moderate) Item 32/33 mental or 10% - 34% 30% $22,500 nervous shock (moderate/severe) Item 35 Loss of hearing 2% - 20% 12% $9,000 (one ear) TOTAL $65,550 [25] There are several errors in the table. A claim for item 27 is made at 10% of the allowed percentage. That yields $7,500 rather than the $7,800 claimed in the table. This reduces the total claimed compensation to $65,250. In addition, I note that in respect of the claim of $7,500 under item 21 neck/shoulder injury (minor/moderate) the percentage of the scheme maximum is erroneously stated to be 8% to 16%. Item 21, which concerns neck/back/chest injury (minor), in fact provides for a range of percentage of 2% to 7%, while item 22, which concerns neck/back/chest injury (moderate), provides for a percentage range of 5% to 10%. [26] It is clear that the psychiatric conditions suffered by the applicant constitute mental or nervous shock for the purposes of the Act. Given the evidence, including that the applicant suffers an extreme level of anxiety, mild depression and moderate post traumatic stress disorder, an award under item 33 of the compensation table for mental or nervous shock (severe), which provides for a range of 20% to 34% is warranted. I consider that an award at the lower end of the range, that is 20%, is
7 7 appropriate for this injury taking into account the severity of the conditions suffered. This results in an assessment of $15,000. [27] It is also appropriate that an assessment is made under item 27 of the compensation table for facial disfigurement or bodily scarring (minor/ moderate) in respect of the scarring suffered by the applicant to the shoulder/neck region and to the cheek. An assessment of 10% of the scheme maximum is in my view appropriate, which results in an award of $7,500. [28] In addition, an assessment ought to be made under item 35 Loss of hearing (one ear). An assessment of 12% of the scheme maximum is sufficient to properly compensate for that head, making $9,000. [29] In addition to assessments under the above items of compensation, counsel for the applicant submitted that, in order to adequately compensate the applicant, an award ought also to be made under item 26 Gunshot Wound (severe) and under item 21 for neck/shoulder injury (minor/moderate). [30] I note that s 26 (1) of the Act provides that harm that substantially should be treated as a single state of injury is treated as a single injury, though it may consist of more than one injury. That provision was considered by the Court of Appeal in Riddle as follows: The appellant accepts that if multiple injuries are suffered, separate heads of damage may be calculated by reference to the compensation table and added together, so long as the overall award does not exceed the scheme maximum: s 25(3) of the Act. But the appellant contends that dicta of Thomas JA sitting as a single judge in R v Kazkoff; ex parte Ferguson as to the effect of s 26 of the Act requires that the multiple injuries here should be treated as a single injury for the purposes of compensation under the scheme. Section 26 of the Act, which it is unnecessary to set out in full here, requires that harm which should be substantially treated as a single state of injury is to be so treated, even though it may consist of more than one injury or be caused by more than one incident. At first, this seems to be in conflict with s 25(3) of the Act. But a careful reading of s 26 in its entirety shows the section aims to encourage only one criminal compensation order for one episode of injury; it does not discourage a judge making a criminal compensation order from calculating and adding together the appropriate amount of compensation for a number of injuries arising from one episode by reference to the relevant items in the compensation table in the manner required by s 25(3) and Ward. This interpretation of s 26 is supported by the Explanatory Notes to the Act which emphasise that the section encourages only one order for a single episode of injury, not that one order be confined to one item of damage under the compensation table. See also the observations of Helman J in R v Pangilinan; ex parte Owens. The Act intends to provide full compensation within the limits it imposes; it does not encourage or authorise duplication of compensation for what is effectively the same injury. The correct approach will always depend on what is
8 8 fair and reasonable on the particular facts of each case, within the limits of the Act (footnotes omitted) [31] In Riddle, the Court of Appeal held that, on the facts of that case, to assess awards for the stab wounds inflicted on the applicant there in addition to awards for the fractured skull, loss of use of limbs and bodily scarring was to doubly compensate the applicant there for the same injury. Whether an assessment of compensation under multiple heads of the compensation table will in any particular case result in a duplication of compensation will turn on the facts of each individual case. [32] In the present case, I assess compensation under item 26 at 35% of the scheme maximum, resulting in $26,250. I consider that that award under item 26 adequately compensates the applicant for the gunshot wounds she sustained to the shoulder, neck, face and hand. To additionally compensate the applicant under item 21 or 22 for her neck injuries would result in duplication of compensation for the same injury. [33] In the circumstances, I assess the applicant s entitlement to compensation as $57,750 as follows: Item of the compensation table Item 26 Gunshot Wounds (severe) Percentage of the scheme maximum under Act Percentage awarded Compensation awarded 15% - 40% 35% $26,250 Item 27 Facial 2% - 10% 10% $7,500 disfigurement or bodily scarring (minor/ moderate) Item 35 Loss of hearing 2% - 20% 12% $9,000 (one ear) Item 33 mental or nervous 20% - 34% 20% $15,000 shock (severe) TOTAL $57,750 The Liability of Each of the Respondents [35] Pursuant to s 26(5) of the Act, a single compensation order may be made against more than one convicted person. Section 26 of the Act further specifies: (6) If a single compensation order is made against more than 1 convicted person, the order may provide for - (a) separate liability of a convicted person scaled according to the person s direct and material contribution to the injury; or (b) joint liability of more than 1 convicted person for an amount payable under the order; or (c) both the separate liability mentioned in paragraph (a) for an amount and joint liability for the amount.
9 9 (7) Without limiting subsection (5), if each of more than 1 convicted person directly and materially contributed to injury mentioned in subsection (3)(a) and (b), a court may make a compensation order against each of more than 1 of the convicted persons. (8) If compensation orders are made against more than 1 convicted person under subsection (7) - (a) the total amount payable under all the orders must not be more than the scheme maximum; and (b) the orders - (i) must provide for separate liability for each of the convicted persons for an amount scaled according to the convicted person's contribution to the injury; and (ii) may also provide for joint liability of more than 1 convicted person for an amount for which a convicted person is separately liable. (9) To remove doubt, section 25 is declared to apply to compensation orders mentioned in subsections (5) and (7), subject to subsection (8)(a). [36] The applicant s injuries resulted from the personal offences committed by the respondents, but arising out of a substantially single incident. Each of the respondents directly and materially contributed to the injuries sustained by the applicant. It is therefore appropriate to make compensation orders against each respondent under s 26(7) of the Act. However, consideration must be given to the issue of the separate liability of each respondent, scaled according to their contribution to the applicant s injuries. [37] For the offence of attempted murder of the applicant, the first respondent was sentenced to life imprisonment, his criminal liability arising from his having shot the applicant at close range. The second respondent however was convicted of attempted murder, on the basis that he was a party to a common unlawful purpose (to use the deceased s vehicle to dispose of his body) in the prosecution of which the offence of attempted murder was committed by the first respondent. As a secondary offender, the second respondent s lesser criminal culpability in the circumstances of this case was reflected in his receiving a lesser sentence of 15 years imprisonment. [38] In my view, bearing in mind the respondents varying contribution to the injuries suffered by the applicant as detailed in the sentencing remarks, their respective liability ought to be scaled so that, while the first respondent is separately liable to pay the full sum of $57,750, the second respondent s liability is set at 80% of that amount to reflect the actual circumstances of his offending and his lesser contribution as a secondary rather than primary offender, consistent with the lesser sentence he received. The second respondent s liability for that 80% amount ($46,200) ought to be a joint and separate liability with the first respondent.
10 10 Orders [39] I order that: 1. The first respondent is separately liable to pay the applicant $57,750 by way of compensation for the injuries suffered by him as a result of the commission of the offence for which he was convicted. 2. The second respondent pay compensation in the sum of $46,200 (80% of the above figure of $57,750) for which he is jointly and separately liable to the applicant together with the first respondent.
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Gilders v Keen [2010] QSC 110 PARTIES: JAMES NOEL VERDUN GILDERS (applicant) v TAUKIRI KEEN (respondent) FILE NO/S: 12973 of 2009 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Trial Division
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Crosbie v Lawrence [2002] QSC 217 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: S3439 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: STUART ALLEN CROSBIE (applicant) v SHAYNE ALLEN LAWRENCE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Byles v. Palmer [2003] QSC 295 PARTIES: FILE NO: 2309/03 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: MATTHEW BYLES (applicant) v. STEWART WILLIAM PALMER (respondent)
More informationSTANSFIELD COLLEGE CRIMINAL LAW Non-Fatal Offences
STANSFIELD COLLEGE CRIMINAL LAW Non-Fatal Offences 2013-2014 CRIMINAL LAW LECTURE 2005 A Q6 1 H hears a rumour that I, his partner, has been unfaithful to him. He grabs at her shoulder but she ducks and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Roser [2004] QCA 318 PARTIES: R v ROSER, Matthew Scott (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 265 of 2004 DC No 1432 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: DELIVERED
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Spear v State of Queensland & anor [2003] QSC 310 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: 141 of 2001 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: BARRY PHILIP SPEAR (Plaintiff) v STATE OF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 1018 THE QUEEN REBEL WAITOHI. K A Stoikoff for Prisoner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI-2013-044-1109 [2014] NZHC 1018 THE QUEEN v Hearing: 15 May 2014 REBEL WAITOHI Appearances: T M Cooper for Crown K A Stoikoff for Prisoner Sentence:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Sambai [03] QCA 42 PARTIES: R v SAMBAI, Lucas Londe (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 352 of 02 DC No of 02 DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CRI THE QUEEN ROBERT JOHN BROWN SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREWS J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CRI 2005-020-003954 THE QUEEN v ROBERT JOHN BROWN Hearing: 30 July 2008 Appearances: C R Walker for the Crown D H Quilliam for the Prisoner Judgment: 30
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Jones [2008] QCA 181 PARTIES: R v JONES, Matthew Kenneth (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 73 of 2008 DC No 58 of 2008 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Samad [2012] QCA 63 PARTIES: R v SAMAD, Mohammed Abdus (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 12 of 2012 DC No 1156 of 2011 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Kolb [2007] QCA 180 PARTIES: R v KOLB, Peter Desmond (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 29 of 2007 DC 2585 of 2006 DC 3002 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: A-G for the State of Qld v Gray [2017] QSC 260 PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v MAXWELL EDWARD GRAY (respondent) FILE NO/S: BS No
More informationIntroduction to Criminal Law
Introduction to Criminal Law CHAPTER CONTENTS Introduction 2 Crimes versus Civil Wrongs 2 Types of Criminal Offences 3 General Principles of Criminal Law 4 Accessories and Parties to Crimes 5 Attempted
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 15 of 2009
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 15 of 2009 BETWEEN: THE QUEEN Appellant AND ALBERT GARBUTT JR. Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr Justice Sosa President The Hon. Mr Justice
More informationIntroduction 3. The Meaning of Mental Illness 3. The Mental Health Act 4. Mental Illness and the Criminal Law 6. The Mental Health Court 7
Mental Health Laws Chapter Contents Introduction 3 The Meaning of Mental Illness 3 The Mental Health Act 4 Mental Illness and the Criminal Law 6 The Mental Health Court 7 The Mental Health Review Tribunal
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Condon [2010] QCA 117 PARTIES: R v CONDON, Christopher Gerard (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 253 of 2009 DC No 114 of 2009 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183 PARTIES: R v BRADFORTH, Nathan Paul (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 423 of 2002 SC No 551 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Douglas [2004] QCA 1 PARTIES: R v DOUGLAS, Gillian Jean (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 312 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: DELIVERED EX TEMPORE
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, DAMON PAUL MACK, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR PR Filed September 22, 2014
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DAMON PAUL MACK, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0281-PR Filed September 22, 2014 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
More informationCHRISTIAN SIKHOLELO TYATYA THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 1850/2010 In the matter between: CHRISTIAN SIKHOLELO TYATYA Plaintiff And THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Defendant JUDGMENT
More informationThe Attorney General 1. Hence a claimant can claim both pecuniary and non-pecuniary REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO HCA No S-1499 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN TIMMY WESLEY ANTHONY Plaintiff AND Before: Master Alexander AMMI S PROTECTIVE SERVICES **************************************************
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v WBG [2018] QCA 284 PARTIES: R v WBG (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 30 of 2018 DC No 2160 of 2017 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Sentence
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Strickland [2003] QCA 184 PARTIES: R v STRICKLAND, Wayne Robert (applicant) FILE NOS: CA No 25 of 2003 DC No 279 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY COMPLAINT
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY POLICE NO. : 17-105251 PROSECUTOR NO. : 095442954 STATE OF MISSOURI, ) PLAINTIFF, ) vs. ) HOWARD TYRONE NEELY ) 3309 E 51st Street, ) Kansas
More informationBETWEEN THE STATE RAMDEO RAMDEEN BHAGWANDEEN
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Criminal Number S 045 /06 BETWEEN THE STATE V RAMDEO RAMDEEN BHAGWANDEEN Before Boodoosingh J. Mr A. Stroude and Ms A. Mohammed for The State
More informationProposal. Budget sensitive. In confidence. Office of the Minister of Justice. Chair. Cabinet Social Policy Committee REFORM OF FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW
Budget sensitive In confidence Office of the Minister of Justice Chair Cabinet Social Policy Committee REFORM OF FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW Paper Three: Prosecuting family violence Proposal 1. This paper is the
More informationAssault Definitive Guideline
Assault Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents For reference Assault only. Definitive Guideline 1 Applicability of guideline 2 Causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Colleen Freedman, : Petitioner : : v. : : Workers Compensation Appeal : Board (Starr Restaurant), : No. 619 C.D. 2015 Respondent : Submitted: October 9, 2015 BEFORE:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Riddler [2011] QSC 24 ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v ROBERT LESLIE RIDDLER (respondent)
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: SOME NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED.
EDITORIAL NOTE: SOME NAMES AND/OR DETAILS IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU CRI-2016-092-011259 [2017] NZDC 10782 THE QUEEN v ISAIAH MICHAEL PEKA Hearing: 24 May 2017
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 3274 TELEISHA MCLAREN. S N McKenzie for Crown
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CRI-2014-425-000043 [2014] NZHC 3274 TELEISHA MCLAREN v Hearing: 15 December 2014 R Appearances: H T Young for Appellant S N McKenzie for Crown Judgment:
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. 90-549 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1992 IN RE THE PETITION OF KORI LANE LAKE. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Mineral, The Honorable
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA George Boettger, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 294 C.D. 2013 : Submitted: July 19, 2013 Workers Compensation : Appeal Board : (School District of Philadelphia), :
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 23, 2014 v No. 316581 Wayne Circuit Court WILLIAM THEODORE-HARRY OLDS, LC No. 13-001170-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SEYCHELLES THE GOVERNMENT OF SEYCHELLES MARIE MICHEL SOLANA ROSE & OTHERS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SEYCHELLES THE GOVERNMENT OF SEYCHELLES APPELLANT And MARIE MICHEL SOLANA ROSE & OTHERS RESPONDENTS SCA NO. 14 OF 2011 ================================================================
More informationCHRISTOPHER BURKEEN OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN October 31, 2013 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
PRESENT: All the Justices CHRISTOPHER BURKEEN OPINION BY v. Record No. 122178 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN October 31, 2013 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA In this appeal,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2013 GIANNI SPAGNOLO, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Petitioner,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2002
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2002 COURTNEY MITCHELL, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. CASE NO. 5D01-957 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. / Opinion
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Puchala [03] QCA 5 PARTIES: R v PUCHALA, Paul (appellant) PUCHALA, Matthew (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 332 of 03 CA No 334 of 03 DC No 352 of 03 DIVISION: Court
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Scrivener v DPP [2001] QCA 454 PARTIES: LEONARD PEARCE SCRIVENER (applicant/appellant) v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (respondent/respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal
More informationDomestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [HL]
[AS AMENDED IN STANDING COMMITTEE E] CONTENTS PART 1 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ETC Amendments to Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 1 Breach of non-molestation order to be a criminal offence 2 Additional considerations
More informationTHE QUEEN. D M Wilson QC for Crown C M Clews for Prisoner SENTENCE OF RANDERSON J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY T.013648 THE QUEEN V BOWEN PUTOA NEHA MANIHERA Date: 3 February 2003 Counsel: Sentence: D M Wilson QC for Crown C M Clews for Prisoner Four years imprisonment
More informationIntroduction to Criminal Law
Winter 2019 Introduction to Criminal Law Recognizing Offenses Shoplifting equals Larceny Criminal possession of stolen property. Punching someone might be Assault; or Harassment; or Menacing Recognizing
More informationF L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A bill to be entitled An act relating to safe work environments; providing a short title; providing legislative findings and purposes;
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA)
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 (GAUTENG DIVISION
More informationAnnex C: Draft guidelines
Intimidatory Offences and Domestic abuse guidelines Consultation 53 Annex C: Draft guidelines Overarching Principles: Domestic Abuse Applicability of the Guideline In accordance with section 120 of the
More informationA GUIDE TO CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY (CICA) CLAIMS
A GUIDE TO CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY (CICA) CLAIMS What is the CICA? The CICA is a government-funded Scheme, designed to compensate blameless victims of violent crime, which includes sexual
More informationIntimidatory Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE
Intimidatory Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 4 Harassment (putting people in fear of violence) 5 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (section 4)
More informationGeneral Insurance - Domestic Insurance - Home Contents - FSP Decision - Denial of claim
Determination Case number: 299529 General Insurance - Domestic Insurance - Home Contents - FSP Decision - Denial of claim 11 July 2013 Background 1. The Applicant and her former husband (WB) held a home
More informationASSAULT Limb 1 s245(1) battery at common law Elements: 1. Application of Force 2. Directly or indirectly 3. Without Consent
ASSAULT Limb 1 s245(1) battery at common law 1. Application of Force 2. Directly or indirectly 3. Without Consent 1. Application of Force (s245(2)) Applies force applying heat, light, electrical force,
More informationTHE QUEEN TOKO MARCUS PEARSON. Guilty SENTENCE OF MACKENZIE J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2004-070-4342 THE QUEEN 0 V TOKO MARCUS PEARSON Charges: Pleas: Counsel: Sentence: I. Burglary 2. Injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
More informationBenyuan Zhou, Likang Zhou and Mansoor Bayat-Shahbazi, Defendants. Thomas Ozere and Erin Durant, for the Respondent ENDORSEMENT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: Nkunda-Batware v. Zhou, 2016 ONSC 2942 COURT FILE NO.: 12-54505 DATE: 2016/05/02 RE: Beate Nkunda-Batware, Plaintiff AND Benyuan Zhou, Likang Zhou and Mansoor
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI [2017] NZHC 2279 THE QUEEN PATRICK DIXON
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI-2016-092-012355 [2017] NZHC 2279 THE QUEEN v PATRICK DIXON Hearing: 20 September 2017 Counsel: L P
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ATHENS COUNTY
[Cite as State v. Smith, 2008-Ohio-2061.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ATHENS COUNTY State of Ohio, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 07CA15 : v. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Mullen [2006] QCA 317 PARTIES: R V MULLEN, Todd Kenneth (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 175 of 2006 DC No 3220 of 2005 DC No 1341 of 2006 DC No 1512 of 2006 DC No
More informationEVAN RAMSEY, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
EVAN RAMSEY, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee. Court of Appeals No. A-8846, No. 4988 COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA June 15, 2005, Decided NOTICE: MEMORANDUM DECISIONS OF THIS COURT DO NOT CREATE LEGAL
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Uzsoki v McArthur [2007] QCA 401 PARTIES: KATHY UZSOKI (plaintiff/respondent) v JOHN McARTHUR (defendant/applicant) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 5896 of 2007 DC No 1699 of
More informationRobbery Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE
Robbery Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 2 Robbery street and less sophisticated commercial 3 Theft Act 1968 (section 8(1)) Robbery professionally planned commercial
More informationSexually Violent Predator Evaluations
California Department of Mental Health Sexually Violent Predator Evaluations An Introduction A reintroduction Ronald J. Mihordin, M.D., J.D., M.S.P. Acting Clinical Director Evaluation Service Sex Offender
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Welham & Martin [2012] QCA 103 PARTIES: R v WELHAM, Gavin Paul (applicant) R v MARTIN, Dianne Pearl (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 123 of 2011 CA No 129
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Kelly [2018] QCA 307 PARTIES: R v KELLY, Mark John (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 297 of 2017 DC No 1924 of 2017 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of
More informationScenario 1: domestic burglary (Theft Act 1968 (section 9))
Sentencing scenarios Use the sentencing guideline to decide what sentence each of these offenders should get. Scenario 1: domestic burglary (Theft Act 1968 (section 9)) Rachel is a second year university
More informationBRITISH COLUMBIA REVIEW BOARD
BRITISH COLUMBIA REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF PART XX.1 (Mental Disorder) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE R.S.C. 1985 c. C-46, as amended S.C. 2005 c. 22 REASONS FOR DISPOSITION IN THE MATTER OF PAUL GARNET BUGG
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re: Estate of Carrigan (deceased) [2018] QSC 206 PARTIES: In the Estate of GRANT PATRICK CARRIGAN, Deceased FILE NO/S: SC No 5708 of 2018 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING
More informationComing to a person s aid when off duty
Coming to a person s aid when off duty Everyone might, at times, be first on scene when someone needs assistance. Whether it s coming across a car accident, seeing someone collapse in the shops, the sporting
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, BENJAMIN LOVE DOB: 11/27/1972 5649 34TH AVE S #2 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55417 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationCITATION: Legal Services Commissioner v Wilson [2013] QCAT 307. Occupational regulation matters
CITATION: Legal Services Commissioner v Wilson [2013] QCAT 307 PARTIES: APPLICATION NUMBER: MATTER TYPE: HEARING DATE: HEARD AT: DECISION OF: Legal Services Commissioner (Applicant) v Alan Neil Wilson
More informationLindsay-Thompson v Montefiore Med. Ctr NY Slip Op 31761(U) August 19, 2015 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: /10 Judge: Douglas
Lindsay-Thompson v Montefiore Med. Ctr. 2015 NY Slip Op 31761(U) August 19, 2015 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 300113/10 Judge: Douglas E. McKeon Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationBEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F AAC RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSURANCE CARRIER OPINION FILED AUGUST 4, 2004
BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F011651 JENNINGS WRIGHT CRAWFORD COUNTY JUDGE AAC RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES INSURANCE CARRIER CLAIMANT RESPONDENT RESPONDENT OPINION FILED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC SHAUN JOHN BOLTON Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV-2016-409-000046 [2016] NZHC 1297 BETWEEN AND SHAUN JOHN BOLTON Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 14 June 2016 Appearances: D J
More informationTHE DEATH OF SAMMY YATIM AND THE TRIAL OF JAMES FORCILLO
THE DEATH OF SAMMY YATIM AND THE TRIAL OF JAMES FORCILLO Introduction In this resource you will learn about the death of Sammy Yatim and the criminal trial of Constable James Forcillo, the police officer
More informationTHE CONSTITUTION (SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR COURTS OF JUDICATURE) (PRACTICE) DIRECTIONS, 2013 ARRANGEMENT OF PARAGRAPHS
THE CONSTITUTION (SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR COURTS OF JUDICATURE) (PRACTICE) DIRECTIONS, 2013 Paragraph ARRANGEMENT OF PARAGRAPHS PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Title. 2. Application. 3. Objectives of these Practice
More informationHeavy Vehicle National Law and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018
Queensland QP Law Society Law Society House, 179 Ann Street, Brisbane Qld 4000, Australia GPO Box 1785, Brisbane Qld 4001 ABN 33 423 389 441 P 07 3842 5943 F 07 3221 9329 president@qls.com.au qls.com.au
More informationSS63/11-svs 1 SENTENCE 17/07/2012 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG)
SS63/11-svs 1 SENTENCE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG) In the matter between STATE CASE NO: SS63/11 20 versus RICHARD TSHIFHIWA LURULI Accused 1 MICHAEL KHOROMBI
More informationJUDGMENT. R v Smith (Appellant)
Trinity Term [2011] UKSC 37 On appeal from: [2010] EWCA Crim 530 JUDGMENT R v Smith (Appellant) before Lord Phillips, President Lord Walker Lady Hale Lord Collins Lord Wilson JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 20 July
More informationIN THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT. Before: DISTRICT JUDGE BROOKS. - and -
IN THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT No. B00BM862 Thomas Moore Building Royal Courts of Justice Thursday, 9 th July 2015 Before: DISTRICT JUDGE BROOKS B E T W E E N : ONE HOUSING GROUP LTD Claimant - and
More informationS G C. Assault and other offences against the person. Definitive Guideline. Sentencing Guidelines Council
S G C Sentencing Guidelines Council Assault and other offences against the person Definitive Guideline FOREWORD In accordance with section 170(9) of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003, the Sentencing
More informationCHILDRENS COURT New South Wales
CHILDRENS COURT New South Wales Citation: R v DI Hearing dates: 14 February 2012 Date of Decision: 15 February 2012 Jurisdiction: Place of Decision: Criminal Maclean Childrens Court Judgment of: Magistrate
More informationNo. 51,985-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *
Judgment rendered April 11, 2018. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 992, La. C. Cr. P. No. 51,985-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * STATE
More informationCrimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Act 2002 No 90
New South Wales Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 92 and other Acts 2 Schedules
More informationAppellant. JOHN DAVID WRIGHT Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA831/2013 [2014] NZCA 119 BETWEEN AND THE QUEEN Appellant JOHN DAVID WRIGHT Respondent Hearing: 12 March 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild, Goddard and Clifford
More informationSentencing Act Examinable excerpts of PART 1 PRELIMINARY. 1 Purposes
Examinable excerpts of Sentencing Act 1991 as at 10 April 2018 1 Purposes PART 1 PRELIMINARY The purposes of this Act are (a) to promote consistency of approach in the sentencing of offenders; (b) to have
More informationS18A1394. FAVORS v. THE STATE. a jury found him guilty of malice murder and other crimes in connection with
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 4, 2019 S18A1394. FAVORS v. THE STATE. BETHEL, Justice. Dearies Favors appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial after a jury found him guilty of
More informationNumber 11 of 2006 CRIMINAL LAW (INSANITY) ACT 2006 REVISED. Updated to 3 November 2014
Number 11 of CRIMINAL LAW (INSANITY) ACT REVISED Updated to 3 November 2014 This Revised Act is an administrative consolidation of the. It is prepared by the Law Reform Commission in accordance with its
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 informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: The Queen v Hall [2018] QSC 101 PARTIES: THE QUEEN v GRAHAM WILLIAM McKENZIE HALL (defendant) FILE NO: Indictment No 0348/18 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationCourt of Appeals. Slip Opinion
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Cornwall [2005] QCA 345 PARTIES: R v CORNWALL, Jason Colin (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 156 of 2005 DC No 147 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: SC DCA case no.: 5D CR Respondent. /
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: SC02-2622 DCA case no.: 5D01-957 COURTNEY MITCHELL, Circuit court case no.: CR99-9872 Respondent. / ON REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT
More informationS G C. Reduction in Sentence. for a Guilty Plea. Definitive Guideline. Sentencing Guidelines Council
S G C Sentencing Guidelines Council Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea Definitive Guideline Revised 2007 FOREWORD One of the first guidelines to be issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council related
More informationMEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY. EFFECTIVE DATE: 7 January 1999 PAGE 1 OF 9
MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY AND PROCEDURE # 91 SUBJECT: Domestic Violence EFFECTIVE DATE: 7 January 1999 PAGE 1 OF 9 REVIEW DATE: 30 November 2017 APPROVED:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Bingham [2004] QCA 166 PARTIES: R v BINGHAM, Rhett Adrian (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 76 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: DELIVERED
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Greenwood [2002] QCA 360 PARTIES: R v GREENWOOD, Mark (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 68 of 2002 DC No 351 of 2001 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case Number BC v. Honorable David M.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION WENDY L. GALLIEN, Plaintiff, Case Number 00-10370-BC v. Honorable David M. Lawson COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
More informationH 7024 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D
LC000 01 -- H 0 S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY JANUARY SESSION, A.D. 01 A N A C T RELATING TO LABOR AND LABOR RELATIONS -- HEALTHY WORKPLACE Introduced By: Representatives O'Brien,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, AD 2014 (Criminal Jurisdiction) INDICTMENT NO C82/05
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, AD 2014 (Criminal Jurisdiction) Central District INDICTMENT NO C82/05 THE QUEEN and JAMIE DAWSON BEFORE: Hon. Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin July 28 & August 12, 2014. Appearances:
More informationComparative Criminal Law 6. Defences
Comparative Criminal Law 6 Defences 11.03.2013 Content Defenses. Infringement. Guilt. Corporate responsibility. Two, three or more elements? Actus reus and mens rea (-defenses) Actus reus, infringement
More information