IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI CRI [2015] NZHC 1127 TAFFY TE WHIWHI MIHINUI TRACY-LEE ENOKA
|
|
- Camilla Irene Lamb
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI CRI [2015] NZHC 1127 TAFFY TE WHIWHI MIHINUI TRACY-LEE ENOKA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE Hearing: 18 May 2015 Appearances: Cate Andersen for the Appellants Jasper Rhodes for the Crown Judgment: 26 May 2015 JUDGMENT OF MOORE J This judgment was delivered by me on 26 May 2015 at 11:00am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules. Registrar/ Deputy Registrar Date: MIHINUI & ANOR v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 1127 [26 May 2015]
2 [1] Mr Mihinui and Ms Enoka each pleaded guilty to one charge of possessing a non-approved psychoactive substance for supply contrary to s 70(1)(c) of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 ( the Act ). They appeal against their convictions on the ground that the Judge was wrong to find the substance in their possession was psychoactive. Preliminary jurisdictional issue [2] Their pleas follow the delivery of a reserved decision of Judge Bidois in which, in relation to the case against Ms Enoka, he concluded that the substances in question were psychoactive. 1 It appears that the hearing before Judge Bidois was in the nature of a pre-trial ruling with the Court having before it witness statements from scientific experts on the question of the psychoactive qualities of the material in question. In argument before me it was initially submitted that this was a pre-trial evidential determination. However, in the course of fuller oral submissions it emerged the argument before Judge Bidois was conducted more in the nature of a no case to answer submission and on that basis his Honour heard the argument and reserved his decision. [3] Prior to the passing of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 ( the CPA ) the powers of the Court to deal with the dismissal of indictable and summary charges was quite different. However, under the CPA, the previously variegated scheme has been replaced with a unitary approach to the dismissal of charges regardless of their category. All dismissals are dealt with under s 147 of the CPA. [4] This power may be exercised either before or during the trial. The question in the present inquiry is what rights of appeal exist once a decision is made under s 147. [5] Certain pre-trial decisions may be appealed pursuant to ss 215, 217 and 218 of the CPA. Section 215 deals with the right of appeal against certain pre-trial evidential decisions in Judge-alone cases. However, the section does not grant a 1 Police v Enoka [2015] NZDC 454.
3 right of appeal against decisions under s 147. Sections 217 and 218 apply only to jury trials. [6] It follows that Part 6, subpart 2, of the CPA does not provide the jurisdiction for an appeal against Judge Bidois decision. [7] Section 296 of the CPA provides the jurisdiction to appeal on a question of law only. This section expressly recognises a right of appeal on a question of law on a decision under s 147, provided only that the appeal does not arise from a jury verdict and has not previously been appealed under subpart 2 (which does not grant a right of appeal against s 147). [8] As such, where a pre-trial determination has been made under s 147 of the CPA, an appeal may be brought on a question of law under s 196 of the CPA. Where such an appeal is brought the Court may exercise the powers set out in s 300(1) of the CPA. These include confirming the ruling, 2 setting aside the conviction and entering an acquittal, 3 directing a new trial, 4 varying or substituting the sentence or remitting the sentence to the sentencing Court with directions, 5 remitting the matter to the trial Court in accordance with the opinion of the appeal Court 6 or making any other order that the Court considers justice requires 7. [9] In the present case a further route of appeal exists through ss of the CPA by way of an appeal against conviction. Such appeals are to be determined under s 232 which provides as follows: 232 First appeal court to determine appeal (1) A first appeal court must determine a first appeal under this subpart in accordance with this section. (2) The first appeal court must allow a first appeal under this subpart if satisfied that, Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 300(1)(a). Section 300(1)(b)(i). Section 300(1)(b)(ii). Section 300(1)(c). Section 300(1)(d). Section 300(1)(e).
4 (b) (c) in the case of a Judge-alone trial, the Judge erred in his or her assessment of the evidence to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice has occurred; or in any case, a miscarriage of justice has occurred for any reason. (3) The first appeal court must dismiss a first appeal under this subpart in any other case. (4) In subsection (2), miscarriage of justice means any error, irregularity, or occurrence in or in relation to or affecting the trial that (a) (b) has created a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected; or has resulted in an unfair trial or a trial that was a nullity. (5) In subsection (4), trial includes a proceeding in which the appellant pleaded guilty. [10] This section expressly provides that the defendant may appeal following a guilty plea. In such a case, the appeal must be based on s 232(2)(c). The defendant must appeal on the basis that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. The section frames this ground of appeal in the widest possible terms. It plainly encompasses the situation where a miscarriage justice results from pre-trial decision on a question of law. [11] This was one of the possible grounds for a finding of a miscarriage of justice in the Court of Appeal s decision in R v Le Page 8. There the Court of Appeal observed: It is only in exceptional circumstances that an appeal against conviction will be entertained following entry of a plea of guilty. An appellant must show that a miscarriage of justice will result if his conviction is not overturned. Where the appellant fully appreciated the merits of his position, and made an informed decision to plead guilty, the conviction cannot be impugned. These principles find expression in numerous decisions of this Court, of which R v Stretch 9 and R v Ripia 10 are examples R v Le Page [2005] 2 NZLR 845 (CA) at [16] to [19]. R v Stretch [1982] 1 NZLR (CA). R v Ripia [1985] 1 NZLR 122 (CA).
5 [12] An incorrect decision under s 147 which leads to a defendant pleading guilty would be covered by the third category under Le Page. 11 [13] I am satisfied that the present appeal may be determined under s 232 of the CPA. In such an appeal the Court enjoys extensive powers in the event of a successful appeal. These include setting aside the conviction in which case the Court is required to make specified consequential orders. [14] By way of conclusion, while the jurisdiction to appeal against a pre-trial decision generally does not apply to decisions under s 147 there are, nonetheless, two rights of appeal which exist to assist the appellants in the present case. The first, which applies immediately from the time when the decision is made, is an appeal on a question of law pursuant to s 296 of the CPA. The second, which applies at any time after the defendant is convicted as a result of the decision, is an appeal against conviction pursuant to s 229 of the CPA. In either case, the appellate Court has the power to uphold the decision, to remit it to the trial Court for a re-determination or to acquit the appellant. [15] Mr Mihinui s and Ms Enoka s defence before Judge Bidois was that the prosecution had not proved that the plant material found in their possession met the definition of a psychoactive substance. They did not challenge possession or the purpose of supply. Judge Bidois determined that the Police had satisfied him that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the material seized was, in fact, a psychoactive substance. As a consequence of this finding Mr Mihinui and Ms Enoka pleaded guilty. [16] I am satisfied that an appeal from this determination satisfies the requirements of s 232(2)(b) in that the appellants challenge is that the Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice occurred and, accordingly, I proceed on the basis that this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal. 11 R v Le Page, above n 8, at [19].
6 Background [17] The charges faced by Mr Mihinui and Ms Enoka arise from a Police search as a result of which a significant quantity of synthetic cannabis was located. Neither Mr Mihinui nor Ms Enoka has denied possession nor that they intended selling the material in question. The sole issue on this appeal is whether the material is a psychoactive substance within the meaning of s 9 of the Act. [18] Two matters arise. (a) First, what was the active ingredient in the items found in Mr Mihinui and Ms Enoka s possession? (b) Secondly, does that ingredient meet the definition of a psychoactive substance? [19] In support of the charges in the District Court the Crown filed a witness statement from a scientist attached to the drugs group of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited ( ESR ). That report concluded that the plant material found in the possession of Mr Mihinui and Ms Enoka weighed 13.5 grams and contained the synthetic cannabinoids known as JWH-018 and JWH [20] The Crown also filed a brief of evidence from Dr Jessamine, a registered medical practitioner who, in July 2013, was seconded to the team at the Ministry of Health charged with developing a regulatory scheme to support legislation allowing the sale of psychoactive substances in New Zealand. He provided regulatory advice to the policy team responsible for amending the Act and, in May 2014, took over responsibility for the administration of the Act and its associated regulations. [21] In his brief he stated that the Act came into force on 18 July Its purpose was to regulate the availability of psychoactive substances in New Zealand. He described how the Act set up the system of pre-market approval for psychoactive products by requiring applicants to demonstrate that the products posed no more than
7 a low risk of harm to the individual who used them and by placing restrictions on how and to whom they can be sold. [22] Dr Jessamine described JWH-018 and JWH-200 as analgesic chemicals which act as synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists. 12 He confirmed that both substances contained chemicals which mimic the effect of THC, the active ingredient of cannabis. He said that they act on the receptors of the brain to produce a psychoactive effect on the mind of the individual using the substance. [23] He confirmed that the substances fit the description of a psychoactive substance under the Act as they are capable of producing a psychoactive effect as defined in the Act. [24] His brief also made mention of the fact the chemicals concerned were previously banned under the Temporary Class Drug Notice ( the Temporary Notice ) issued by the Associate Minister of Health under the Misuse of Drugs Act Decision of Judge Bidois [25] The hearing before Judge Bidois turned on whether the items were psychoactive substances under the Act. In answering this question, his Honour considered the background and purpose to the legislation and referred, on more than occasion, to the reverse onus which the Act has created for manufacturers who wish to sell psychoactive products. Under the Act, such manufacturers are required to satisfy the Ministry of Health that the risk of harm from their product is low before it will be permitted for sale. This regime operates in substitution for its predecessor which required banned substances to be gazetted as such. The difficulty with that regime was that it was cumbersome and inflexible. The former regime failed to keep abreast of the rapidly evolving nature of psychoactive substances. It was not possible to future proof the former regime from new substances developed to avoid the classifications. The new regime places the onus on the manufacturer or vendor to satisfy the Ministry of Health the substance should be gazetted as an exception to the general prohibition on the sale of psychoactive substances. 12 A synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist is a chemical which binds to the same cannabinoid receptors in the brain as THC to produce a biological response.
8 [26] His Honour rejected an argument that the repeal of the Temporary Notice led to the conclusion that JWH-018 and JWH-200 are not psychoactive. Instead, Judge Bidois considered the evidence of Dr Jessamine as to the effects of these chemicals and concluded that they were psychoactive within the meaning of the Act. [27] He then considered an argument that the plant material was excluded from the definition of the Act because they were herbal remedies. His Honour adopted a purposive interpretation of this exclusion, concluding that the legislation was intended to ban precisely this kind of product and thus the exclusion should not be construed widely enough to avoid that effect. [28] His Honour concluded that the Police had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy him that the material seized were psychoactive substances. Appellant s submissions [29] Ms Andersen, for Mr Mihinui and Ms Enoka, advanced four arguments on appeal, namely: (a) the Judge wrongly applied a reverse onus in determining whether the items were psychoactive; (b) his Honour wrongly relied on the Temporary Notice to conclude that the items were psychoactive; (c) the effects of JWH-018 and JWH-200 do not justify those substances being defined as psychoactive; and (d) the substances fall within the herbal remedies exclusion to the Act. [30] I shall turn to consider each of these issues. Reverse onus [31] The Act created a new regime for psychoactive drugs. As noted earlier, under the previous statutory regime a substance was only prohibited if it was specifically
9 identified by the Associate Minister of Health and notified in a Temporary Drug Class Notice issued under the Misuse of Drugs Act However, under the new regime, any psychoactive substance is presumptively banned unless and until the manufacturer is able to satisfy the Ministry of Health that it carries with it only a low risk of harm. Unsurprisingly, some substances which meet the definition of psychoactive have been specifically excluded from the Act. These include alcohol and tobacco. [32] This reserve onus was identified by the Judge in his decision. He used this expression to explain the background to the approval process and the nature of the new statutory scheme. It is clear from reading the judgment as a whole that if the material in question was psychoactive the substances would be banned under the Act. [33] Ms Andersen submits that it can be inferred the Judge wrongly applied a reverse onus to the question of whether the items seized were psychoactive substances. The consequence of this submission is that inferentially his Honour required the appellants to prove the substances were not psychoactive. [34] I do not agree. It is plain from reading the whole of the judgment that the references the Judge made to the reverse onus were made in the context of explaining how the new statutory regime operates and, in particular, the obligations placed on manufacturers to satisfy the Associate Minister of Health that a particular psychoactive substance carries with it only a low risk of harm. He did not apply a reserve onus to the question of whether the product in question was psychoactive and a reading of the judgment as a whole conveys this. [35] This ground of appeal must fail. Temporary Notice [36] Ms Andersen submits that Judge Bidois conclusion that the seized items were psychoactive wrongly relied on the now repealed Temporary Drug Class Notice. In oral argument before me it emerged that this submission s origin is to be found in Dr Jessamine s brief of evidence which refers to the Temporary Notice.
10 [37] As I understood Ms Andersen s submission it was that the Court cannot now rely on a repealed document in determining whether a particular substance is psychoactive. Ms Andersen submits that this determination must be made without reference to the former statutory scheme. She submits that this is a necessary consequence of Parliament s decision to abandon the former approach requiring prohibited substances to be specified in schedules. [38] I cannot agree. While I am not convinced that the fact a drug was previously banned by a Temporary Notice is irrelevant, I am satisfied that in the present case neither the Judge nor Dr Jessamine relied on the Temporary Notice to justify their conclusions that JWH-018 and JWH-200 are psychoactive. [39] Dr Jessamine s evidence dealt with the manufacture, composition and effect of synthetic cannabinoids, including JWH-018 and JWH-200. In describing these chemicals the doctor set out their full organic/chemical names and description. In explaining the properties of JWH-018 he described it as: An analgesic chemical that acts as a full agonist at both CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors, with some selectivity for CB2. [40] He described JWH-200 as: An analgesic chemical that acts as a cannabinoid receptor agonist. Its binding affinity at the CB1 receptor is around the same as that of THC. [41] This is plainly a description of the chemical and pharmacological qualities of the substances and what parts of the human brain they affect. References to recent studies and literature were cited. [42] Dr Jessamine also described the pharmacological effect of the chemicals saying: The agonistic activity of synthetic cannabinoids on the CB1 receptor is responsible for elevating mood and inducing a feeling of well-being, thereby meeting the definition of psychoactive effect outlined in section 8 of the Act. Some users have reported effects similar to or even stronger than those obtained by smoking cannabis, such as physical relaxation, changes in perception and mild euphoria.
11 [43] Again, Dr Jessamine referred to recent studies. He also made reference to the various adverse effects of synthetic cannabinoids including: disconnection from thoughts, feelings, memories and sense of identity agitation, anxiety and paranoia and psychosis, sometimes lasting for several days. [44] It was on the basis of this analysis that Dr Jessamine concluded that the chemicals in question were psychoactive. While he also provided a helpful summary of the legal status and history of both JWH-018 and JWH-200, including their previous status under the notices, this did not form part of his analysis when he concluded that both substances fitted the definition of a psychoactive substance under the Act. It is plain that his opinion was based on his expertise, his research and the academic literature appended as references to his brief of evidence. While in the course of his description he referred to the Temporary Notices I am satisfied that this was only to provide context. His opinion was not predicated or reliant on the previous classifications. [45] I am equally satisfied that the Judge did not rely on the Temporary Notices in determining that the chemicals are psychoactive substances. While the Judge did make reference to the previous status of the chemicals, he relied, independently, on the evidence of Dr Jessamine as to the effects of those chemicals. In particular he referred to the definition of a psychoactive substance in terms of s 9(1) of the Act, namely a substance, mixture, preparation, article, device, or thing that is capable of inducing a psychoactive effect (by any means) in an individual. The definition of psychoactive effect is to be found in s 8 of the Act and it was in this context his Honour quoted Dr Jessamine in the following fashion: 13 Given Dr Jessamine s description of effect, being elevated mood and inducing a feeling of well-being, in my view this meets the definition of a psychoactive substance in s 8 and this argument must fail. [46] It follows that this ground of appeal must also fail. 13 R v Enoka, above n 1, at [23].
12 Psychoactive effect [47] Ms Andersen submits that even if I was to conclude that Judge Bidois did not rely on the Temporary Notices in reaching his decision he was, nonetheless, in error when he determined that the chemicals were psychoactive. In the course of oral argument before me it became clear that the essence of this submission relies on the circular nature of the definitions found in ss 8 and 9 of the Act. Section 9 provides that a substance is psychoactive if it has a psychoactive effect. Section 8 provides that a psychoactive effect is one which is produced when a person consumes a psychoactive substance. [48] While I agree with Ms Andersen this definition is circular it does not preclude the Court from giving effect to its obvious intended meaning. It is generally accepted that words and statutes should be given their ordinary and natural meaning having regard to the purposes of the Act in which they are contained. This Act is no exception. [49] Whether a substance is psychoactive depends on the effect it has on the consciousness or mind of the individual who consumes it. The language is deliberately broad. It encompasses a wide range of effects. I am satisfied that elevated moods and a feeling of well-being are descriptions of mood change sufficient to meet the definition, particularly given the comments of Dr Jessamine in relation to the similarity between cannabis and the substances in question. [50] It follows I have no doubt that JWH-018 and JWH-200 are psychoactive substances for the purposes of s 9 of the Act. [51] This ground of appeal must also thus fail. Herbal remedy [52] Ms Andersen s final submission is that even if I was to find that the chemicals were psychoactive substances under the Act they are caught by the herbal remedy exception.
13 [53] Section 9 defines psychoactive substances which are prohibited by the Act. However, subsection 3 also provides for certain categories of psychoactive substances which are exempted from this ban. Relevant to the present enquiry is subsection 3(h) which provides that a substance is not psychoactive if it is a herbal remedy within the meaning given to that term under s 2(1) of the Medicines Act The relevant portion of the Medicines Act is as follows: herbal remedy means a medicine (not being or containing a prescription medicine, or a restricted medicine, or a pharmacy-only medicine) consisting of (a) (b) (c) any substance produced by subjecting a plant to drying, crushing, or any other similar process; or a mixture comprising 2 or more such substances only; or a mixture comprising 1 or more such substances with water or ethyl alcohol or any inert substance. [54] Ms Andersen submits that the plant material seized falls within paragraph (b) of the definition, being: A mixture comprising two or more such substances only [55] In Dr Jessamine s brief he explained how products of this kind are manufactured. The plant material which provides the base of the product is a herb with inert qualities. Plants such as damiana or verbascum are frequently used. These are not psychoactive in themselves but becomes so when they are sprayed or dipped in a solvent containing the active ingredient. [56] Ms Andersen does not dispute that the seized material was produced or manufactured in this fashion. The question is whether the mixture described in paragraph (b) of the definition refers to a mixture comprised of two different herbal remedies or whether it includes a mixture of a herbal remedy with any other substance. Ms Andersen submits the second interpretation is to be preferred. [57] In my view such an interpretation is strained. It is plain that through the use of the word such in the phrase such substances, only those substances which would otherwise satisfy the definition of a herbal remedy will satisfy the subsection.
14 Paragraph (b) is intended to protect mixtures of herbal remedies. It is not designed to allow for sale any substance which is mixed with a herbal remedy. [58] I consider this ground of appeal must also fail. Result [59] For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed. Moore J Solicitors: Ms Andersen, Tauranga Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC 923. LEE RUTH ANDERSON Applicant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI-2015-404-000039 [2015] NZHC 923 BETWEEN AND LEE RUTH ANDERSON Applicant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 28 April 2015 Appearances: D Schellenberg
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC PAUL ANDREW HAMPTON Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2014-463-000062 [2014] NZHC 2423 PAUL ANDREW HAMPTON Appellant v Hearing: 1 October 2014 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Appearances: Rebecca Plunket
More informationSupplementary Order Paper
No 0 PCO 15129-4/1.29 Drafted by Leigh Talamaivao IN CONFIDENCE House of Representatives Supplementary Order Paper Tuesday, 18 August 2015 Key: Natural Health Products Bill Proposed amendments for the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC Appellant. DENNIS MAX HAUNUI Respondent.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2015-409-63 [2015] NZHC 2456 BETWEEN AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE Appellant DENNIS MAX HAUNUI Respondent CRI-2015-485-52 BETWEEN AND PATRICK MILLER
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Williams, Venning and Mander JJ. A G V Rogers, M H McIvor and J Kim for Appellant M H Cooke for Respondent
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2012] NZHC TIMOTHY KYLE GARNHAM Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2012-485-000098 [2012] NZHC 3447 BETWEEN AND TIMOTHY KYLE GARNHAM Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 18 December 2012 Counsel: D A
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC MITCHELL DUDGEON MCLEISH Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2015-409-000048 [2015] NZHC 1610 BETWEEN AND MITCHELL DUDGEON MCLEISH Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 9 July 2015 Appearances:
More informationRULES OF THE SPORTS TRIBUNAL OF NEW ZEALAND 2012
RULES OF THE SPORTS TRIBUNAL OF NEW ZEALAND 2012 AS AMENDED ON 6 MARCH 2012 Please check Sports Tribunal website for any updates to the Rules of the Sports Tribunal At the date of printing, these Rules
More informationI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA116/2017 [2018] NZCA 477. CHRISTOPHER ROBERT HALPIN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY SS 203 AND 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CIV [2017] NZHC 56. JOANNE MIHINUI, MATATAHI MIHINUI, TANIA MIHINUI Appellants
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CIV-2016-463-000181 [2017] NZHC 56 UNDER the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of an appeal from a decision of the District Court
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA364/2015 [2016] NZCA 469 BETWEEN AND DEAN JOHN DREVER Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 22 September 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Brown and Brewer
More informationNAMSDL Case Law Update
In This Issue This issue of the NAMSDL Case Law Update focuses on several recent federal and state court decisions involving defendants accused of manufacturing and/or selling novel psychoactive substances.
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TOKOROA CRI [2017] NZDC NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor. BANABA KAITAI Defendant
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TOKOROA CRI-2016-063-004445 [2017] NZDC 6093 NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor v BANABA KAITAI Defendant Hearing: 22 March 2017 Appearances:
More informationLEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
12 MARCH 2010 ATTORNEY-GENERAL LEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL 1. We have considered whether the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill ( the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC FEDERATED FARMERS OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CIV-2015-488-0064 [2016] NZHC 2036 UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of an appeal from a decision of the Environment Court
More informationCriminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2010
Digest No. 1819 Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2010 Date of Introduction: 15 November 2010 Portfolio: Select Committee: Published: 18 November 2010 by John McSoriley BA LL.B, Barrister,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC CHANTELL PENE NGATIKAI Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI 2014-004-000413 [2014] NZHC 3294 BETWEEN AND CHANTELL PENE NGATIKAI Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 16 December 2014 Appearances:
More informationBE it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with
Act No. 16, 1912. An Act to establish a court of criminal appeal; to amend the law relating to appeals in criminal cases ; to provide for better consideration of petitions of convicted persons ; to amend
More informationSUPREME COURT OF YUKON
SUPREME COURT OF YUKON Citation: Yukon Human Rights Commission v. Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication, Property Management Agency and Yukon Government, 2009 YKSC 44 Date: 20090501 Docket No.: 08-AP004
More informationAPPEARANCES Mr E J Hudson for the Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee No 2 Mr P F Gorringe for Mr XXXX
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2010] NZLCDT 14 LCDT 025/09 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN WAIKATO BAY OF PLENTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE No.2 Applicant
More informationNo. 107,660 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ERIC WAYNE SRACK, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 107,660 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ERIC WAYNE SRACK, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. To guarantee constitutional due process of law, a criminal
More informationTHE QUEEN JOHN MICHAEL COCKER. Counsel: K Stone for the Crown I M Antunovic for the Accused
NOT RECOMMENDED IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CRI-2004-085-1865 WELLINGTON REGISTRY THE QUEEN JOHN MICHAEL COCKER Counsel: K Stone for the Crown I M Antunovic for the Accused Sentencing: 15 October
More informationJOEL DYLAN BOWLIN Applicant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Harrison, Fogarty and Dobson JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
23 April 2015 at 8 am - DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA686/2014 [2015] NZCA 137 BETWEEN AND JOEL DYLAN BOWLIN Applicant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 5 March 2015 Court: Counsel: Judgment:
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV [2017] NZHC UNDER the Insolvency Act 2006 PRESCOTT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV-2017-404-1097 [2017] NZHC 2701 UNDER the Insolvency Act 2006 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the bankruptcy
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI [2018] NZHC 596. UNDER the Criminal Procedure Act 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CRI-2017-404-000402 [2018] NZHC 596 UNDER the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 BETWEEN AND DERMOT GREGORY NOTTINGHAM
More informationCHAPTER 113A CRIMINAL APPEAL
1 L.R.O. 2002 Criminal Appeal CAP. 113A CHAPTER 113A CRIMINAL APPEAL ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION CITATION 1. Short title. INTERPRETATION 2. Definitions. PART I CRIMINAL APPEALS FROM HIGH COURT 3. Right
More information1. Short title and application 2. Interpretation. 21. Regulations
VOLUME: XIII DRUGS AND RELATED SUBSTANCES CHAPTER: 63:04 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I Preliminary SECTION 1. Short title and application 2. Interpretation PART II Control over Drugs PART III Habit-Forming
More informationCriminal Appeal Act 1968
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 CHAPTER 19 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES Appeal against conviction on indictment Section 1. Right of appeal. 2. Grounds for allowing
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 informationLCDT 015/10. of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1. Applicant. BRETT DEAN RAVELICH, of Auckland, Barrister
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2011] NZLCDT 11 LCDT 015/10 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 Applicant AND BRETT
More informationCITY OF COMMERCE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF COMMERCE, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COMMERCE, TEXAS, PROHIBITING THE SALE OR DELIVERY OF RESTRICTED SMOKING MATERIALS TO INDIVIDUALS BELOW THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE (21); PROHIBITING
More informationCRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (APPEALS) AMENDMENT ACT
South Australia CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (APPEALS) AMENDMENT ACT 1995 No. 90 of 1995 SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Amendmem of s. 348-Interpretation 4. Amendmem of s. 350-Questions
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 11, 2005 V No. 253449 Kalkaska Circuit Court EUGENE EDWARD ABRAMCZYK, LC No. 03-002323-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC Plaintiff. AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-002795 [2016] NZHC 1199 BETWEEN AND ALWYNE JONES Plaintiff AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant Hearing: 29 February 2016 Appearances: R Pidgeon for
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2016-485-60 [2016] NZHC 2359 BETWEEN AND MATTHEW BROWN Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 3 October 2016 Appearances: Appellant in
More informationTitle 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE
Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE Chapter 2: CRIMINAL LIABILITY; ELEMENTS OF CRIMES Table of Contents Part 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES... Section 31. VOLUNTARY CONDUCT (REPEALED)... 3 Section 32. ELEMENTS OF CRIMES
More informationINTERVIEWING JURORS CASEWORK POLICY. Table of Contents
INTERVIEWING JURORS CASEWORK POLICY Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Section 20D Juries Act 1974... 2 Section 8(1) Contempt of Court Act 1981... 3 The Court of Appeal... 4 Procedure to be followed when
More informationIsobel Kennedy, SC Law Library
8 th ANNUAL NATIONAL PROSECUTORS CONFERENCE SATURDAY, 19 MAY 2007 DUBLIN CASTLE CONFERENCE CENTRE Isobel Kennedy, SC Law Library ~ Defence of Diminished Responsibility 1.GENERAL 8 th Annual National Prosecutors
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC Plaintiff. THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND First Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2016-404-000544 [2016] NZHC 2237 UNDER THE Judicature Amendment Act 1972, Section 4 BETWEEN AND KARL NUKU Plaintiff THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND
More informationPROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT
PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT CHAPTER 11:27 Act 55 of 2000 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1 79.. -/ L.R.O. -/ 2 Ch. 11:27 Proceeds of Crime Note on Subsidiary Legislation Note
More informationTrade Marks Act (2) If this Act does not commence under subsection (1) before 1 January. No. 156 of An Act relating to trade marks
Trade Marks Act 1994 No. 156 of 1994 An Act relating to trade marks The Parliament of Australia enacts: [Assented to 13 December 1994] PART 1--PRELIMINARY Short title L This Act may be cited as the Trade
More informationCriminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill
Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill Submission of the New Zealand Police Association Submitted to the Justice and Electoral Committee 18 February 2011 Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation)
More informationBEFORE THE APPEALS COUNCIL OF THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
BEFORE THE APPEALS COUNCIL OF THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS IN THE MATTER OF a n appeal against a determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: British Columbia (Ministry of Justice) v. Maddock, 2015 BCSC 746 Date: 20150423 Docket: 14-3365 Registry: Victoria In the matter of the decisions of the
More informationPROJET DE LOI ENTITLED. The Medicines (Human and Veterinary) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2008 * [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE
PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED The Medicines (Human and Veterinary) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2008 * [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE This consolidated version of the enactment incorporates all amendments listed in
More informationRacial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001
Authorised Version No. 011 Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 Authorised Version incorporating amendments as at 1 August 2011 Section TABLE OF PROVISIONS Page PART 1 PRELIMINARY 2 1 Purposes 2 2 Commencement
More informationAPPLICATIONS FOR MINISTERIAL REVIEW MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE ANNUAL REPORT 2018 MINISTER OF JUSTICE
APPLICATIONS FOR MINISTERIAL REVIEW MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE ANNUAL REPORT 2018 MINISTER OF JUSTICE Information contained in this publication or product may be reproduced, in part or in whole, and by any
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC 2483 BETWEEN. Plaintiff
NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 437A OF THE CHILDREN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND THEIR FAMILIES ACT 1989, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2017] NZHC AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2016-404-2311 [2017] NZHC 1392 BETWEEN AND SAMSON CORPORATION LIMITED AND STERLING NOMINEES LIMITED Appellants AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Hearing:
More informationPROTOCOL (No 3) ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
C 83/210 Official Journal of the European Union 30.3.2010 PROTOCOL (No 3) ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, DESIRING to lay down the Statute of
More informationBEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. Decision No: [2015] NZIACDT 79. Reference No: IACDT 020/14
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2015] NZIACDT 79 Reference No: IACDT 020/14 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA695/2014 [2016] NZCA 163 BETWEEN AND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC 81. Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent (ORAL) JUDGMENT OF FAIRE J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2014-463-95 [2015] NZHC 81 BETWEEN AND PETER BILL GRAY Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 4 February 2015 Counsel: M McGhie for appellant
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19)
COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19) IN exercise of the powers conferred on the Rules of Court Committee by Article 157(2) of the Constitution these Rules are made this 24th day of July, 1997. PART I-GENERAL
More informationCriminal Procedure Act, 1993
Criminal Procedure Act, 1993 Number 40 of 1993 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, 1993 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Interpretation. 2. Review by Court of Criminal Appeal of alleged miscarriage of justice or
More information2018 Bill. Fourth Session, 29th Legislature, 67 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 6
2018 Bill Fourth Session, 29th Legislature, 67 Elizabeth II THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA BILL 6 GAMING AND LIQUOR STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL First
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH First Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2014-404-2845 [2015] NZHC 3202 BETWEEN AMANDA ADELE WHITE First Plaintiff ANNE LEOLINE EMILY FREEMAN Second Plaintiff AND CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH
More informationAn Equal Opportunity Employer University Ave. SR, #530 Minneapolis, MN Telephone: (651) FAX: (651)
This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/sonar/sonar.asp MINNESOTA Bol
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF A BAIL APPLICATION. Between MARLON BOODRAM AND THE STATE RULING ON APPLICATION FOR BAIL
REBUPLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF A BAIL APPLICATION Between MARLON BOODRAM AND THE STATE Before the Hon. Mr. Justice Hayden A. St.Clair-Douglas Appearances
More informationSupplementary submission on the Patents Bill
New Zealand Law Society/. 3/! Supplementary submission on the Patents Bill This supplementary submission by the New Zealand Law Society (the NZLS) on the Patents Bill 1.1. addresses the implications of
More informationSTATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION This text contains the consolidated version of Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union,
More informationConsolidated text PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED. The Misuse of Drugs (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1974 [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE
PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED The Misuse of Drugs (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1974 [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE This consolidated version of the enactment incorporates all amendments listed in the footnote below.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Plaintiff. CLARE O'BRIEN First Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2013-485-5611 [2014] NZHC 2886 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND an application under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for declaratory relief
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1294 In the Supreme Court of the United States LAVA MARIE HAUGEN, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
More informationMisuse of Drugs Act 1971
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 CHAPTER 38 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs Section 1. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Controlled drugs and their classification
More informationCourt of Appeal Act Chapter C37 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria Arrangement of Sections. Part I General
Court of Appeal Act Chapter C37 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 Arrangement of Sections 1. Number of Justices of the Court of Appeal. Part I General 2. Salaries and allowances of President and Justices
More informationLegal Supplement Part A to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 39, No. 212, 1st November, 2000
Legal Supplement Part A to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 39, No. 212, 1st November, 2000 Fifth Session Fifth Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Act No. 55
More informationSmoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill [AS PASSED]
Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill [AS PASSED] CONTENTS Section PART 1 SMOKING: PROHIBITION AND CONTROL 1 Offence of permitting others to smoke in no-smoking premises 2 Offence of smoking
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Defendant-Appellant Kim Housholder was convicted by a jury of
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT November 8, 2016 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff - Appellee,
More informationAPPLICATIONS FOR MINISTERIAL REVIEW MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE ANNUAL REPORT 2014 MINISTER OF JUSTICE
S E R V I N G C A N A D I A N S APPLICATIONS FOR MINISTERIAL REVIEW MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE ANNUAL REPORT 2014 MINISTER OF JUSTICE S E S R E V R I V N I G N G C A C N A A N D A I D A I N A S N S Information
More informationTHE CHARTERED INSURANCE INSTITUTE Disciplinary Procedure Rules
THE CHARTERED INSURANCE INSTITUTE Disciplinary Procedure Rules Part 1 General Authority and Purpose 1.1 These Rules are made pursuant to The Chartered Insurance Institute Disciplinary Regulations 2015.
More informationREPUBLIC OF VANUATU BILL FOR THE PATENTS ACT NO. OF 1999
REPUBLIC OF VANUATU BILL FOR THE PATENTS ACT NO. OF 1999 Arrangement of Sections PART 1 PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS 1. Interpretation PART 2 PATENTABILITY 2. Patentable invention 3. Inventions not patentable
More informationANALYSIS. 30. Burden of proof. 36. Application of Customs Act Regulations. 38. Effect on Poisons Act Repeals. 1975, No.
1975, No. 116 Misuse of Drugs 863 ANALYSIS Title 1. Short Title and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Act to bind the Crown 4. Amendment of First, Second, and Third Schedules 5. Advisory and technical
More informationNumber 10 of 1999 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1999 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I. Preliminary and General. Section 1. Interpretation.
Section 1. Interpretation. Number 10 of 1999 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1999 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I Preliminary and General 2. Citation and commencement. 3. Expenses. PART II Amendments to Provide for
More informationREGULATION (EU) No 649/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 4 July 2012 concerning the export and import of hazardous chemicals
L 201/60 Official Journal of the European Union 27.7.2012 REGULATION (EU) No 649/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 4 July 2012 concerning the export and import of hazardous chemicals
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 information2010 No. 231 HEALTH CARE AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONS. The Pharmacy Order 2010
S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2010 No. 231 HEALTH CARE AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONS The Pharmacy Order 2010 Made - - - - 10th February 2010 Coming into force in accordance with article 1 1. Citation
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 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Sub-Registry-Tobago) BETWEEN AND. Ms. D. Christopher-Noel; Mr. R. Singh and Ms. G. Jackman instructed by Ms. F.
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV. No.2009-02631 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Sub-Registry-Tobago) BETWEEN VERNON AND REID Claimant HER WORSHIP THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE JOAN GILL Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
More informationBefore: LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE MRS JUSTICE ANDREWS DBE. - and - J U D G M E N T
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohi bit the publication
More informationDrugs: evidence, testing and valuation Policy
Drugs: evidence, testing and valuation Policy Policy summary West Yorkshire Police complies with Authorised Professional Practice (APP) which contains information to assist policing, and has established
More informationTable of Contents. CON-1 (Mental Disorder) (2013-3)
Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION... 1-1 1.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE... 1-1 (a) Pre-1992 Amendments... 1-1 (b) The Reform Movement... 1-4 (c) The Swain Decision... 1-6 (d) The 1992 Amendments: Part XX.1
More informationCHAPTER 120 JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE ARTICLE 1
CHAPTER 120 JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE NOTE: Chapter 120 provides procedural provisions relating to judgment and sentencing. For other provisions relating to the disposition of offenders, see 9 GCA Chapter
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Government Gazette REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Vol. 451 Cape Town 17 January 2003 No. 24279 THE PRESIDENCY No. 115 17 January 2003 It is hereby notified that the President has assented to the following Act,
More informationMEDICINES AND RELATED SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT BILL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MEDICINES AND RELATED SUBSTANCES AMENDMENT BILL (As introduced in the National Assembly (proposed section 7); explanatory summary of Bill published in Government Gazette No. 31114
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA254/2014 [2015]
More informationREPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT GAZETTE ACTS SUPPLEMENT. Published by Authority NO. 28] FRIDAY, DECEMBER 21 [2012 REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT GAZETTE ACTS SUPPLEMENT Published by Authority NO. 28] FRIDAY, DECEMBER 21 [2012 First published in the Government Gazette, Electronic Edition, on 20th December 2012 at
More informationHEALTH CARE AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONS DOCTORS. General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004
2004 No 2608 HEALTH CARE AND ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONS DOCTORS General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules Order of Council 2004 Made 4th October 2004 Laid before Parliament 7th October 2004 Coming
More informationJUDGMENT. R v Sally Lane and John Letts (AB and CD) (Appellants)
REPORTING RESTRICTIONS APPLY TO THIS CASE Trinity Term [2018] UKSC 36 On appeal from: [2017] EWCA Crim 129 JUDGMENT R v Sally Lane and John Letts (AB and CD) (Appellants) before Lady Hale, President Lord
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC UNDER the Defamation Act Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2014-404-001988 [2014] NZHC 2064 UNDER the Defamation Act 1992 BETWEEN AND RAZDAN RAFIQ Plaintiff THE SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS
More informationCHAPTER 53 PHARMACY AND POISONS ORDINANCE ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY PART II PHARMACY
2 CAP. 53 Pharmacy and Poisons LAWS OF CHAPTER 53 PHARMACY AND POISONS ORDINANCE ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY SECTION 1. Short title 2. Interpretation PART II PHARMACY 3. Qualification and
More information1980, No. 27 Evidence Amendment (No. 2) 173
1980, No. 27 Evidence Amendment (No. 2) 173 Title 1. Short Title, commencement, and application PART I ADMISSIBILITY OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE 2. Interpretation Documentary Hearsay Evidence 3. Admissibility
More informationSTATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (CONSOLIDATED VERSION)
STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (CONSOLIDATED VERSION) This text contains the consolidated version of Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union,
More informationDAVID KEITH SILBY Applicant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent. A J Ewing for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA428/2016 [2016] NZCA 592 BETWEEN AND DAVID KEITH SILBY Applicant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 18 October 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Cooper, Brewer
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION February 3, 2011 9:00 a.m. v No. 294682 Shiawassee Circuit Court LARRY STEVEN KING, LC No. 09-008600-FH
More informationLISTENING DEVICES ACT, 1984, No. 69
LISTENING DEVICES ACT, 1984, No. 69 NEW SOUTH WALES. TABLt OF PROVISIONS. J. Short title. 2. Commencement. 3. Interpretation. 4. Act to bind the Crown. PART I. PRELIMINARY. PART II. OFFENCES RELATING TO
More information1 von :12
1 von 6 14.10.2013 10:12 InfoCuria - Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs Startseite > Suchformular > Ergebnisliste > Dokumente Sprache des Dokuments : JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber) 26 September
More informationFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 No., 2018
0-0-0 The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Presented and read a first time Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions)
More informationThe Arbitration Act, 1992
1 The Arbitration Act, 1992 being Chapter A-24.1* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1992 (effective April 1, 1993) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1993, c.17; 2010, c.e-9.22; 2015, c.21; and
More information