THE SUPREME COURT PETER CREIGHTON AND
|
|
- Shavonne Cameron
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 THE SUPREME COURT APPEAL NUMBER 230/2009 HIGH COURT RECORD NUMBER 2003/13989p Fennelly J. O Donnell J. McKechnie J. BETWEEN PETER CREIGHTON PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT AND IRELAND, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY & LAW REFORM AND THE GOVERNOR OF WHEATFIELD PRISON DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Fennelly delivered the 27th day of October, The plaintiff/respondent was a prisoner in Wheatfield Prison on 19th January While he was in a confined area with others awaiting delivery of his needed supply of Methadone, he was the victim of a sudden, violent and unprovoked knife attack by a fellow prisoner. The plaintiff described the knife used in a way suggesting that it was similar to a proprietary type commonly known as a Stanley knife. He suffered serious wounds to his face, stomach and flank. He secured an award of 40,000 by the judgment of the High Court (White J) in respect of part only of his injuries. I will refer to him as the plaintiff. No question arises as to which of the various defendant/appellants was responsible for the care of the plaintiff in prison: I will describe them simply as the defendants. 2. The plaintiff presented his claim in the High Court with the support of the expert testimony of a former governor of a number of English prisons, Mr Roger Outram. Mr Outram made a number of criticisms of the care of prisoners in Wheatfield, principally that the system of control to prevent entry of dangerous knives into the prison was lax and that the area in which the prisoners were confined while awaiting delivery of Methadone was unduly crowded. The learned trial judge found it unnecessary to determine either the nature of the knife used or the extent of the overcrowding, if any. He concluded that the prison authorities could not reasonably have been expected to have been in a position to prevent an attack on the plaintiff. However, the learned judge had, on his own initiative, recalled Mr Outram following the conclusion of the evidence for both parties. He suggested to the witness that there should have been an additional prison officer within the area where the plaintiff was attacked. The witness agreed and the learned judge held that, if there had been such an additional supervising officer, there would probably have been an earlier intervention which would have lessened the extent of the injuries suffered. In short, the plaintiff would have suffered his head and facial injuries
2 but would probably have been saved the injuries to his flank and abdomen. He awarded damages on that basis. 3. These are the circumstances in which there is an appeal by the defendants against the award of 40,000 and a cross-appeal by the plaintiff against the rejection of the claim as he had presented it. 4. A sentence of imprisonment deprives a person of his right to personal liberty. Costello J explained in Murray v Ireland [1985] I.R. 532 at 542 that [w]hen the State lawfully exercises its power to deprive a citizen of his constitutional right to liberty many consequences result, including the deprivation of liberty to exercise many other constitutionally protected rights, which prisoners must accept. Nonetheless, the prisoner may continue to exercise rights which do not depend on the continuance of his personal liberty. I would say that among these rights is the right to personal autonomy and bodily integrity. Thus, it is common case that the state owes a duty to take reasonable care of the safety of prisoners detained in its prisons for the service of sentences lawfully imposed on them by the courts. This does not amount, however, to a guarantee that a prisoner will not be injured. (see Muldoon v Ireland [1988] I.L.R.M. 367 approved by the this Court in Bates v Minister for Justice and others [1998]). Prisons may, as an inevitable consequence of the character of persons detained, be dangerous places. Prisoners are entitled to expect that the authorities will take reasonable care to protect them from attack by fellow prisoners. What is reasonable will, as always, depend on the circumstances. As the cases recognise, prison authorities may have to tread a delicate line between the achievement of the objective of protecting the safety of prisoners and the risks of adopting unduly repressive and inhumane measures. They must balance the protective function and possible demand for intrusive searches against the need to permit prisoners an appropriate degree of freedom of movement and human dignity. Counsel for the plaintiff cited the following helpful passage from the judgment of Singleton L.J. in Ellis v Home Office [1953] 2 All ER 149 at 154: The duty on those responsible for one of Her Majesty s prisons is to take reasonable care for the safety of those who are within, and that includes those who are within against their wish or will, of whom the plaintiff was one. If it is proved that supervision is lacking, and that accused persons have access to instruments, and that an incident occurs of a kind such as might be anticipated, I think it might well be said that those who are responsible for the good government of the prison have failed to take reasonable care for the safety of those under their care. 5. That passage raises quite directly the principal issue which arises in the present case, namely whether the attack on the plaintiff was the result of a lack of care by the prison authorities insofar as a dangerous knife came into the possession of the plaintiff s assailant. 6. It is necessary, at this point, to return to consider the facts of the case in a little more detail.
3 7. Between 10 am and 11 am on 19th January 2003, a number of prisoners were awaiting delivery to them of Methadone from the prison pharmacy. The waiting area was some 50 to 55 long and 7 feet wide and was separated from the main adjoining corridor by a wall surmounted by bars or rails placed so as to permit observation by a prison officer in the corridor of prisoners within that area. The separated area was divided in turn into four successive rectangular areas, called A, B, C and D, which came to be called "cages," probably because they were separated by barred gates. The pharmacy adjoined area A. Prisoners were admitted to area D and moved through to area B, prior to admission, one by one, to area A, which adjoined the pharmacy. 8. There was controversy about whether prisoners were confined to area B (approximately 7 feet by fourteen feet) or had the entire of areas B, C and D available. This was not resolved. There was also some disagreement about the total number of prisoners who were in the area. The plaintiff said there were about twenty. The prison officers said there were ten to fifteen. 9. Within area A were two prison officers: Mr David Hughes had the task of admitting one prisoner at a time from area B to area A; Ms Sharon Murray was to verify identity, see that the prisoner received his Methadone through a hatch from one of the prison nurses in the pharmacy and that he took it and then to allow him back to the main corridor before the next prisoner was admitted. In the corridor was Prison Officer Hickey. 10. The plaintiff gave evidence that he was sitting or crouching on a bench in area B. There were about twenty prisoners there; it was packed and the gate from area C was locked. He felt something coming from behind. He fell on the ground and his attacker, whom he identified as Jeffrey Mitchel, a fellow prisoner, cut and slit his face from his nose and behind his ear into the scalp; he then cut his stomach: he just kept sliding the blade along my skin. Following his scream for help, Officer Hughes opened the gate to area A and Officer Hickey came in and dragged the plaintiff out. The plaintiff said that it all took a matter of seconds. He described the knife at first as a long blade, kind of Stanley blade; he agreed to it being described as having a retractable blade and later said it was a long skinny blade, a plastic handle on it and the blade flicks out so you can break the bits off it. He said it was of the type used for cutting cardboard boxes open. 11. In effect, the defence appears to have accepted at the High Court hearing that it had been established that a knife akin to a Stanley blade was used. This was distinguished from the sort of improvised weapons that prisoners devise from such normal material as can be found in the prison kitchen or bathrooms. An example would be a razor blade melted into the end of a toothbrush. No evidence was called to contradict the plaintiff on the nature of the knife used. The severity of the lacerations sustained by the plaintiff seems at least consistent with the use of an extremely sharp blade. No weapon was found on search after the incident, a fact which struck Mr Outram and the learned trial judge as extraordinary.
4 12. Mr Outram, both in his report and his evidence, made a number of criticisms of the security regime at Wheatfield prison. It is fair to say that he also found much to praise. However, so far as the present appeal is concerned, his central criticisms were that: The system of security both at entry and within the prison was, in his view, inadequate. Based on his single inspection visit in 2006, the system of searching at entry was inappropriately lax; he made a number of criticisms; a knife such as that described by the plaintiff must have come from outside the prison. In addition, prisoners moving from the residential area to another area of the prison should be searched both by hand and by metal detection. The holding area where prisoners had to wait prior to entry to area A was, on the plaintiff s account, overcrowded; there should not have been more than four prisoners in the area at one time. Prisoners awaiting their dose of Methadone are likely to be volatile and disruptive. 13. Mr Outram also thought there should have been CCTV covering the area as well as some means of raising the alarm. 14. I propose to deal, in the first instance, with the appeal by the defendants. The decision by the learned trial judge to award damages to the plaintiff was based entirely on the evidence given, at the judge s invitation, by Mr Outram, when he had recalled him to the witness box. The witness reiterated, in the first place, that he would not have started from the point where there were many people present in area B. His direct evidence had been to the effect that there should not have been more than four. Pressed to deal with a situation where there were so many, he said that one officer would be the minimum and that he would have expected two officers to be there. He was not asked and did not comment on the possibility that part of the injuries those to the plaintiff s lower body might have been avoided. 15. The learned trial judge found that there had been a breach of duty of care in failing to place a prison officer or officers within the three central units of the Medical Centre and among the prisoners but only to the extent that such a presence would have resulted in an earlier intervention, and break up, of the assault. This statement seems to imply that the prisoners were in the three central units, and not confined to one. The judge did not consider that the presence of such officers would have prevented the plaintiff's head and facial injuries but would have been likely to prevent the injuries which the plaintiff sustained to his flank and to his abdomen. This conclusion did not arise from any evidence given by Mr Outram. The plaintiff, in his direct evidence had criticised the prison officers on the following basis: they were looking, standing at the gate, so they could have stopped it before they got to my stomach, they could have stopped it. This evidence, however, relates to a personal criticism directed at the particular prison officers and not to the absence of an additional officer inside area B, as postulated by Mr Outram on recall. I cannot find any basis in the evidence upon which the judge could have reached the conclusion he did.
5 16. Furthermore, the evidence of Mr Outram appears to have been based upon two assumptions underlying the plaintiff's evidence namely: firstly, that there were about 20 prisoners within the area; secondly, that they were all within area B, the gate between B and C having been locked. However, the conflicts of evidence on these points had not been resolved and, as I have said, the judge himself spoke of three central units. 17. Finally, this crucial and decisive evidence was given following the conclusion of all of the evidence; it had never been part of the plaintiff's case. In all the circumstances, I consider the decision of the learned trial judge on this point to be unsatisfactory and unsupported by the evidence and I would set it aside. 18. On the other hand, it would not be fair to the plaintiff to dispose of the case without full and proper consideration of the case which he had advanced. The High Court decision amounted to a compromise. For the reasons I have given, I do not think it was a satisfactory one. It seems to me, from a reading of the judgment as a whole and from the perusal of the transcript of the evidence that the learned judge was by no means unsympathetic to the plaintiff's case and, in some respects at least, was critical of the management of the prison. 19. The learned judge noted that there had been conflicts, in the evidence with regard to the number of prisoners present in the Medical Centre, the length of time the plaintiff was in the centre and as to whether or not the separating gates between the central units were open or locked. These conflicts were, however, highly material to the complaints advanced by Mr Outram regarding overcrowding. The failure to resolve them meant that the plaintiff's complaint had not been considered on its merits. 20. The learned trial judge also said that he did not consider it necessary to determine the nature of the weapon involved. The nature of the weapon was central to the plaintiff's complaint. On his evidence, it was of a type similar at least to a Stanley knife; on the evidence of Mr Outram, it was appalling that such a knife should be in a prison. The learned judge said that it would be unreasonable to expect, or require, the prison authorities to search each and every prisoner every time he exited his cell. Mr Outram had not suggested that they should. I have referred to his evidence above: his view was that there should have been a thorough search of each prisoner on move from one area to another. In this case, the prisoners had moved from their cells to the caged area for administration of Methadone. The judge, in this way, led himself to the conclusion of that the prison authorities could not have been reasonably expected to have been in a position to prevent an attack on the plaintiff. 21. I do not say that the court was compelled to find that the blade was a of a Stanley knife type, but where the evidence seemed to point only one way, it would have been reasonable to expect the judge to give a reason for rejecting the evidence of the plaintiff. Nor do I say that the court was obliged to accept the evidence of Mr Outram. For the purposes of the present appeal, I merely say that, in order for the plaintiff s case to have been considered properly, it was appropriate to resolve conflicts of evidence which were relevant. Finally, I do not say either that the plaintiff should be disentitled from advancing
6 the case ultimately founded upon the evidence of Mr Outram, when recalled, though it was not always clear what precise criticisms he was making. I would emphasise that, if the plaintiff is to succeed in his claim, it is obvious that he must be able to identify the precise respects in which the defendants were in breach of their duty of care and what standards they failed to meet. Any criticism of the standards operated in the prison should be related to the facts. That, in turn, may give rise to the need to resolve conflicts in the evidence. 22. In all of the circumstances, I am of the view that the High Court decision did not correctly address the issues. For that reason, I would allow the appeal of the defendants and the cross appeal of the plaintiff. I would set aside the order made in the High Court and remit the case to that court for further hearing.
CHRISTIAN 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 SUPREME COURT BRENDAN O NEILL AND DUNNES STORES. JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Fennelly delivered the 16th day of November 2010.
THE SUPREME COURT APPEAL NO. 77/2007 Fennelly J. O Donnell J. McKechnie J. BRENDAN O NEILL PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT AND DUNNES STORES APPELLANT/DEFENDANT JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Fennelly delivered the 16th
More informationThe Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe
Recommendation Rec(2006)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the use of remand in custody, the conditions in which it takes place and the provision of safeguards against abuse (Adopted
More informationDealing With Overcrowding in Prisons: Contrasting Judicial Approaches from the USA and Ireland.
Dublin Institute of Technology ARROW@DIT Articles Law 2012 Dealing With Overcrowding in Prisons: Contrasting Judicial Approaches from the USA and Ireland. Mary Rogan Dublin Institute of Technology, mary.rogan@dit.ie
More informationDublin Institute of Technology. Adrian Berski Dublin Institute of Technology,
Dublin Institute of Technology ARROW@DIT Reports Law 2015-5 Do Irish courts and the European Court of Human Rights Have Achieved the Correct Balance Between Protection of the Rights of Individual Prisoners
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM -AND- ROBERT RETTINGER
THE SUPREME COURT Record No. 165 and 189 of 2010 Denham J. Fennelly J. Finnegan J. BETWEEN: THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM -AND- ROBERT RETTINGER JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Fennelly delivered
More informationThe Queen. - v - DYLAN JACKSON. Sentencing Remarks of the Hon. Mr. Justice Picken. 10 December 2015
In the Crown Court at Nottingham The Queen - v - DYLAN JACKSON Sentencing Remarks of the Hon. Mr. Justice Picken 10 December 2015 1. After a trial lasting some eleven days or so including jury deliberations,
More informationFIRST SECTION. Application no /08 Liliya GREMINA against Russia lodged on 24 December 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS
FIRST SECTION Application no. 17054/08 Liliya GREMINA against Russia lodged on 24 December 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Liliya Mikhaylovna Gremina, is a Russian national who was
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A105255
Filed 4/21/05 P. v. Evans CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 26, 2010
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 26, 2010 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LADARIUS TYREE SPRINGS Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County No.
More informationAppendix II: Legal Provisions
Appendix II: Legal Provisions Freedom of expression, assembly, and peaceful association Provisions in Chinese domestic laws that protect rights Article 35 of the Constitution: Citizens of the People's
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between BUNNY KAMEEL ALI. And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2013 03904 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between BUNNY KAMEEL ALI Claimant And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant Before the Honourable Mr Justice
More informationEUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Press release issued by the Registrar. CHAMBER JUDGMENT FREROT v. FRANCE
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 406 12.6.2007 Press release issued by the Registrar CHAMBER JUDGMENT FREROT v. FRANCE The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment
More informationTENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Department/, Petitioner, vs. CSGP-07-14DOYLE WITCHER, Grievant/, Respondent
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 7-26-2007 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
More informationHIGH COURT (BISHO) JUDGMENT. This is an appeal against the refusal of the regional magistrate, who
HIGH COURT (BISHO) CASE NO. 329/99 In the matter between AYANDA RUNGQU 1 s t Appellant LUNGISA KULATI 2 nd Appellant and THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT EBRAHIM J: This is an appeal against the refusal of
More informationSTATE OF MISSISSIPPI CRIME VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS REQUEST TO EXERCISE VICTIMS RIGHTS
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CRIME VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS REQUEST TO EXERCISE VICTIMS RIGHTS FOR VICTIM TO SIGN: I,, victim of the crime of, (victim) (crime committed) committed on, by in, (date) (name of offender,
More informationIn the Provincial Court of Alberta
In the Provincial Court of Alberta Citation: R. v. Clements, 2007 ABPC 220 Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Date: 20070911 Docket: 050217389P101, 103 Registry: Okotoks Allan Herbert Clements Voir
More informationMENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT 1998 BERMUDA 1998 : 32 MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT 1998
BERMUDA 1998 : 32 MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT 1998 [Date of Assent 13 July 1998] [Operative Date 13 July 1998] WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the Mental Health Act 1968: Be it enacted by The Queen's
More informationJudicial Conceptions of Prisoners' Rights in Ireland: an Emerging Field
Dublin Institute of Technology ARROW@DIT Conference Papers Law 2014 Judicial Conceptions of Prisoners' Rights in Ireland: an Emerging Field Mary Rogan Dublin Institute of Technology, mary.rogan@dit.ie
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case :0-cv-000-DGC Document Filed 0//0 Page of Steven E. Harrison, Esq. (No. 00) N. Patrick Hall, Esq. (No. 0) WALLIN HARRISON PLC South Higley Road, Suite 0 Gilbert, Arizona Telephone: (0) 0-0 Facsimile:
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 informationREVISED GENERAL SCHEME of a Criminal Procedure Bill
REVISED GENERAL SCHEME of a Criminal Procedure Bill Revised in April 2015 in light of pre-legislative scrutiny and pubic consultation Submitted to Government for Approval: June 2015 CONTENTS HEAD 1 INTERPRETATION...
More informationORDER TYPE: NEED TO KNOW. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to define legal implications and procedures involved when a search is performed.
Page 1 of 5 YALE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDERS Serving with Integrity, Trust, Commitment and Courage Since 1894 ORDER TYPE: NEED TO KNOW 312 EFFECTIVE DATE: REVIEW DATE: 19 MAR 2012 ANNUAL
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 15, 2016 v No. 324386 Wayne Circuit Court MICHAEL EVAN RICKMAN, LC No. 13-010678-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationPART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS
PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS What this Part is about: This Part is designed to resolve issues and questions arising in the course of a Court action. It includes rules describing how applications
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 informationPolice Shooting of Ruka Hemopo
Police Shooting of Ruka Hemopo I N T R O D U C T I O N 1. On 2 May 2013, while responding to a domestic assault in Waitangirua, Wellington, Police shot and wounded Ruka Hemopo 1. The gunshot wound to Mr
More informationOffensive Weapons Bill
Offensive Weapons Bill EXPLANATORY NOTES Explanatory notes to the Bill, prepared by the Home Office, are published separately as Bill 232-EN. EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Secretary Sajid Javid has
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT LA CROSSE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT LA CROSSE COUNTY STATE OF WISCONSIN -vs- Plaintiff, JOSHUA R REETZ, DOB: 10/07/1988 201 Avon Street #3 La Crosse, WI 54603 Defendant, CASE NO.: 14CF422 DA Case No. 2014LC002142 Assigned DA/ADA:
More informationOn September 25, 2006, a trial jury found William McCaffrey
Criminal Procedure People v. McCaffrey, 5086/2005 Supreme Court, New York County Acting Justice Richard D. Carruthers Decided: Dec. 10, 2009 On September 25, 2006, a trial jury found William McCaffrey
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 informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (JOHANNESBURG)
1 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 SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
More informationBASIC COURT OF MITROVICA IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE
BASIC COURT OF MITROVICA P. No. 184/15 8 August 2016 IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE THE BASIC COURT OF MITROVICA, in a Trial Panel composed of EULEX Judge Katrien Gabriël Witteman as Presiding Trial Judge and
More informationEuropean Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)
Strasbourg, 15 December 2015 CPT/Inf (2015) 44 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) Living space per prisoner in prison establishments:
More informationClick to Print or Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document.
NOT FOR REPRINT Click to Print or Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document. Page printed from: New York Law Journal Lucille Galtieri, Plaintiff v. Uptown Communications & Electric, Inc.,
More informationCase 1:14-cv Document 10 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/14 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:14-cv-00133 Document 10 Filed in TXSD on 09/25/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION DIGNA O. QUEZADA CUEVAS, Plaintiff, v.
More informationRESPONSE TO NORTHERN IRELAND PRISON SERVICE CONSULTATION ON AMENDMENTS TO PRISON RULES
RESPONSE TO NORTHERN IRELAND PRISON SERVICE CONSULTATION ON AMENDMENTS TO PRISON RULES Summary This is a response to the consultation by the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) on proposed amendments
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE LORD BURNS (SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL) DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE FROOM.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 August 2017 On 28 September 2017 Before THE HONOURABLE LORD BURNS (SITTING
More informationSTATE OF MISSISSIPPI CRIME VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS REQUEST TO EXERCISE VICTIMS RIGHTS
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CRIME VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS REQUEST TO EXERCISE VICTIMS RIGHTS FOR VICTIM TO SIGN: I,, victim of the crime of, (victim) (crime committed) committed on, by in, (date) (name of offender,
More informationOffensive Weapons Bill
[AS AMENDED ON REPORT] CONTENTS PART 1 CORROSIVE PRODUCTS AND SUBSTANCES Sale and delivery of corrosive products 1 Sale of corrosive products to persons under 18 2 Defence to remote sale of corrosive products
More informationDECISIONS. Communication No. 515/1992. (represented by Counsel)
UNITED CCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Distr. RESTRICTED */ CCPR/C/54/D/515/1992 21 July 1995 Original : ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Fifty-fourth session DECISIONS Communication
More informationACID ATTACKS AND OFFENSIVE WEAPONS Home Office Consultation Response
ACID ATTACKS AND OFFENSIVE WEAPONS Home Office Consultation Response December 2017 Introduction The Centre for Social Justice Criminal Justice Unit Response to the Home Office consultation on new legislation
More informationNotice of Decision of the Northern Ireland Social Care Council s Conduct Committee
Notice of Decision of the Northern Ireland Social Care Council s Conduct Committee Name: Radu Nasca SCR No: 6005361 Date: 22 August 2014 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Conduct Committee of the Northern
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PETER RAJKUMAR
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO HCA: No.S-1452 of 2003 HCA: 2544 of 2003 (POS) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN CURTIS GABRIEL Plaintiff AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
More informationATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA. Case Summary. felony; Battery, as a Class C felony; Domestic Battery, as a Class A
MEMORANDUM DECISION 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
More informationREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1994 PAUL STEFAN RAJNIC STATE OF MARYLAND. Alpert, Bloom, Murphy, JJ.
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1852 September Term, 1994 PAUL STEFAN RAJNIC v. STATE OF MARYLAND Alpert, Bloom, Murphy, JJ. Opinion by Alpert, J. Filed: September 6, 1995 Paul
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PETER M. WILLIAMSON, State Bar # 0 WILLIAMSON & KRAUSS Panay Way, Suite One Marina del Rey, CA 0 () - Attorneys for Plaintiff ANTHONY MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
More informationVictims Rights and Support Act 2013 No 37
New South Wales Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 No 37 Contents Part 1 Part 2 Preliminary Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Definitions 2 Victims rights Division 1 Preliminary 4 Object of Part
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 informationConcluding observations on the third periodic report of Belgium*
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Distr.: General 3 January 2014 English Original: French CAT/C/BEL/CO/3 Committee against Torture
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JOHN T. WILSON Anderson, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana KELLY A. MIKLOS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN STACEY REID BLACKMORE
Date: 19991207 Docket: AD-0832 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN STACEY REID BLACKMORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT
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 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 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between MOOTILAL RAMHIT AND SONS CONTRACTING LIMITED. And EDUCATION FACILITIES COMPANY LIMITED [EFCL] And
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2017-02463 Between MOOTILAL RAMHIT AND SONS CONTRACTING LIMITED Claimant And EDUCATION FACILITIES COMPANY LIMITED [EFCL] And
More information18. PERFORMANCE AND DISCHARGE. Presented by Marisa Schatz, Georgiana Battisonnicol And Nancy Mora 10/28/2015
18. PERFORMANCE AND DISCHARGE Presented by Marisa Schatz, Georgiana Battisonnicol And Nancy Mora STR Constructors and Arch Insurance Company v. NEWMAN Tile 1. Scintilla of Evidence" According to TheLawDictionary.com,
More informationCASE NO. 1D Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ROBERT DALE PURIFOY, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-4007
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 informationPOLICY FOR DEALING WITH VIOLENCE, THREATENING BEHAVIOUR AND ABUSE AGAINST ACADEMY STAFF OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY
POLICY FOR DEALING WITH VIOLENCE, THREATENING BEHAVIOUR AND ABUSE AGAINST ACADEMY STAFF OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY Ratified by Governors/Principal: Principal Current ratification date: Spring
More informationTRAVERSE JUROR HANDBOOK
TRAVERSE JUROR HANDBOOK State of Maine Superior Court Constitution of the State of Maine, as Amended ARTICLE I - DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Rights of persons accused: Section 6. In all criminal prosecutions,
More information-vs- NO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA. STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant,
NO. 91-130 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1992 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- HARVEY WALTER NIEMI, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial
More informationVIEWS. Communication No. 332/1988
UNITED NATIONS CCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Distr. RESTRICTED* CCPR/C/50/D/332/1988 5 April 1994 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Fiftieth session VIEWS Communication
More information1/9/2019 1:52 PM 19CV01569 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Case No.
// 1: PM CV0 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH Becki Marchinek, Case No. v. Plaintiff, MCDONALD S CORPORATION, MCDONALD S USA, LLC, MCDONALD S RESTAURANTS OF OREGON,
More informationJustice Select Committee: Prison Population 2022
Justice Select Committee: Prison Population 2022 December 2017 The Criminal Justice Alliance (CJA) is a coalition of 130 organisations - including charities, voluntary sector service providers, research
More informationOpinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its sixty-seventh session, August 2013
United Nations General Assembly Distr.: General 21 October 2013 A/HRC/WGAD/2013/ Original: English Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 3, 2002 V No. 233210 Oakland Circuit Court ROBERT K. FITZNER, LC No. 00-005163 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationChapter 8 International legal standards for the protection of persons deprived of their liberty
in cooperation with the Chapter 8 International legal standards for the protection of persons deprived of their liberty Facilitator s Guide Learning objectives I To familiarize the participants with some
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM RAFAL ADACH
THE SUPREME COURT Hardiman J. 413/2009 Geoghegan J. Finnegan J. THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM and Respondent/Applicant RAFAL ADACH Appellant/Respondent JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Hardiman
More informationPrison Reform Trust response to the Commission on a Bill of Rights discussion paper, Do we need a UK Bill of Rights?
Prison Reform Trust response to the Commission on a Bill of Rights discussion paper, Do we need a UK Bill of Rights? The Prison Reform Trust (PRT) is an independent UK charity working to create a just,
More informationDECISION OF THE CHIEF CIVILIAN DIRECTOR OF THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE
IN THE MATTER OF THE SERIOUS INJURY OF A MALE WHILE BEING TAKEN INTO THE CUSTODY OF THE RCMP IN THE CITY OF SALMON ARM, BRITISH COLUMBIA ON JANUARY 30, 2017 DECISION OF THE CHIEF CIVILIAN DIRECTOR OF THE
More informationIPRT Position Paper 4 Human Rights in Prison
IPRT Position Paper 4 Human Rights in Prison August 2009 The Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT) is Ireland s leading non-governmental organisation campaigning for the rights of everyone in the penal system,
More informationLegislative Consent Memorandum: Offensive Weapons Bill
Published 2 October 2018 SP Paper 391 44th Report, 2018 (Session 5) Comataidh Cumhachdan Tiomnaichte is Ath-leasachadh Lagh Legislative Consent Memorandum: Offensive Weapons Bill Published in Scotland
More informationSTATE OF MAINE IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN S.P L.D Sec A MRSA c. 13, sub-c. 2-A is enacted to read:
LAW WITHOUT GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE (Originals not returned by Governor) JULY 4, 2015 CHAPTER 315 PUBLIC LAW STATE OF MAINE IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN S.P. 353 - L.D. 1013 An Act To
More informationindependent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00423/17 APRIL 2018 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland
independent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00423/17 APRIL 2018 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland What we do We obtain all material information from Police
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 15, 2003 v No. 236323 Wayne Circuit Court ABIDOON AL-DILAIMI, LC No. 00-008198-01 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationJustice Sector Outlook
Justice Sector Outlook March 216 quarter Contents Summary of the current quarter 1 Environmental factors are mixed 2 Emerging risks of upwards pipeline pressures 3 Criminal justice pipeline 4 Pipeline
More informationHER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. D.P. AND S.M. [2001] ScotHC 115 (16th February, 2001)
HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE v. D.P. AND S.M. [2001] ScotHC 115 (16th February, 2001) HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY OPINION OF LORD REED in the cause HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE against D P and S M For the Crown: S E
More informationNATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM visit to LJUBLJANA PRISON
NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM visit to LJUBLJANA PRISON -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. CA 107/2017 APPEAL JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. CA 107/2017 In the matter between: NATASHA GOLIATH Appellant and THE MINISTER OF POLICE Respondent APPEAL JUDGMENT Bloem J
More informationCRIMINAL LITIGATION PRE-COURSE MATERIALS
Legal Practice Course 2014-2015 CRIMINAL LITIGATION PRE-COURSE MATERIALS Copyright Bristol Institute of Legal Practice, UWE AN INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL LITIGATION 1. Introduction: You will be studying
More informationBERNARD WATSON. Plaintiff OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION. Defendant Case No
[Cite as Watson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2010-Ohio-5908.] Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us
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 informationTHE SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT, 2003 AS AMENDED THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM
THE SUPREME COURT Record No. 139/2008 Denham J. Geoghegan J. Finnegan J. IN THE MATTER OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT, 2003 AS AMENDED BETWEEN/ THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM and
More informationPROCEDURE Independent Custody Visitors. Number: E 0105 Date Published: 4 April 2018
1.0 Summary of Changes This procedure has been updated, following its yearly review, as follows: Author, owner details updated; Reference to Police and Crime Commissioner updated to Police, Fire and Crime
More informationBetween FELIX JAMES. And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No. P 226 of 2010 Between FELIX JAMES And Appellant THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Respondent PANEL: N. BEREAUX, J.A. P.
More informationPRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA
PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA November 4, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE TO PRACTICE DIRECTIVES FOR CONTESTED APPLICATIONS IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT
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 informationMEDICAL CONCERN. Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment: the use of fetters PAKISTAN
EXTERNAL AI Index: ASA 33/20/95 Distrib: PG/SC Date: 25 July 1995 MEDICAL CONCERN Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment: the use of fetters PAKISTAN Thousands of prisoners in Pakistan are kept in fetters
More informationThe Criminal Justice System: From Charges to Sentencing
The Criminal Justice System: From Charges to Sentencing The Key Principles The aim the system is to protect and to regulate society, to punish offenders and to offer rehabilitation; The Government, through
More informationManaging a Safe School Environment Legislative Changes
Managing a Safe School Environment Legislative Changes Industrial/legal guidelines Date: October 2003 Contact Person: Head, Employment Relations Related Documents: Protective School Environments (2001)
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS Appeal No. 2005AP CR. Plaintiff-Respondent, Defendant-Appellant.
STATE OF WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS Appeal No. 2005AP001735-CR STATE OF WISCONSIN, v. JOSEPH KEEPERS, Plaintiff-Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCING IMPOSED
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff- Appellee : C.A. Case No
[Cite as State v. Gentry, 2006-Ohio-2636.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff- Appellee : C.A. Case No. 21108 vs. : T.C. Case No. 04-CR-3499 MICHAEL GENTRY :
More informationSubmission of the Irish Translators and Interpreters Association to the Courts Service on the new tender for Interpreting and related issues
Submission of the Irish Translators and Interpreters Association to the Courts Service on the new tender for Interpreting and related issues March 2011 This submission was sent in hard copy to the following:
More informationIN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT ( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH ) Criminal Appeal No. 188 (J) of 2007 Shri Ajit @ Anil Mahapatra. Versus The State
More informationAN ORDINANCE REGULATING JUNK AUTO PARTS ACTIVITIES AND BUSINESSES AND THE LICENSING THEREOF CHAPTER 21 TOWN OF GORHAM TABLE OF CONTENTS
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING JUNK AUTO PARTS ACTIVITIES AND BUSINESSES AND THE LICENSING THEREOF CHAPTER 21 TOWN OF GORHAM ARTICLE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1 PURPOSES........................... 2101 2 DEFINITIONS..........................
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v.brister, 2005-Ohio-2061.] COURT OF APPEALS GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee vs. DARRELL BRISTER Defendant-Appellant Guernsey County, App.
More informationNeutral Citation Number: [2001] EWHC Admin 1093 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) B e f o r e:
Neutral Citation Number: [2001] EWHC Admin 1093 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) CO/2987/2001 Birmingham Crown Court Newton Street Birmingham B4 B e f o r e: Monday,
More informationEileen Sheil v. Regal Entertainment Group
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-15-2014 Eileen Sheil v. Regal Entertainment Group Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-2626
More informationCODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART ONE GENERAL PROVISIONS. Chapter I BASIC PRINCIPLES. Article 1
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART ONE GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter I BASIC PRINCIPLES Article 1 (1) This Code establishes the rules with which it is ensured that an innocent person is not convicted and the
More information