Case Brief By: Ashley Tam R. v. Martineau (1991)‚ 58 C.C.C. (3d) 353 (S.C.C.) Facts: The appellant‚ Martineau‚ was convicted of second-degree murder under s. 213(a) and (d) of the Criminal Code but the decision was overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal who concluded that s. 213(a) violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could no longer be in effect. The issue was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada whether or not the appeal court was correct in
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Abortion Canada
1.) The legal issue in R V Brown case that the house of lord had to determine was "Is consent a defence to an assault causing grievous bodily harm" This is a case of sado-masochism where the group of men were engaged in act of violence against each other particularly on their genital parts‚ by branding or genital torture for sexual pleasure. The victims in each case consented to this ritual (activity) and didn’t suffer any permanent injury. Each of the defendants faced assault ABH charges and unlawful
Premium Law Human rights
Title: R. v. Hufsky‚ [1988] 1 S.C.R 621 Parties: Werner E. J. Hufsky – Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen - Respondent Decision: Appeal was dismissed Notions/Concepts: Constitutional Law Criminal Law Equality before the law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Arbitrary detention Unreasonable Search Refusal to provide breath sample Facts: Appellant was stopped at a random spot check by police Nothing unusual about his driving at the time of the spot check Spot check was for the purposes
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Supreme Court of the United States
Year 12 Legal Studies Crime Assessment Steven Fraser - R v Fraser - Murder of children Legal Citation: R v Fraser [2003] NSWSC 965 and R v Fraser [2004] NSWSC 53 Elements of the Offence: Steven Fraser murdered his three children – Ashley (7)‚ Ryan (5)‚ and Jarrod (4) – on the weekend of the 18 – 19 August‚ 2001. They were staying in his Caringbah apartment on a custody visit‚ where Steven was living after separating with his wife Maria Chona two months prior. Ryan and Jarrod were given doses
Premium Murder Crime Capital punishment
Summary R. v. Morgentaler was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada‚ a verdict which declared abortion laws in the Criminal Code of Canada as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The court ruled the laws to have violated the woman’s right to security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. After the ruling‚ you could not be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada for having an abortion without consent of the therapeutic abortion committee
Premium Abortion Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Litonjua v. L&R Corporation December 9‚ 1999 Facts: Litonjua obtained loans from L&R Corporation secured by a mortgage. Without knowledge of L&R‚ Litonjua sold to PWHAS the parcels of land they had previously mortgaged to L & R Corporation. When Litonjua defaulted in the payment of their loans‚ L & R Corporation initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings and L & R Corporation was the only bidder. When L & R Corporation presented its corresponding Certificate of Sale for registration‚ it
Premium Mortgage
her with carbon monoxide. Tracey’s mother was not involved in this‚ Latimer denied killing her at first but he later then confessed for his actions .In the trial R. V Latimer (1997) Robert was convicted for second degree murder although the Supreme
Premium English-language films Family American films
R. v Burns case Brief Case Facts The defendants Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay were accused to have committed aggravated first degree murder in Washington State. In a confession to an undercover RCMP officer in British Columbia‚ posing as a mob boss‚ it is clamed that Burns was a contract killer hired by Rafay to kill his parents so that Rafay could get insurance money for their deaths. It is claimed that Burns beat the victims with a baseball bat while Rafay watched (para.10). They
Premium Appeal Crime Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Case: R v. Hebert Facts of Case Judges: Dickson‚ Robert George Brian; Lamer‚ Antonio; Wilson‚ Bertha; La Forest‚ Gérard V.; L’Heureux-Dubé‚ Claire; Sopinka‚ John; Gonthier‚ Charles Doherty; Cory‚ Peter deCarteret; McLachlin‚ Beverley Neil Hebert was suspected of having robbed the Klondike Inn. After the police located Hebert‚ they placed him under arrest and informed him of his rights‚ and took him to the R.C.M.P detachment in Whitehorse. Hebert contacted counsel and obtained legal advice regarding
Premium Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Police
THABO MELI v R Fact of the case : The defendants had taken their intended victim to a hut and plied him with drink so that he became intoxicated. They then hit the victim around the head‚ intending to kill him. In fact the defendants only succeeded in knocking him unconscious‚ but believing the victim to be dead‚ they threw his body over a cliff. The victim survived but died of exposure some time later. The defendants were convicted of murder‚ and appealed to the Privy Council on the ground that
Premium Causality Death Criminal law