Monday, August 24, 2009

Now we are five

›
Five years of blogging! That concludes my ongoing commentary, but I may occasionally add updates to particular entries. To locate these, sea...
Monday, August 10, 2009

Disclosure of warnings and diversions

›
It may be necessary for the prosecution to disclose to the defence information about prosecution witnesses concerning warnings that they hav...
Saturday, August 01, 2009

On being informed about decisions to prosecute

›
There is a right to be told of how decisions about whether or not to prosecute are made: R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009]...
Friday, July 31, 2009

Disclosure, fair trial, truth and justice

›
No progress in development of the idea of the accused's right to a fair trial was made in R v Bjelland [2009] SCC 38 (30 July 2009).   ...

Choice

›
Capacity to make a choice requires understanding, weighing of information, and choosing: "the case law on capacity has for some time re...
Friday, July 24, 2009

The two cultures

›
Answers to jury questions must be responsive and must not deter further questions: R v Layton [2009] SCC 36 (23 July 2009). If the jury has...
Monday, July 20, 2009

Aiming les brickbats at le top

›
A full eleven days after the decision in Matenga v R [2009] NZSC 18 (13 March 2009, mentioned in note of 9 July 2009) came to my attention,...
Sunday, July 19, 2009

Decision tree or impenetrable thicket?

›
A difficulty with the balancing exercise described in R v Grant (noted here 18 July 2009) is that there is no indication of when an offence...
Saturday, July 18, 2009

Detention: will R v Grant work?

›
Having just stated a test for detention ( R v Grant , last note today's date), the Supreme Court of Canada has disagreed on its applicat...

A new look at s 24(2) Canadian Charter

›
Some people can engage in three-dimensional balancing without mentioning the electrodynamics of moving bodies . They are the Supreme Court o...
Friday, July 10, 2009

From leaf to long knife

›
Another glimpse into the picturesque life of Jamaicans: Jackson v R (Jamaica) [2009] UKPC 28 (07 July 2009). Lord Rodger delivered the judg...
Thursday, July 09, 2009

The appellate jury

›
New Zealand's new approach to the proviso has been revealed by the Privy Council. The Board fearlessly disclosed parts of the Supreme C...
Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Friends at law

›
For reasons not to be suspicious of barristers and judges, see Saxmere Co Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd [2009] NZSC 72 (3 July 2...
Monday, June 29, 2009

“Extreme and exceptional” murders

›
Two principles laid down in Pipersburg v R (Belize) [2008] UKPC 11 (noted here 26 February 2008 on another point) were applied in Trimmingt...
Friday, June 26, 2009

Taking issue with expert testimony

›
Scientists can as individuals, at times, be bumbling idiots just like everyone else. At times they might be dishonest. The following lengthy...

Adequacy of grounds

›
There are times when lawyers and judges have to grapple with the adequacy of grounds for the purported exercise of official powers such as a...
Friday, June 19, 2009

Double jeopardy and no-verdicts

›
Does a jury's failure to reach a verdict have any double jeopardy consequences? No: Yeager v United States [2009] USSC No 08-67 (18 Jun...

Inferences, reasonable doubt, and double hearsay in Canada

›
R v Griffin [2009] SCC 28 (18 June 2009) illustrates the Canadian approach to the criminal standard of proof in relation to circumstantial ...
Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Timing and recent invention

›
A routine case (although the culmination of lengthy proceedings ) from the Supreme Court of Canada on the admissibility of a witness's p...