But these are limited in use to certain circumstances. The binding part of the judgement is called the ratio decidendi and later courts are bound to follow legal principles on which the decision was based if their case contains similar facts, as for example, in Donoghue V Stevenson (1932) a precedent was set that a customer could sue a manufacturer in negligence. Obita Dicta (other things said not directly related to the decision or dissenting judgements), are persuasive rather than binding precendents, as seen
Obiter dicta, things said by the way, is persuasive precedent. Other forms of persuasive precedent include; decisions from the lower courts, for example in R v R (1991) the House of Lords followed the Court of Appeal decision to make marital rape a criminal offence, decisions from courts outside the English hierarchy, for example the Australian Wagon Mound case (1961), or a statement made by a dissenting judge. In R v Howe (1987) it was stated, obiter, that duress would not be a defence for attempted murder. This was later followed in R v Gotts (1991). If there is no precedent then original precedent is made, NHS Airdale Trust v Bland (1993).
Law and Justice Foundation NSW, ‘Taking Justice into Custody: The Legal Needs of Prisoners’, Anne Grunseit et al. 2008, http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/report/prisoners [ 15 ]. Greg Barns, Prisoners and Barriers to their access to Legal Services’, (National Access to Justice and Pro Bono Services Conferences, Brisbane, 27 August 2010) https://wic041u.server-secure.com/vs155205_secure/CMS/files_cms/NA2JPBC2010-Barns.pdf [ 16 ]. Former Chief Justice Murray Gleeson, ‘Social Invisibility’ (Speech delivered at the St Vincent de Paul Society, Inaugural Gerald Ward Lecture, Canberra, 7 November 2008,) http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/gleeson7nov08.pdf [ 17 ]. Vexatious Proceedings Act NSW
In their decision, the Court concluded that the Sixth Amendment[2], guaranteeing the right to a jury trial in criminal cases, does not also impose the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict. With the Supreme Court’s decision, the advent of the nonunanimous jury verdict was set in motion; however, not without controversy. While many were, and continue, singing the virtues of the advantages of a nonunanimous jury verdict requirement, there
Under the 4th amend., the absence of a warrant during a search & seizure (they had probable cause as well) evidence should of been inadmissible. DISPOSITION: - Court ruled 7-1 in favor of Katz. J.Black filed a dissenting opinion. J. Marshall didn't participate in the vote. J.Stewart wrote "one who shuts the door behind him, pays tikes, he is surely entitled to assume that the words he says into the mouthpiece will not be broadcasted to the world."
Ogden claimed that this was true only for goods, not navigation. Gibbons then sued Ogden for entry into the state and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. John Marshall ruled in favor of Gibbons, determining that it was within the federal government’s power to control navigation and that the regulation of “commerce” included laws of navigation. Conduction of interstate commerce was a power reserved to Congress, Marshall ruled. I believe that Marshall granted this case cert.
Holding: A vote of (9-0) in favor of Loving 1. Yes. Reasoning: Chief Justice Warren delivered the unanimous decision that the Virginia anti-miscegenation law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that even though the State showed that the statute punished both participants equally, it did not constitute “an invidious discrimination based upon race.” The Court states that at the very least, “the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications… be subjected to the ‘most rigid scrutiny’… and… they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination…” This requires that there be rigid scrutiny when the States drafts a statute that could infringe on “invidious discrimination,” and also requires that the State provide legitimate government interest. Finally, the Court shows
Moving on, in the case of Brady v. United States (1970), the Supreme Court affirmed plea negations were not unconstitutional. According to our textbook, Brady v. United States (1970) ruled that the voluntariness of a guilty plea was not encouraged by fear of a heavier sentence following trial, even though that fear was death under a statute that the Court declared unconstitutional subsequent to Brady's guilty plea. Moreover, it has held that defendants’ guilty pleas must be voluntary, and that defendants may only plead guilty if they know the consequences of doing so. McCarthy
References -The Better World Shopping Guide: Every Dollar Makes a Difference- Ellis Jones, 2012, 4th Edition. -Human Trafficking: A Global Perspective – Louise Shelley, 2010. - War on Slavery: US Policy Assessed - Anthony M. DeStefano, 2008. -Labour Migration, Human Trafficking, and Multinational Corporations: The commodifications of illicit flows- Edited by Ato Quayson and Antonela Arhin, 2012. -Human Trafficking: Exploring the International Nature, Concerns, and Complexities – CRC Press, Edited by John Winterdyk, Benjamin Perrin, and Philip Reichel, 2011.
On March 19, 2001, Judicial Watch urged the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to reject the plea agreement under which Bill Clinton’s friend James T. Riady and the Lippo Bank escaped with what was for them a slap on the wrist for their serious violations of campaign finance laws and other crimes. The pleading submitted by Judicial Watch is a clear and comprehensive summary of those crimes. It makes a persuasive case that the punishment agreed to by the Reno Justice Department and approved by the Ashcroft Justice Department does not come close to fitting the crimes and should have been set aside. The media coverage of this miscarriage of justice has been confined to reporting the judge’s acceptance of the plea agreement ? a fine of $8.6