Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
McNulty v DPP [2009] IESC 12; [2009] 3 IR 572 The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and decided that the question of Judicial Review was not to be dealt with by the Supreme Court. DPP v McLoughlin [2009] IESC 65: The admissibility of hearsay evidence for bail applications Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Dolny
For the meaning of "assault" in this provision, see Logdon v. DPP [1976] Crim LR 121, DC. This offence was abolished and replaced by the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. Assaulting a person designated under section 43 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
DPP v Lennon is the first reported criminal case in the United Kingdom concerning denial-of-service (DoS) attacks. [1] The appeal court found that DoS attacks constituted an offence of unauthorised modification under s. 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (CMA) and thus clarified the law regarding DoS.
Linda Mulhall was 30 years old at the time of the killing. She was unemployed, had left school early and had four children. The relationship with the father of her children broke up [9] and she got into another relationship with an individual called Wayne Kinsella who subsequently abused them, in one case beating the children with an electrical flex.
In English law, provocation was a mitigatory defence to murder which had taken many guises over generations many of which had been strongly disapproved and modified. In closing decades, in widely upheld form, it amounted to proving a reasonable total loss of control as a response to another's objectively provocative conduct sufficient to convert what would otherwise have been murder into ...
Maurice Gaffney, S.C. (11 October 1916 – 3 November 2016) [1] was an Irish barrister, who at his death at 100, was the oldest practicing barrister in Ireland. [2] [3]Gaffney was born in County Meath to a Royal Irish Constabulary member.
In Australia, the High Court's 2005 ruling in R v Lavender [2] prevents the use of any 'reasonable mistake of fact' defense in cases of involuntary manslaughter. [3] However, the defense of mistake is available to offences of strict liability such as drunk driving: see DPP v Bone [2005] NSWSC 1239.
But in Chamberlain v Lindon (1998) 1 WLR 1252, [3] Lindon demolished a wall to protect a right-of-way, honestly believing that it was a reasonable means of protecting his property (and, incidentally, avoiding litigation). It was held that it was not necessary to decide whether Lindon's action was justified as a matter of civil law.