Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Roach v Electoral Commissioner [1] [2] is a High Court of Australia case, decided in 2007, dealing with the validity of Commonwealth legislation that prevented prisoners from voting. [ 3 ] [ 4 ] The Court held that the 2006 amendments [ 4 ] were inconsistent with the system of representative democracy established by the Constitution .
Roach swore allegiance to the Queen of Canada twice before: once as a reservist in the 1950s, and again when he was called to the Bar. [ 7 ] In 1992, Roach argued in the Federal Court of Canada that the Canadian oath for new citizens , which includes a statement of allegiance to the Canadian monarch , was a violation of the Charter of Rights ...
Prior to 1947, Canadian law continued to refer to Canadian nationals as British subjects, [4] despite the country becoming independent from the United Kingdom in 1931. As the country shared the same person as its sovereign with the other countries of the Commonwealth, people immigrating from those states were not required to recite any oath upon immigration to Canada; those coming from a non ...
M v R or M v The Queen is an Australian legal case decided in the High Court. [1] It is an important authority in the field of criminal law , for the circumstances in which it is permissible for a jury's guilty verdict to be overturned by a judge.
Momcilovic v The Queen - in which the court dealt with, among other things, the interaction between the principle of legality and s32(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic); a legislative section that on its face imposes a similar interpretive process to the principle of legality. [10]
If you’re stuck on today’s Wordle answer, we’re here to help—but beware of spoilers for Wordle 1325 ahead. Let's start with a few hints.
Disgraced music superstar R. Kelly was dealt a legal blow on Wednesday after an appeals court in New York denied the singer's challenge to his 30-year-prison sentence and conviction on ...
Morgentaler v R (also known as Morgentaler v The Queen) is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where physician Henry Morgentaler unsuccessfully challenged the prohibition of abortion in Canada under the federal Criminal Code. The Court found the abortion law was appropriately passed by Parliament under the laws of federalism.