Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Malicious mischief is an offence against the common law of Scotland.It does not require actual damage to property for the offence to be committed; financial damage consequential to the act is sufficient, unlike vandalism which requires actual damage to property to form the offence, the latter being defined by section 52 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995.
In the century in which it was created, and for some time thereafter, the mischief rule was used in a legislative environment very different from the one which has prevailed in the past two centuries. As Elmer Driedger notes, 16th century common law judges looked upon statutes as a gloss upon the common law, even as an intrusion into their ...
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) Criminal defense attorneys are duty-bound to inform clients of the risk of deportation under three circumstances. First, where the law is unambiguous, attorneys must advise their criminal clients that deportation "will" result from a conviction.
R v B (KG), [1993] 1 SCR 740, popularly known as the KGB case, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements as proof of the truth of their contents.
Under the criminal law of Australia the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Commonwealth) abolished all common law offences at the federal level. [1] The Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia have also abolished common law offences, but they still apply in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria.
This was a major mischief at which the 1977 Act was aimed, [citation needed] although it retained the convenient concept of a common law conspiracy to defraud: see Law Com No 76, paras 1.9 and 1.16. Henceforward, according to the Law Commission, it would only be an offence to agree to engage in a course of conduct which was itself a criminal ...
In criminal law, it is the role of the prosecution to must prove the case in court against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In general, an accused offender is usually first charged with an appropriate offence that can be established on the facts of the case.
The rule of lenity is one such canon. Implicit in its provisions is the additional burden placed on the prosecution in a criminal case and the protection of individual rights against the powers of the state. It also furthers the fundamental principle of requiring notice in criminal law. Individuals should not be punished for their acts when the ...