"It doesn't cry out that it's a triable case," Shechtman said.
|
|
"It doesn't cry out as a triable case," said Paul Shechtman, a recently hired lawyer for Mr. Caspersen.
|
|
" He ruled that "a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Jahi currently satisfies the statutory definition of 'dead.
|
|
The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 6-3 that conspiracy to commit war crimes is an offense triable by a military commission.
|
|
Historically, that lack of attention in not only witnesses but also a triable case will remain one of the most baffling blunders of this impeachment.
|
|
Ali al Bahlul, the Yeman native who actively helped al Qaeda prepare for the attacks on 9/11, argued that it wasn't a triable offense under international law of war.
|
|
"He went on to say that before addressing the question of witnesses and documents in "any legal system," a court first has to decide if there's "even a triable issue.
|
|
"The Cassirers have created a triable issue of fact whether (the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection) knew the painting was stolen from Lilly when TBC purchased the painting from the Baron," Circuit Judge Carlos Bea wrote.
|
|
"Wherever one might ultimately draw the outer boundaries of Congress's authority to establish offenses triable by military commission, the historically rooted offense of conspiracy to commit war crimes is well within those limits," Judge Kavanaugh wrote.
|
|
In a 2-1 ruling on Thursday, California's Second Appellate District said the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact when they alleged Banana Republic used bait-and-switch advertising: promoting storewide sales to lure customers into stores while only discounting select items.
|
|
"At bottom, plaintiffs have simply failed to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the toll and fare increases are not a fair approximation of use of the (Port Authority) facilities and are excessive in relation to the benefits conferred," Eaton wrote in a 36-page decision.
|
|
The offences under sections 8(1), (4) and (5) are triable only summarily; the others are triable either way.
|
|
Subject to the following exceptions, the offence of burglary is triable either way.The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, section 17 and Schedule 1, paragraph 28 Burglary comprising the commission of, or an intention to commit, an offence which is triable only on indictment, is triable only on indictment.This is the effect of section 9(3) of the Theft Act 1968 and paragraph 28(b) of Schedule 1 to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Burglary in a dwelling is triable only on indictment if any person in the dwelling was subjected to violence or the threat of violence.
|
|
Original jurisdiction decides whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit/case of that nature on the basis of the statues. For example; suits under Hindu marriage act, irrespective of the suit value are triable in the Court of Senior civil Judge whereas suits under special marriage act are triable in the court of District Judge.
|
|
Rukmani Kund lies in the middle Shiwalik Hills (the Shiwalik comprises conglomerates triable micaceous sand stone, siltstone and claystone), in Bilaspur District.
|
|
The reasonable amount of royalties that Dish should pay for the period that used QA copies is a triable issue of fact.
|
|
The Court of Appeal held there was a triable issue. Lord Denning MR said the following: Edmund-Davies LJ and Stephenson LJ agreed.
|
|
In relation to England and Wales, the expression indictable offence means an offence which, if committed by an adult, is triable on indictment, whether it is exclusively so triable or triable either way; and the term indictable, in its application to offences, is to be construed accordingly. In this definition, references to the way or ways in which an offence is triable are to be construed without regard to the effect, if any, of section 22 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 on the mode of trial in a particular case.The Interpretation Act 1978, section 5 and Schedule 1 (in the heading "construction of certain expressions relating to offences"), as amended by section 154 of, and paragraph 169 of Schedule 7 to, the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. An either-way offence allows the defendant to elect between trial by jury on indictment in the Crown Court and summary trial in a magistrates' court.
|
|
Richards, Bryant, and Squires were all charged with violations of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861. Section 18 requires intent to cause wounding or grievous bodily harm, and its violation is a felony (only triable by the Crown Court). Section 20 (its lesser included component) does not entail such intent; it is a serious misdemeanor (triable by Magistrates or the Crown Court). Bryant and Squires were convicted of this under s.
|
|
Under English law, most forms of theft are triable either way, whereas robbery is triable only on indictment. The word "rob" came via French from Late Latin words (e.g., deraubare) of Germanic origin, from Common Germanic raub "theft". Among the types of robbery are armed robbery, which involves the use of a weapon, and aggravated robbery, when someone brings with them a deadly weapon or something that appears to be a deadly weapon.
|
|
For the period from 1980 onwards, see the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, section 17(1) and Schedule 1, paragraph 21. These offences were not mentioned in Schedule 2 to the Criminal Law Act 1977 (which listed offences made triable either way by that Act that were previously triable only on indictment). This amounts to a statement that these offences were hybrid offences prior to the coming into force of section 16 of, and Schedule 3 to, that Act.
|
|
Juries are summoned for criminal trials in the Crown Court where the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way that has been sent to the Crown Court after examination by magistrates.Sprack (2006) 18.01 Magistrates have the power to send any offence triable either way to the Crown Court but, even if they elect to try the case themselves, the accused retains the right to elect for a Crown Court trial with a jury.Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s.20 Summary offences are tried by magistrates and there is no right of Crown Court trial by jury.
|
|
This offence is triable only on indictment and punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years. This section was repealed in the Republic of Ireland by section 31 of, and the Schedule to, the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997.
|
|
The expression "hybrid offence" was applicable to an offence triable either on indictment or summarily. It was applicable to offences to which section 18 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 applied.Aldridge, Trevor M. The Criminal Law Act 1977. Butterworths. 1978. . paragraph 195 at page 40.
|
|
Judge Lee Seiu Kin ruled that there was "no triable defence" and "no doubt that it is defamatory to suggest that the plaintiff is guilty of criminal misappropriation". An injunction against Ngerng was granted, barring him from publishing future similar accusations regarding PM Lee and the CPF.
|
|
The offence was originally triable before a jury.Hansard, 22 Feb 1955: "The fact that the maximum term of imprisonment exceeds three months will automatically give to the accused person a right to elect for trial by jury." (Lloyd George.) However it is today a summary offence.
|
|
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm carries a maximum sentence of 5 years under section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. It is triable either way.Smith (2002). p. 436. Both assault (fear of violence) and battery (infliction of violence) are included,Simester et al. (2010). p. 436.
|
|
A common assault is an assault that lacks any of the aggravating features which Parliament has deemed serious enough to deserve a higher penalty. Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides that common assault, like battery, is triable only in the magistrates' court in England and Wales (unless it is linked to a more serious offence, which is triable in the Crown Court). Additionally, if a defendant has been charged on an indictment with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH), or racially/religiously aggravated assault, then a jury in the Crown Court may acquit the defendant of the more serious offence, but still convict of common assault if it finds common assault has been committed.
|
|
Pecuniary jurisdiction of the court divides the court on vertical basis. The monetary limit i.e. the suit value which is triable by a particular class of civil court has been provided under the Orissa civil courts act. At present the pecuniary limit of suit value triable in the courts of Civil judge is limited to Rs.50,000/- whereas the courts of senior civil judge can try suits involving valuation exceeding Rs.50,000/- In respect of the appellate forum also the appeals arising out of the judgments of civil judge are filed before the Senior civil judge and the first appeal arising out of judgments of senior civil judge are filed before the District Judge.
|
|
Co. v. Savannah River Lumber Co., 280 Fed. 358 (C.C.A.4th, 1922) In 1938 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c)(1) authorized the in any action not triable of right by a jury the court on motion or on its own may have any issue tried by an advisory jury.
|
|
Ormerod (2005). p. 434. A person who is not "under the Queen's Peace" cannot be the victim of a homicide. This includes the killing of alien enemies during a time of war. Murder or manslaughter committed by a British citizen is triable in an English (or Northern Irish) court, regardless of where the crime took place.
|
|
From 1967 to 1971, offences under this Act, other than offences under sections 1(1)(a), 2, 9(1), 9(2) and 10 (which created certain offences in relation to coinage of higher denominations, to coining implements and to removal of coining implements, coin or bullion from the Mint) were triable by courts of quarter sessions other than courts with restricted jurisdiction.The Criminal Law Act 1967, section 8(2) and Schedule 1, List A Division II, paragraph 3. The quarter sessions were abolished by the Courts Act 1971. From 1977, offences under sections 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 5(3), 5(4), 5(6), 7 and 8 were triable either way.For the period from 1977 to 1980, see the Criminal Law Act 1977, section 16(2) and Schedule 3, paragraph 21.
|
|
Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides: On 13 September 2018, the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 received Royal Assent. This added a subsection which states any common assault or battery on an emergency worker (as defined in the Act) is triable either way and subject to a maximum of 12 months' imprisonment if tried on indictment.
|
|
The trial court granted summary judgement to the defendant tournament and country club, holding that primary assumption of risk barred the claim. Grisim appealed and the court agreed with her that that was reversible error. Citing Wells, it said there was a triable issue of fact for the jury as to whether the club had provided enough of the protected seating behind the green.
|
|
IO did dispute that Veoh's application of its infringer policy was reasonable and asserted that it was a triable issue vitiating Veoh's motion for summary judgement. While the DMCA does not explicitly define what reasonably implemented means, the Court was able to look to the binding precedent set by the Ninth Circuit in Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th 2007).
|
|
The maximum penalty is two years imprisonment. The main difference between these two provisions is the mens rea, a specific intent being regarded as more culpable than recklessness or negligence. "Maliciously" See section 58. "Misdemeanour" See the Criminal Law Act 1967, the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 and the Criminal Law Act, 1997 Mode of trial In England and Wales, this offence is triable either way.
|
|
Section 1(4) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 formerly provided that it was immaterial that the murder in question would not be triable in England and Wales if committed in accordance with the intention of the parties to the agreement. This reproduced the effect of section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. See now section 1A of the Criminal Law Act 1977.
|
|
In 1787 Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison proposing that the U.S. Constitution, then under consideration by the States, be amended to include "trial by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the laws of Nations". The result was the United States Bill of Rights.Hofstadter, Richard. Great Issues in American History: 1765 1865. v.2.
|
|
Persons who served a term in a camp or prison were restricted from taking a wide range of jobs. Concealment of a previous imprisonment was a triable offence. Persons who served terms as "politicals" were nuisances for "First Departments" (), outlets of the secret police at all enterprises and institutions), because former "politicals" had to be monitored. Many people who were released from camps were restricted from settling in larger cities.
|
|
Gregory v. Hartley, 113 U.S. 742 (1885), was a case in error to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska where it was decided and reaffirmed that the words "term at which said cause could be first tried and before the trial thereof," Act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 3, 18 Stat. 471, mean the first term at which the cause is in law triable, i.e.
|
|
According to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), losses of victims were at least US$5.5 million. The Massachusetts district court initially found that U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was unable to cite Stock Generation's founders and owners for securities violations. However, the United States Court of Appeals reversed this decision in 2001, concluding that the SEC alleged sufficient facts to state a triable claim.Appeal of SEC vs.
|
|
The court tries all indictable offences (i.e. those triable by a judge and jury) with the exception of certain offences (murder, aggravated murder, treason, rape, piracy and genocide) that are reserved for the Central Criminal Court. Terrorist offences and offences with an organised crime element can be heard by the non-jury Special Criminal Court. Decisions of the Circuit Court in criminal matters can be appealed to the Court of Appeal.
|
|
The other party may respond with counter-declarations, discovery responses, and legal arguments attempting to show that these issues were "triable issues of fact." If there is any question as to whether there is conflict on the facts on an issue, the summary judgment or adjudication must be denied regarding that matter. In many cases, a decision on a dispositive motion is a prerequisite for appellate review. See, e.g.
|
|
It thus appears that, including the appearance term at which the case might have been tried if appellant had answered according to rule, instead of obtaining an extension of 30 days by order of the court, there were five terms of the court at which the motion could have been made for removal in which no such motion was made. We see no reason why this case was not triable at any of those terms according to the due course of proceedings in such cases. The only reason why it was not so tried, was the time beyond that of the usual course prescribed by rule, which was obtained by order of the court or by agreement of the parties. The case was certainly triable at the January term, after the answers were all in, for it could have been then tried on bill and answer, or the plaintiff have been forced to file replication, which could have been done instanter.
|
|
Immediately before its repeal this section read: The words omitted were repealed by section 15 of, and Part I of Schedule 6 to, the Betting and Gaming Act 1960. Offences under this section were triable either way.Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, section 17 and Schedule 1, paragraph 2. From 2003 until its repeal, this Act did not apply in relation to relevant premises within the meaning of section 159 of the Licensing Act 2003.
|
|
Summary judgment is rarely granted in Virginia courts because it is easy for either party to raise a triable issue of fact. Unlike federal courts, where claims must be accompanied by an affidavit in order to raise a fact issue, Virginia courts treat the pleadings themselves as allegations of fact sufficient to create a genuine issue for resolution by a trial. Summary judgment in Virginia is not available in divorce and annulment cases.
|
|
The Court of Cassation building The Court of Cassation ( ) is one of the four courts of last resort in France. It has jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters triable in the judicial system, and is the supreme court of appeal in these cases. It has jurisdiction to review the law, and to certify questions of law, to determine miscarriages of justice. The Court is located in the Palace of Justice in Paris.
|
|
In England and Wales (which have the same legal system), everyone accused of an offence which carries more than six months' imprisonment has a right to trial by jury. Minor ("summary") criminal cases are heard without a jury in the Magistrates' Courts. Middle- ranking ("triable either way") offences may be tried by magistrates or the defendant may elect trial by jury in the Crown Court. Serious ("indictable- only") offences, however, must be tried before a jury in the Crown Court.
|
|
The common law offence of affray was abolishedThe Public Order Act 1986, section 9(1) for England and WalesThe Public Order Act 1986, section 42 on 1 April 1987.The Public Order Act 1986 (Commencement No. 2) Order 1987, article 2 and Schedule (1987/198 (C. 4)) Affray is now a statutory offence that is triable either way. It is created by section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 which provides: The term "violence" is defined by section 8.
|
|
However, on February 27, Scientology requested an injunction against Netcom and Support.com. On June 21, 1995, Judge Whyte issued a ruling that refused to dismiss Klemesrud, and Netcom because of a triable issue of fact. On November 21, 1995, Judge Whyte ruled "Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their copyright claims nor irreparable harm absent an injunction against defendants Netcom and Klemesrud." On August 21, 1996, the suit was settled without Klemesrud having to admit any liability.
|
|
This apparently related to an alleged manifestation of the spirit of a dead sailor on HMS Barham, although Duncan apparently did not know that after 1939 sailors' hat bands carried only 'H.M.S.' and did not identify their ship. She was initially arrested under section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, a minor offence tried by magistrates. The authorities regarded the case as more serious, and eventually discovered section 4 of the Witchcraft Act 1735, covering fraudulent "spiritual" activity, which was triable before a jury.
|
|
For example, proceedings where the value of the subject matter exceeds that of the district or resident magistrate courts, such cases are to be tried by the High Court. The High court also has original jurisdiction over all naval affairs or admiral matters. The high court has also exclusive original jurisdiction over all offences that are not triable by subordinate courts. The majority of these offences either carry capital punishment or life imprisonment, such offences include murder, manslaughter, infanticide, treason, inciting to mutiny and various other offences.
|
|
Tinsley v. Treat, 205 U.S. 20 (1907), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that found while an indictment in a removal proceeding constitutes prima facie evidence of probable cause, it is not conclusive, so evidence put forth by a defendant showing that no offense triable in the district to which removal is sought had been committed is admissible, and its exclusion is not mere error, but the denial of a right secured under the Federal Constitution.Tinsley v. Treat, .
|
|
During the Civil War, the United States adopted the Lieber Code, recognized by many scholars as the first detailed code governing conduct in war. Dr. Francis Lieber articulated an early version of the principle of proportionality: that civilians were not to be targeted, but were also not immune in all circumstances. The use of human shields is prohibited and defined as a war crime by several U.S. military manuals. It is also defined as a crime triable by military commission under the US Military Commissions Act (2006).
|
|
The same abolition occurred in New York by section 72 of the Field Code in 1850. In Watt v Starke (1879) the United States Supreme Court stated "the verdict of a jury upon an issue out of chancery is only advisory." Federal Equity Rule 23, effective 1913, provides in an equity case when a question arises that is triable by jury, a jury trial is held on the equity side without transfer to the law side of the United States District Court.Colleton Merc. Mfg.
|
|
Magistrates deal with less serious criminal cases, such as common assault, minor theft, criminal damage, public disorder and motoring offences. They also send serious cases such as rape and murder to the Crown Court for trial, determine applications for bail, enforce the payment of fines, and grant search warrant and right of entry applications to utility companies (e.g. gas, electricity). Magistrates' powers are limited to imposing six months' imprisonment (or twelve months aggregate sentences for triable either- way offences), or fines not exceeding £5,000 per offence.
|
|
The other two partners went bankrupt in 2002 and 2004. In 2006, when Mr Collier had finally made his payments (totalling exactly one third of the debt) Wrights served on him a statutory demand for the 'balance of the debt'. Mr Collier applied under rule 6.4 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (because the debt was disputable on ‘substantial grounds’ (r.6.5(4)(b)); so he only needed to show there was a ‘genuine triable issue’ in which case the court would set aside the demand.
|
|
Minnelli denied the accusations, claiming Gest was simply after her money. The suit was dismissed in September 2006 for lack of triable issue of fact. Gest was a close friend of Michael Jackson and after Jackson's death, he produced and starred in a documentary film about Jackson's life called, Michael Jackson: The Life of an Icon. In 2009, Gest sold his mansion in Memphis, Tennessee and auctioned his rock memorabilia to put in an offer on a five- bedroom Victorian townhouse in Cambridge, England.
|
|
United States v. Dawson (1854) concerned a murder committed in the Indian Territory by a non-Indian defendant, a crime which by statute was triable in Arkansas. Between the murder and the trial, the District of Arkansas had been subdivided into the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. The Court held that the Vicinage Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which requires a jury drawn from the state and district wherein the crime was committed, had no application to crimes committed outside of a U.S. state.United States v. Dawson, .
|
|
Before the Act, the Crown Prosecution Service already employed staff who were not qualified lawyers to prosecute cases at pre-trial hearings and sentences in the magistrates' court. Section 55 grants them the right to prosecute trials for offences which are non-imprisonable and not triable on indictment. The original version of this section, when the Act was still a bill, would have allowed them to prosecute imprisonable, indictable offences. This proved to be controversial, and was amended following representations by concerned groups such as the Bar Council.
|
|
A court of honor can also be a military court to investigate and issue judgments concerning acts or omissions which are considered to be unbecoming to an "officer and a gentleman", but which do not rise to the level where they are considered crimes triable under military law. A court of honor is also the name given to a tribunal of noblemen who would decide whether a grievance over a point of honor rose to the level warranting a duel, and if so set rules for its fair conduct.
|
|
An advisory jury is a group installed by a judge to give him or her an opinion during a trial. Unlike the normal jury, the advisory jury opinion is non- binding, and the judge remains the "final arbitrator of fact and law". In United States Federal Court, a case may be tried by advisory jury in the case of "an action not triable of right by a jury". When a case in federal district court is tried with an advisory jury the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately.
|
|
A report from the department's Inspector General on her complaint to Internal Affairs was delayed and appeared to have been reviewed by someone else prior to her receipt of it. In 2015, the parties made motions to the judge as to what evidence could be heard by a jury at trial. At the beginning of 2017, Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson ruled that Francis could proceed to trial alleging a violation of state labor law. He found there were no triable issues of fact on her claims of harassment, discrimination and retaliation.
|
|
Accessed June 2, 2008. The U.S. government refers to these captured enemy combatants as "detainees" because they did not qualify as prisoners of war under the definition found in the Geneva Conventions. Under the Obama administration the term enemy combatants was also removed from the lexicon and further defined under the 2010 Defense Omnibus Bill: Section 948b. Military commissions generally: (a) Purpose-This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unprivileged enemy belligerents for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.
|
|
Community sentences place 'requirements' on the offender - things they must do, or not do, in the community. Requirements can include: doing unpaid work, getting treatment for an addiction (for example drugs), or preventing a defendant from going to a specific place or area. For those offences considered so serious that a non- custodial sentence cannot be justified, a prison sentence may be imposed, either immediate or suspended. The maximum prison sentence in the magistrates' court is six months (which may be imposed consecutively up to 12 months for two triable either-way offences).
|
|
If a person pleads guilty, or is found guilty of an offence after a trial, the court is required to decide what sentence should be imposed on the offender. Magistrates and judges have a wide range of sentences available to them, however they are subject to certain restrictions. Magistrates' powers are restricted to a maximum custodial sentence of six months for one offence or 12 months for two triable either-way offences (i.e. those offences that can be heard at either the magistrates' court or the Crown Court).
|
|
Her suit alleged that the country club had failed to exclude spectators from the concession stand area, which she claimed had a higher risk of injury that the club was aware of. The trial court granted summary judgement to the defendants; Duffy appealed, arguing a triable issue of fact existed. The appeals court agreed with her and reversed. Among the cases it relied on was Maytnier, which it held to similarly deny the contractual assumption of risk defense and require that the defense argue more than just the plaintiff's awareness of a defect but the plaintiff's specific knowledge of that defect.
|
|
Edward Rutledge reported from the committee on the petition on the same day and the House agreed to the report, which read as follows Vizt: "They have Considered the same and are of opinion that no Law of this State can in its Construction or Operation apply to them, and that persons who were Subjects of the Emperor of Morocco being Free in this State are not triable by the Law for the better Ordering and Governing of Negroes and other Slaves."State Records of South Carolina. Journals of the House of Representatives, 1789-90. Michael Stevens, Christine Allen: Pub.
|
|
Gross in 2015 that affirmed the Baze requirement that an Eighth Amendment challenge to capital punishment puts the onus on inmates to show that there exists an alternative that is "feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain." When Bucklew returned to court in 2015 he had amended his claim with the suggestion that lethal gas was a viable alternative to lethal injection, and later identified nitrogen as a viable alternative (e.g. via inert gas asphyxiation). This gave enough possibility of a triable remedy that allowed the case to proceed to an additional discovery phase.
|
|
In Canada, these are known as hybrid offences, whereas in England and Wales, these are known as either way offences, and can only be heard summarily with the defendant's consent and if the Magistrates' Court finds that matter is suitable for summary trial. In Victoria, Australia, they are called indictable offences triable summarily. As well as the defendant's consent the Magistrate must regard the offence as appropriate to be heard in the lower court.For example, Magistrates Court Act, 1989 (Victoria) Finally, there are serious matters which must be dealt with in the higher courts, usually before a jury.
|
|
An example of treating shown in William Hogarth's Canvassing for Votes (1755) (see Humours of an Election) George Bingam's "The County Election" (1852) shows the effects of the campaigns' "treating" the voters with alcoholic beverages: several of them are too drunk to stand without assistance. Treating is an electoral fraud criminal offence in the United Kingdom. Treating occurs when an election candidate or their agents offer material incentives for people to vote for them or to abstain from voting. It is a triable either way offence with the sentence being up to either an unlimited fine, one year imprisonment or both.
|
|
Section 29(1)(c) creates the distinct offence of racially or religiously aggravated common assault. A person is guilty of this offence if he commits a common assault which is racially or religiously aggravated within the meaning of section 28. This offence is triable either way. A person guilty of this offence is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both (s.29(3)).
|
|
Section 10 of Article 58 made "propaganda and agitation against the Soviet Union" a triable offence, whilst section 12 allowed for onlookers to be prosecuted for not reporting instances of section 10. In effect, Article 58 was carte blanche for the secret police to arrest and imprison anyone deemed suspicious, making for its use as a political weapon. A person could be framed: the latter would arrange an "anti-Soviet" incident in the person's presence and then try the person for it. If the person pleaded innocence, not having reported the incident would also make them liable to imprisonment.
|
|
Galway's District Court is the main court of summary jurisdiction and hears minor cases without a jury. It is responsible for hearing small civil claims, certain family law cases, administers the liquor licensing laws and is responsible for indicting the accused and sending them forward for trial at the Circuit Court and the Central Criminal Court. The Circuit Court in Galway tries all indictable offences (those cases triable by a judge and jury), except murder, rape, treason, piracy and genocide, which are reserved to the Central Criminal Court. It can also hear appeals from the District Court.
|
|
Bail hearings for offences triable by both the District Court itself and the Circuit Court are heard here also with a right to appeal to the High Court for a refusal to grant bail. Most of the offences are usually minor as the more serious cases are sent to the Circuit Court and Central Criminal Court. The District Court continues to hold indictment hearings for the more senior criminal court, although since 1967, the court no longer has any discretion whether or not to send forward the accused, as long as the DPP serves a book of evidence on the accused.
|
|
However, the district court held that Dish Anywhere and Hopper Transfers breach the No Copying provision of the parties' agreement because Dish's subscribers can place-shift outside their homes. Fox did not give Dish its consent to offer this service to subscribers for use outside home. Fair Use is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement, but parties are free to bargain away their rights to make fair use of copyrighted material under contractual agreements. The district court denied the summary judgment in this point because considered that there was a triable issue of fact as to the damages flowing from the breach.
|
|
Three years later, an appeals court in another comparative negligence state, California, considered a foul ball case in that light. Loretta Rudnick, after being struck and injured by a foul ball at a California Angels game, brought suit against the team. While she had been sitting in an unprotected area of Anaheim Stadium near first base, she argued that that was no longer a valid defense for the team, since under comparative negligence her stated lack of familiarity with baseball and consequent assumption that all seats were safe made her responsibility a triable issue of fact. After presenting her case, the trial court had granted the Angels' motion for summary judgement.
|
|
Blanca Coronel's lawsuit against the White Sox had little to distinguish it from other cases in the Baseball Rule line. She had gone to Comiskey Park in 1986 to attend her first Sox game, where she sat behind the plate, five rows from the field and three seats outside the edge of the backstop. In the sixth inning, she reached down for some popcorn and when she looked up, a foul ball struck her in the face and broke her jaw. The trial court hearing her suit granted summary judgement for the team, and she appealed, arguing the team's duties to her rested on questions of triable fact.
|
|
This section provides for a claim in civil proceedings (creating a statutory tort) by anyone who is or who may be a victim of conduct falling within section 1. It provides for damages for anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss it causes, as well as providing for an injunction to restrain the defendant from conduct amounting to harassment. Where any person against whom an injunction has been granted under this section does "without reasonable excuse" anything prohibited by that injunction, section 3(6) of the Act makes that person guilty of an offence. Offences under section 3(6) are triable either way.
|
|
On September 25, 2015, the D.C. Circuit vacated its June judgment and granted the Government's petition for rehearing en banc. The Circuit specifically directed the rehearing would consider the standard of appellate review and as to if Congress's attempts to define and punish war crimes transgresses the Article III powers of courts. On October 20, 2016, the full D.C. Circuit voted 6-3 to affirm Bahlul's conspiracy conviction. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, wrote the four-judge plurality opinion for Judges Henderson, Janice Rogers Brown, and Thomas B. Griffith, finding that Congress can make crimes triable before military commissions even if those crimes are not internationally recognized war crimes.
|
|
In Scots law, all common law offences other than those within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court of Justiciary (i.e. murder, treason, rape and breach of duty by magistrates)Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 3 can be tried either summarily in the justice of the peace courts or Sheriff Courts, or on indictment in the High Court of Justiciary or Sheriff Court. For statutory offences, the statute will provide whether the offence is triable summarily, on indictment, or both. The choice of forum is a matter for the Lord Advocate and procurator fiscal, and is determined in a process known as marking.
|
|
The words "tell him before what court he would be tried if tried by a jury and" in section 25(3) were repealed by section 56 of, and Part IV of Schedule 11 to the Courts Act 1971. The words "triable by quarter sessions" in section 25(5)(b) were repealed by section 10(2) of, and Part III of Schedule 3 to, the Criminal Law Act 1967. Section 25(5) was amended by section 56 of, and paragraph 34(1) of Schedule 8 to, the Courts Act 1971. This section was repealed by section 65(5) of, and Schedule 13 to, the Criminal Law Act 1977.
|
|
The 1696 Act for Preventing Frauds moved responsibility for prosecuting piracy from central British authorities to colonial governments, establishing colonial vice-admiralty courts to create uniformity. Prior to this act, there was considerable variance in the existence and enforcement of anti-piracy laws between Britain and her colonies, and between the colonies themselves. The 1698 Act for the More Effectual Suppression of Piracy made all acts of piracy "triable" either at sea or in the newly created colonial admiralty courts, suspended the right to a jury trial for those accused of piracy, and encouraged British colonies to double down against piracy. The Piracy Act of 1700.
|
|
In every town and city, there are numerous civil and judicial magistrates' courts. Normally in capacity of judicial magistrate these courts have the powers to try all offences other than those which are specifically triable by Court of Session but maximum limit for awarding sentence of improvement is not more than three years. However a judicial magistrate having special powers under section 30 of Code of Criminal Procedure can award all punishments except capital punishment. In civil capacity in the province of Sindh and Balochistan as a civil judge these courts have jurisdiction to entertain the claims of third-class suits having a pecuniary limit up to fifty thousand rupees.
|
|
Some offences such as murder and rape are considered so serious that they can only be tried on indictment at the Crown Court where the widest range of sentencing powers is available to the judge. The expression indictable-only offence was defined by section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as originally enacted, as an offence triable only on indictment. Sections 51 and 52 of, and Schedule 3 to, that Act abolished committal proceedings for such offences and made other provisions in relation to them. When the accused is charged with an indictable-only offence, he or she will be tried in the Crown Court.
|
|
After Equilon began to operate, a class of 23,000 Texaco and Shell gas station owners filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that, by unifying gasoline prices under the two brands, petitioners had violated the per se rule against price fixing that the Supreme Court had long recognized under § 1 of the Sherman Act. The District Court awarded summary judgment to Texaco and Shell Oil. It determined that the rule of reason governed the plaintiffs' claim, under which only "unreasonable restraints of trade" were prohibited by the Sherman Act. Because they had eschewed rule of reason analysis, the plaintiffs had failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
|
|
In England and Wales and Northern Ireland, forgery is an offence under section 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, which provides: "Instrument" is defined by section 8, "makes" and "false" by section 9, and "induce" and "prejudice" by section 10. Forgery is triable either way. A person guilty of forgery is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.The Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, sections 6(1) to (3)(a) For offences akin to forgery, see English criminal law#Forgery, personation, and cheating.
|
|
Another criticism is that the Act violates the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws. Pro human rights group Human Rights First stated that "In violation of this fundamental tenet of the rule of law, defendants could be convicted for actions that were not illegal when they were taken." Joanne Mariner, an attorney who serves as the Terrorism and Counterterrorism Program Director at Human Rights Watch, described the issue this way: :The MCA states that it does not create any new crimes, but simply codifies offenses "that have traditionally been triable by military commissions." This provision is meant to convince the courts that there are no ex post facto problems with the offenses that the bill lists.
|
|
The use of unpaid magistrates is cost effective, in terms of cost and timeliness, saving the tax payer from the high cost of employing full-time judges. The report The Judiciary in the Magistrates' Court (2000) found that at the time the cost of using lay magistrates was £52.10 per hour compared with the cost of using a stipendiary at £61.90 an hour. In 2010, offence-to-completion time for defendants whose case was committed or sent for trial at the Crown Court was an average of 187 days. The estimated average offence-to-completion time in the magistrates' courts for indictable/triable either-way offences was 109 days for the same period.
|
|
The voting pattern of the en banc court in SRI was 5-1-5. The lead opinion insisted on a remand for trial on the reverse doctrine of equivalents issue, but found literal infringement. One judge found triable issues on reverse doctrine of equivalents, literal infringement, and prosecution history estoppel. The other five judges dissented, stating that (1) there was no literal infringement when the claims were properly construed in the light of the specification and the arguments made during the prosecution history, and (2) the undisputed fact record indicates that the accused device operates in a fundamentally different way from the patented device and therefore cannot infringe under the reverse doctrine of equivalents.
|
|
There is a controversy over whether this law affects the rights of habeas corpus for United States citizens. The text of the law states that its "purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." While the most controversial provisions in the law refer to "alien unlawful enemy combatants", section 948a refers to "unlawful enemy combatants" (not explicitly excluding US citizens). Cato Institute legal scholar Robert A. Levy writes that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that US citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights with which to challenge their indefinite detention.
|
|
They argue that the NDAA invokes "existing Supreme Court precedent ... that clearly permits the military detention (and even trial) of citizens who have themselves engaged in hostile acts or have supported such acts to the extent that they are properly classified as 'combatants' or 'belligerents'". This reflects the fact that, in their view, the United States is, pursuant to the AUMF, at war with al-Qaeda, and detention of enemy combatants in accordance with the laws of war is authorized. In their view, this does not preclude trial in civilian courts, but it does not require that the detainee be charged and tried. If the detainee is an enemy combatant who has not violated the laws of war, he is not chargeable with any triable offense.
|
|
The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate is the small unit, a sub-division of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, which is charged with monitoring and enforcing standards for over 1.3m agency workers. These standards are found in the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Businesses Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/3319), and include things like penalties for false advertising of jobs, prohibitions on strike breaking and extra sanctions for failing to give agency workers their statutory rights. Section 15 now makes offences triable in the Crown or magistrates' court. EASI has additional inspection powers, and if a Scottish partnership is the employer who fails to comply with the relevant standards then the partners will be personally liable.
|
|
The court decides if the case is suitable to be heard in the Magistrates' Court. If they decide that the case is either too serious or too complex, or another offence is being charged which is triable only on indictment, they can send the case to the Crown Court, in which case the defendant has no say in the matter. If the magistrates decide that the case is suitable to be heard by the magistrates, then the defendant is asked for consent to do so. The defendant can then either consent to be tried summarily (though likely in a different hearing on a later date) or opt for trial by jury at the Crown Court, provided that they have pleaded not guilty.
|
|
Prevention of the lawful and decent burial of a dead body is an offence under the common law of the United Kingdom."Hans Rausing charged with highly unusual offence" by Daniel Hoadley, The Guardian, Wednesday 18 July 2012 Outside of homicide (to be an added count) it is quite rare.Common Law Offences Charged and Reaching a first hearing in Magistrates' Courts, Crown Prosecution Service It is triable by indictment and can be punished by, at maximum, life imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. An example of the offence, standalone, is detaining a body, for instance upon a claim for fees or a debt, refusing to deliver it to the executors for burial, or when entrusted with it for burial selling for dissection.
|
|
On December 10, 2009, the judge denied Katzer's motion, concluding that Jacobsen could copyright the selection and ordering of the decoder definition files and could show monetary damages for copyright infringement. In the same ruling, he granted in part and denied in part Jacobsen's motion, finding that Katzer did register the decoderpro.com domain name in bad faith, that Katzer is liable for copyright infringement of the decoder definition files and that Katzer's counterclaim for copyright infringement is barred by the doctrine of laches (damaged argument), and ruled that Jacobsen had a license under an "Implied License" doctrine. The judge did not rule on damages for copyright infringement and determined that the questions of Katzer's knowledge or intent in removing copyright notices are triable issues.
|
|
In the courts of England and Wales, magistrates—also known as justices of the peace (JPs)—are volunteers who hear prosecutions for and dispose of 'summary offences' and some 'triable- either-way offences' by making orders with regard to and placing additional requirements on offenders. Magistrates/JPs are limited to issuing sentences of no longer than twelve months. Magistrates/JPs have other limitations in their sentencing authority with powers extending to fines, community orders which can include curfews, electronic tagging, requirements to perform unpaid work up to 300 hours, and supervision for up to three years. In more serious cases, magistrates can send 'either-way' offenders to the Crown Court for sentencing when the magistrate feels a penalty should be imposed that is more severe than the magistrate is capable of sentencing.
|
|
The constitutional guarantee that a trial on indictment for a federal offence must be by jury (section 80) has been rendered virtually worthless because the High Court has decided that it is applicable only to a trial that proceeds formally by way of indictment, and it is completely in Parliament's discretion to decide which offences are triable on indictment and which are not. This narrow view is confirmed in the majority judgement of Kingswell v the Queen. Powerful dissents to the effect that the section must be given some substantive meaning (the trial of offences of some specific degree of gravity must be by jury) have not prevailed. On the other hand, where Parliament has prescribed jury trial, the Court has been willing to impose some content on that notion.
|
|
Section 33(1) creates 15 criminal offences including breach of a duty under the Act or a regulation, contravention of a notice, or obstructing an inspector. In England and Wales prosecution under the Act could originally only be brought by an inspector or with the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions but the Environment Agency was also authorised on 1 April 1996 (section 38).Environment Act 1995, section 120(1)/ Sch 22 para 30(7) (with ss 7(6), 115, 117); SI 1996/186, art 3 All offences under the Act are either summary offences or offences triable either way so inspectors start prosecutions by laying an information before the Magistrates' Court. Inspectors can themselves be authorised to exercise rights of audience before the Magistrates even though not legally qualified (section 39).
|
|
Section 1(1) increased the penalties to which a person guilty of an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 (conduct conducive to breach of the peace) or under section 1(1) of the Public Meeting Act 1908 (endeavouring to break up meetings) was liable. It also provided that the offence under the Public Order Act 1936 was to become triable on indictment. It provided that a person guilty of either of those offences was liable on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to a fine not exceeding £500, or to both, or on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding £100, or to both. This did not apply to offences committed before 31 July 1963.
|
|
After independence, the court was converted as an Indian Court as a Judicial Magistrate Court, Yanam in 1956, whereas, the Regional Administrative Officer of Yanam was the judge of the court having both executive and judicial powers on civil and criminal cases. After bifurcation of the judiciary, the court came under a separate Judicial Department of Government of Puducherry and under the administration of the High Court, Madras and it was termed as Judicial First Class Magistrate Court cum District Munsif Court. Subsequently, under the reform by theHigh Court, Madras, the Yanam was upgraded to that of Subordinate Judge (Civil Judge-Senior Division)/Assistant Sessions Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of I Class in 2000. Now because of this upgrade, all the civil cases up to the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 500,000s are triable by the court.
|
|
The Larceny Act 1916 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Its purpose was to consolidate and simplify the law relating to larceny triable on indictment and to kindred offences.Larceny Act 1916 The definition of larceny for the purposes of the Act was "a person steals who, without the consent of the owner, fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith; takes and carries away anything capable of being stolen, with the intent at the time of such taking, permanently to deprive the owner thereof. Provided that a person may be guilty of stealing any such thing notwithstanding that he has lawful possession thereof, if, being a bailee or part owner thereof, he fraudulently converts the same to his own use or the use of any person other than the owner".
|
|
Accordingly, while most depositions are not videotaped, opposing counsel may use the opportunity to get an impression of the witness's affect and appearance, because these are telling factors as to how that person will present in front of a jury. Furthermore, deposition transcripts are frequently submitted in support of motions for summary judgment as evidence that there is no triable issue of fact. The moving party may use transcripts to argue that even if all the testimony given at deposition was given again at trial, no reasonable factfinder could find in the opponent's favor on a material issue of fact. The rationale is that generally, a witness must give consistent testimony on all material issues of fact both at deposition and at trial (unless there is a very good reason for changing one's answers), or else the inconsistencies can and will be used to impeach his credibility.
|
|
This is a summary offence but is rarely prosecuted. Handling stolen goods is triable either way.The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, section 17(1) and Schedule 1, paragraph 28 A person guilty of handling stolen goods is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years,The Theft Act 1968, section 22(2) or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum, or to both.The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, section 32(1) The wording of Section 22 actually creates eighteen ways in which handling may be committed, This may create a problem for prosecutors in that Rule 7 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, and Rule 7 of the Indictments Rules 1971 provide that only a single offence may be charged in one information (in the Magistrates' Court) or in one count of an indictment (in the Crown Court).
|
|
Because Justice Anthony Kennedy did not join Stevens' opinion as to several parts, largely on the grounds of judicial parsimony (that is, having decided that the military commissions had no foundation, the core question of the case was decided and the Court did not need to go further), those sections were without a majority in support. In one of these sections, Stevens addressed the issue of whether military commissions can try conspiracy charges. He argued that military commissions are not courts of general jurisdiction, which are able to try any crime; that the court has traditionally held that offenses against the law of war are triable by military commission only when they are clearly defined as war crimes by statute or strong common law precedent (cf. Quirin). Finally, he found that there was no support in statute or court precedent for law-of-war military commissions trying charges of "conspiracy", either in the Geneva Conventions, in the earlier Hague Conventions or at the Nuremberg Trials.
|
|
Service police are not constables under UK law and do not have any constabulary powers over the general public, however they have the full range of policing power that constables possess when dealing service personnel or civilians subject to service discipline. However, the service police can utilise the powers, available to all persons in England and Wales, under Section 24(A) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which allows any person to arrest any individual they have reasonable grounds to believe is committing, or has committed, an indictable offence, or triable either way, and where a constable is not available to perform the arrest. They are allowed to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstance to achieve this. A similar power of arrest exists under Scottish common law, but there is a requirement to use the minimum amount of force and for the Military Police officer to have directly witnessed the individual commit the act for which they are arresting them.
|
|
The Court of Appeal is made up of a President, the Chief Justice who, as head of the judiciary, is an ex officio member of the Court and sits at the invitation of the President, and not less than two and not more than four Justices of Appeal. The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from judgments, orders and sentences made by the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal also has the jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from matters in a magisterial court in respect of indictable offences triable summarily on the grounds that - (i) the court had no jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in the matter; (ii) the decision was unreasonable, could not be supported by the evidence or was erroneous in point of law; (iii) the decision of the magistrate or the sentence passed was based on a wrong principle; (iv) some material illegality occurred affecting the merits of the case; or (v) the sentence was too severe or lenient.
|
|
Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U.S. 146, 156. To recognize that military orders are "reasonably expedient military precautions" in time of war, and yet to deny them constitutional legitimacy, makes of the Constitution an instrument for dialectic subtleties not reasonably to be attributed to the hard-headed Framers, of whom a majority had had actual participation in war. If a military order such as that under review does not transcend the means appropriate for conducting war, such action by the military is as constitutional as would be any authorized action by the Interstate Commerce Commission within the limits of the constitutional power to regulate commerce. And, being an exercise of the war power explicitly granted by the Constitution for safeguarding the national life by prosecuting war effectively, I find nothing in the Constitution which denies to Congress the power to enforce such a valid military order by making its violation an offense triable in the civil courts.
|
|
Section 1(1) of the Act creates the offence of attempt: Section 1 applies to any indictable offence triable in England and Wales, except conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and offences under sections 4 and 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (which deal with assisting offenders and concealing information about crimes).Section 1(4) Section 1(2) reads: Section 1(3) states that a person is to be judged according to what the defendant thought the facts of the case were at the time of the attempt, rather than what the facts really were, in the event that the defendant was mistaken about what was happening. Section 2 states that rules regarding time limits for prosecuting, powers of arrest and search, and so on, are the same for offences of attempting to commit an offence as they are for the offence attempted. Section 3 provides that where another Act creates an offence of attempting to commit an offence under that Act, similar rules apply to that offence as the rules in section 1 (unless the other Act specifically says otherwise).
|
|
Section 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 now provides that where a person commits an offence under section 2 or 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act which is "racially or religiously aggravated" within the meaning of section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) he is guilty of an offence triable either way. A person convicted on indictment of an offence falling within section 32(1)(a) of the 1998 Act (the racially or religiously aggravated version of the offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both. A person convicted of indictment of an offence falling within section 32(1)(b) of the 1998 Act (the racially or religiously aggravated version of the offence under section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or to a fine, or to both.
|
|
"Notwithstanding that" In R v Gore,R v Gore [2007] EWCA Crim 2789 the Court of Appeal held that this expression meant "even if". Restriction on institution of proceedings Proceedings against a woman for infanticide, if the injury alleged to have caused the death was sustained more than three years before the death occurred, or the person has previously been convicted of an offence committed in circumstances alleged to be connected with the death, may only be instituted by or with the consent of the Attorney General.The Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996, sections 2(1) and 2(2) and 2(3)(a) Alternative verdict Where on the trial of any person for infanticide the jury are of the opinion that the person charged is not guilty of infanticide, but that she is shown by the evidence to be guilty of child destruction, the jury may find her guilty of that offence.The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, section 2(2) Mode of trial Infanticide is triable only on indictment.
|
|
Certain types of minor damage, such as graffiti, may be dealt with by the issue of fixed penalty notices as an alternative to prosecution.. Non-aggravated offences involving damage valued at less than £5,000 are triable only summarily by magistrates and the maximum sentence is three months' imprisonment and a fine of £2,500. If the value of the property damaged exceeds £5,000, the defendant is entitled to claim trial on indictment by a jury, but if tried summarily, may be sentenced to up to six months in jail and a £5,000 fine. Where the value of the property is unclear, the court may hear representations as to value, but may also offer the defendant the option of summary trial, with limited penalties.Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (1980 c. 43), section 22. See also "Magistrates' Courts Act 1980". Section 4 of the 1971 Act sets out that offences under sections 1(2) and 1(3) are punishable by a maximum term of life imprisonment and all others by a maximum of ten years' imprisonment. Section 30 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (1998 c. 37).
|
|
Section 6 "with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it" is sufficiently flexible to include situations where the property is later returned. Alternative verdict The offense created by section 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968 (TWOC) is available an alternative verdict on an indictment for theft.The Theft Act 1968, section 12(4) Visiting forces Theft is an offence against property for the purposes of section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952.The Visiting Forces Act 1952, section 3(6) and Schedule, paragraph 3(g) (as inserted by the Theft Act 1968, Schedule 2, Part III) Mode of trial and sentence Theft is triable either way.The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, section 17(1) and Schedule 1, paragraph 28 A person guilty of theft is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years,The Theft Act 1968, section 7 or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum, or to both.The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, section 32(1) Aggravated theft The only offence of aggravated theft is robbery, contrary to section 8 of the Theft Act 1968.
|
|
Rapper Lecrae, who is featured on the song was and was initially included as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, clarified to MTV that "I was in Hong Kong [when] the press release went out and it's not my song — it's my guy Flame's song and I respect everyone's intellectual properties — but that statement about the witchcraft and stuff, that's not my statement and I don't stand behind that statement." To divest himself from the lawsuit, Lecrae signed over his rights to the song to Flame, Da' T.R.U.T.H., and Ojukwu for free. In August 2018, Christina A. Snyder from the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled against a summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs "demonstrated a triable issue of fact as to access because 'Joyful Noise' achieved critical success, including a Grammy nomination, and was readily available and viewed millions of times on YouTube and MySpace." She also deferred to the arguments of musicologist Todd Decker, who claimed that the songs share "five or six points of similarity"; specifically, the ostinatos in both songs are either identical or nearly so in their phrase length, rhythm, pitch content, and timbre.
|
|
In Ralph Hume Garry (a firm) v Gwillim 2002 EWCA Civ 1500, a client sued for outstanding legal fees appealed against a refusal at first instance to strike out the claim against him on the basis that most of the bills did not bona fide comply with section 64 of the Solicitors Act 1974. The judgment contained a lengthy discussion by Ward LJ of the statutory history and the development of the case law with respect to the requirements for solicitors’ bills. Ward reaffirmed the well-established requirement that a solicitor's bill must allow the client to have sufficient information to decide whether to seek taxation, and that the proper principle to be that there must be something in the written bill to indicate the ambit of the work, but that inadequacies in the bill of description of the work done may be redressed by accompanying documents or the client's knowledge. The appeal was dismissed as each bill was obviously and latterly expressly for professional charges, and also identified the matter and the periods of time they applied to. Therefore, the claim should not be struck out as the issue of adequacy of the bills (together with the client’s knowledge) was a triable matter.
|
|
This section gives a court dealing with a person convicted of an offence under sections 2 (harassment) or 4 (putting in fear of violence) of the Act the power to make a restraining order for the purpose of protecting "the victim of the offence" or "any other person mentioned in the order". Offences under section 5 are triable either way. A person guilty of an offence under section 5 is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to a fine, or to both, or, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 5(6) This section has effect in relation to a person convicted of an offence under section 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as if the reference in subsection (1) of this section to an offence under section 2 or 4 included a reference to an offence under the said section 32.The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 32(7) Section 5(3A) was inserted by section 12(2) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.
|
|