criminal law case (1 Viewer)

[= Jennifer =]

does any one remember the name of the cases where in sexual assault there was either

mistaken identity

thought they were married but were not

thanks guys and could u tell me where u found em

 

[LaraB]

does any one remember the name of the cases where in sexual assault there was either

mistaken identity

thought they were married but were not

thanks guys and could u tell me where u found em

lol been trying to find that one too but can't find it...

it's somewhere around the same stuff as Morgan but couldn't find it.. guessin it was just in the notes or somethin..

oh and u did the shared case notes thingy too right? can u send me Thabo Meli coz i lost it

 

[spell check]

Papadimitropoulos (1957) 98 CLR 249

the dude convinced the woman they were married even though they weren't
the high court said this mistake didn't vitiate consent

 

[LaraB]

Papadimitropoulos (1957) 98 CLR 249

the dude convinced the woman they were married even though they weren't
the high court said this mistake didn't vitiate consent

yep - didn't vitiate coz the status was not important..

can't remember the exact term but it's something to do with character as opposed to something else..

eg if u sleep wit someone coz u think they're ur hubby, doesn't matter, but if you slept with em coz you thought they were someone else ie another identity then it does matter..

basically long as you know who the person is your reason doesn't mean shit coz its still the same person

 

[Jonathan A]

There has been some considerable amendment to that principle given s61R

 

[= Jennifer =]

oh and u did the shared case notes thingy too right? can u send me Thabo Meli coz i lost it

lol ok...i have so much to do i only just started assault now 4:49am the day before the exam still 10 odd seminars to go and i havent even looked at criminalisation

 

[= Jennifer =]

does any one know the name of the case where the guy was speeding through the school zone although he knew it was a day off?

i know it is relatively new and i tried searching factiva couldnt find it thanks guys and girls

 

[= Jennifer =]

dw i found it, it was maitland

here is the newspaper article

Local

School camera farce - Courts quash speeding fines from pupil-free days

Kelvin Bissett, Investigations Editor
MATP
400 words
31 October 2005
Daily Telegraph
2 - Extended Metro
15
English
Copyright 2005 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved

THERE were hardly any children in the schoolyards, but school-zone speed cameras have trapped 3000 drivers on pupil-free days this year.

Motorists are being booked in droves in 40km/h school zones on "staff development days" despite the State Government recognising the anomaly earlier this year.

The confusion has generated a minimum of $307,000 for the State Treasury since it was revealed as a lucrative money-spinner by The Daily Telegraph in January this year.

The Roads and Traffic Authority programs its 10 school-zone cameras to enforce a 40km/h limit on all days of the "gazetted" school term, usually between 8am and 9.30am and 2.30pm and 4pm.

These "gazetted" terms include the pupil-free days that fell on January 28, April 26 and July 18.

In February, then Roads Minister Michael Costa conceded that pupil-free days caused problems.

"School zones must be effective without causing an unnecessary impact on traffic flows, including on pupil-free days," Mr Costa said.

Since then, nothing has been done.

The NRMA said yesterday it had a long-standing policy that, because of the confusion, school zone cameras should not operate on pupil-free days.

Documents obtained under Freedom of Information show 2988 motorists have been caught on pupil-free days this year. In 2004 the figure was only slightly higher with 3203.

But there may be a backlash building in the courts over this easy revenue.

In the Maitland Local Court on August 15, magistrate Col Elliott let off five drivers who had been caught at Lochinvar on January 28.

Solicitor Dan Smyth, of the Cessnock law firm Smyth Turner and Wall, said he had since fielded a large number of calls from other legal representatives putting together cases for clients. He knew of about 10 similar fines that had been quashed in court.

He said: "It's a defence -- and it should work in court -- if the person has a genuine belief it was a school holiday on the day," Mr Smyth said yesterday.

He invited anyone caught by a speed camera on a pupil-free day to ring his office for advice on fighting the fines.

 

[Angel45]

property offences - def. not my forte

sorry guys...just a question..
why does Ilich say w/out consent of the owner while tracey has written
in the sem guide, w/out consent of person previously in posession (the possessor)

ta

 

[LaraB]

Illich (1987) – At common law, larceny is committed by a person who, without the consent of the owner, fraudulently & without claim of right made in good faith takes & carries away anything capable of being stolen with intent, at the time of such taking, permanently depriving the owner thereof.
Operation of temporal coincidence – MR at the time of the taking etc. Generally, a strict approach to this principle has been taken (Potisk (1973)) Taking requires a physical transfer of possession (as opposed to ownership). Requires a physical transfer of possession to = larceny.
Appropriating – accused has possession with consent for a particular purpose but ‘appropriates’ or ‘converts’ the property for his/her own use – Fraudulent appropriation (s124) rather than larceny. If property has passed to the accused, the accused cannot subsequently covert or appropriate what they own (Illich).


that's a summary of my notes on it which should explain it a bit

i'm not sure why the seminar guide n the case woudl say 2 different things.. myabe one was in reference to larceny and one in reference to appropriation? since u can't appropriate something you own?

 

[Angel45]

Illich (1987) – At common law, larceny is committed by a person who, without the consent of the owner, fraudulently & without claim of right made in good faith takes & carries away anything capable of being stolen with intent, at the time of such taking, permanently depriving the owner thereof.
Operation of temporal coincidence – MR at the time of the taking etc. Generally, a strict approach to this principle has been taken (Potisk (1973)) Taking requires a physical transfer of possession (as opposed to ownership). Requires a physical transfer of possession to = larceny.
Appropriating – accused has possession with consent for a particular purpose but ‘appropriates’ or ‘converts’ the property for his/her own use – Fraudulent appropriation (s124) rather than larceny. If property has passed to the accused, the accused cannot subsequently covert or appropriate what they own (Illich).


that's a summary of my notes on it which should explain it a bit

i'm not sure why the seminar guide n the case woudl say 2 different things.. myabe one was in reference to larceny and one in reference to appropriation? since u can't appropriate something you own?

thanks heaps for that.. i think it's confusing coz i mean larceny is about t'fer of possession so i don't get why it's w/out consent of the OWNER.