scholarly journals Access Denied? Inconsistent Jurisprudence on the Open Court Principle and Media Access to Exhibits in Canadian Criminal Cases

2011 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana Adams

The open court principle is a central tenet of the Canadian justice system. However, in cases involving media access to exhibits entered in court, the courts have been neither clear nor consistent in their interpretation and application of the open court principle. This article discusses the historical development of the open court principle and the definition of an “open court” today. The author proposes that the Supreme Court of Canada should clarify that the open court principle extends to access to exhibits and re-articulate the Dagenais/Mentuck test in order to resolve the inconsistencies regarding the open court principle.

2005 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 327-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janine Benedet

In its recent decision in R. v. Sharpe, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Criminal Code provisions prohibiting the possession and making of child pornography, subject to two exceptions. Despite a narrow construction of the definition of child pornography and a broad reading of the statutory defences, the majority found that prohibiting individuals from making and possessing some kinds of child pornography was an unjustifiable limit on the freedom of expression guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The dissent would have upheld the legislation in its entirety. This article argues that the majority of the Court erred in considering the value of freedom of expression in a detached and abstract manner. Operating in this abstract plane led the Court to approve two significant exceptions on the basis of hypothetical examples of overbreadth, without considering the reality of the exceptions as they relate to documented child pornography cases. As a result, the Court extended constitutional protection to some categories of material that are clearly harmful to children. This result should make us sceptical of the use in Charter cases of broad reading in remedies that create complex judicial amendments with unexamined consequences.


1969 ◽  
pp. 299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julianne Parfett

The common law has historically defined self- incrimination narrowly. Using Packer's models of the criminal justice system as a framework, the article examines the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretations of s. 24(2) of the Charter. The Court has expanded the definitions of both self incrimination and remoteness. The author argues that s. 24(2) has ceased to be a remedy requiring the balancing of interests and has become a quasi- automatic rule of exclusion, which promotes individual rights at the cost of victim's rights. Further, in the Court's zeal to protect the integrity of the system, there is no allowance made for the seriousness of the breach, the consequences of the exclusion, or the causal connection between the breach and any evidence obtained. The author argues that this has resulted in a justice system more concerned with police behaviour than with the pursuit of truth. Instead, either the exclusionary rule must be used to foster a balance of individual and communitarian rights, or other more imaginative remedies should be crafted from s. 24(2) to protect the integrity of the legal system.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 609-643
Author(s):  
Roger Cantin

The refugee determination process under the Immigration Act, 1976 comprises many steps which have been the subject of judicial interpretation. An individual claiming to be a “Convention refugee” in Canada will first be examined under oath with regard to his claim. The Refugee Status Advisory Committee will study the transcript of this examination. After obtaining the advice of the Committee, the Minister of Employment and Immigration will determine whether or not the claimant is a “Convention refugee”. Should this determination be negative, the person concerned will have the choice to apply to the Immigration Appeal Board for a redetermination of his claim. At this stage, the Board will grant an oral hearing to the applicant and render a decision thereafter if it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he could prove that he is a “Convention refugee”. If no oral hearing is granted, the Board will determine that the applicant is not a “Convention refugee”. The Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada have had a considerable input in the interpretation of the provisions relating to this refugee determination process, including the wording of the definition of “Convention refugee”. This paper limits itself to a review of the decisions rendered by these courts.


1969 ◽  
pp. 788
Author(s):  
Julian V. Roberts ◽  
Simon Verdun-Jones

The issue of conditional sentencing in relation to mentally disordered offenders was recently addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Knoblauch. This article examines the context in which the Knoblauch decision was made by reviewing the incidence of mental disorders in correctional populations and the criminal justice system s response. The authors explore Knoblauch's implications on the conditional sentencing regime as a whole and its use as a sentencing tool for dealing with mentally disordered offenders.


Author(s):  
Rosalie Jukier

This article explores judicial methodology in the mixed legal system of Quebec and examines, in particular, how the nature of its legal system as a mixed legal system influences the judicial methodology of its judges, especially with respect to the de facto use of precedent. Features of the mixity, including the institutional setting of Quebec courts as courts of inherent jurisdiction, the nature of Quebec’s civil justice system and procedural law, as well as the judicial role and the effect of a supreme precedential authority (in the Supreme Court of Canada) are examined in turn as influential factors.


1931 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 980-995 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. C. Grant

Recent crime surveys have shown that the majority of contested felony cases are never tried in open court, being settled instead by the striking of a “bargain” between the defendant and the prosecuting officer. Administrative discretion has thus largely supplanted judge and jury alike. The practice has been severely criticized by Professor Moley, who characterizes it as “ psychologically more akin to a game of poker than to a process of justice,” being “an attempt to get as much as possible from an unwilling giver” rather than “a search for truth.” In view of the technicalities and delay that were permitted to develop in connection with jury trials, the utilization of some such avenue of escape would seem to have been inevitable. The practice may be expected to develop still further unless judicial procedure is improved to a point where a trial becomes an efficient means of disposing of contested criminal cases.In most jurisdictions, the only alternative to such a compromise agreement has been a jury trial. Trial by a judge alone, the right to a jury being waived, has been regarded as of doubtful constitutionality. Recent decisions of the federal Supreme Court and of the supreme court of Illinois, sustaining such non-jury trials even in the absence of statutory authorization, have gone far toward dispelling this doubt, and warrant an examination of the practical working of the waiver plan in those jurisdictions where it has been given a trial.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 943
Author(s):  
Rizky Adiyanzah Wicaksono ◽  
Sri Kusriyah Kusriyah

Children who were doing mischief that led to the crime, should be against the law to account for his actions. Currently, prevention and control delinquency that resulted in minor criminal offenses is done through the implementation of the juvenile justice system to a restorative justice approach. The concept of restorative justice becomes a very important consideration in resolving criminal cases committed by children. The Supreme Court has issued a Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) No. 2 of 2012 on the Limitation Adjustment light crime and the amount of penalties in the Criminal Code, which essentially stipulates that the value limit losses in tipiring (Lightweight Crime) case is a maximum of 2.5 million, and against the threat case maximum criminal penalty of three months imprisonment or fine, as well as in the settlement tipiring must promote Restorative Justice. Child settlement, which is directed to resolving informally or out of court, with the involvement of all parties involved in the criminal act has occurred. Minor criminal offenses committed by children under the Act No. 11 of 2012 carried through the diversion mechanism by way of mediation or deliberation.Keywords: Restorative Justice; Lightweight Crime; Children.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 12-13
Author(s):  
LuAnn Haley ◽  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 276-293
Author(s):  
Mateusz Radajewski

Summary The article concerns the issue of constitutionality of the reform of the justice system in Poland in 2017–2018, which resulted in significant changes of the functioning of the National Council of the Judiciary and the Supreme Court. When discussing the reform of the Supreme Court, the author first of all points to the constitutional problems associated with the premature retirement of some of its judges, which is also connected with the interruption of the six-year term of the First President of the Supreme Court. A separate issue discussed in the article is the introduction to the Supreme Court the lay judges, which is a unique phenomenon on the global scale. The analyses lead the author to formulate final conclusions, also referring to the European regulations and to refer to the unconstitutionality of the solutions adopted by the Polish parliament.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document