scholarly journals Forensic Engineering Practice In New Zealand

1992 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen C. Jenkins
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
The United States ◽  
Engineering Practice ◽  
Legal Environment ◽  
Court System ◽  
View Point ◽  
Insurance Plan ◽  
Forensic Engineering ◽  
The Right

It is interesting to read of the controversy arising from the Quayle Report in the United States, and the proposals to limit or restrict the activities of expert witnesses and particularly forensic engineers. This move appears to mirror moves in the New Zealand court system, although these moves are being approached from a completely different view point and arise from a completely different legal environment. Forensic engineering h New Zealand is a much smaller field than in the United States. For many years New Zealand has restricted the right of individuals to sue for matters born accident and injury, and has instead operated a central, tax-funded, no-fault insurance plan. The structure of the Plan is currently under review, but it is likely that the right to sue will still be restricted.

scholarly journals The Forensic Engineer in State and Federal Court

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard M. Ziernicki
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court System ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
Forensic Engineering ◽  
And Function

This paper outlines the legal system in the United States, the different types of courts, the differences between criminal and civil law, and the role of forensic engineering experts involved in civil lawsuits. After providing a summary of relevant procedures employed by civil and criminal courts, the paper describes the basic principles and requirements for the selection and work of a forensic engineering expert in both the state and federal court system. This paper outlines the role and function of forensic experts (specifically forensic engineers), in the United States court system. It is not a treatise on the legal system but on the role of experts. The paper presents the requirements typically used in today’s legal system to qualify a forensic engineer as an expert witness and to accept his or her work and opinions. Furthermore, this paper discusses who can be an expert witness, the expert’s report, applicable standards, conducted research, engineering opinions, and final testimony in court — and how those elements fit into the legal system. Lastly, the paper describes the concept of spoliation of evidence.

The Right to Know in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
The United States ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
The Right

It was acknowledged in the 1997 White Paper Your Right To Know that the United Kingdom could learn much from the experience of other countries with established FOI regimes. The draftsman of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 had regard to the statutory schemes of five such countries whose jurisprudence has precedent value in our courts: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States. Chapter 25 looks at their different approaches to the fundamental elements of any FOI regime, and gives examples of how their courts have interpreted and applied the respective statutes. The chapter notes common themes and recurrent sources of controversy, notably delays in responding to requests, charges for access, and the position of affected third parties. It traces how the legislation in each country has been adapted over the years, and where there is pressure for yet further reforms.

scholarly journals The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Benjamin Suter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Model Law ◽  
The Right

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.  In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact.  In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test).  This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

scholarly journals Trade Union Recognition and Australia’s Neo-Liberal Voluntary Bargaining Laws

2003 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ron McCallum
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Trade Union ◽  
Trade Unions ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Industrial Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Recognition Mechanism ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Right

Summary When Australia deregulated its economy in the 1980s, political pressures built up leading in the 1990s to the dismantling of Australia’s industry-wide conciliation and arbitration systems. New laws established regimes of collective bargaining at the level of the employing undertaking. This article analyzes the 1993 and 1996 federal bargaining laws and argues that they fail to protect the right of trade unions to bargain on behalf of their members. This is because the laws do not contain a statutory trade union recognition mechanism. The recognition mechanisms in the Common Law countries of the United States, Canada, Britain and New Zealand are examined, and it is argued that Australia should enact trade union recognition mechanisms that are consonant with its industrial relations history and practice.

scholarly journals The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Benjamin Suter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Model Law ◽  
The Right

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.  In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact.  In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test).  This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

scholarly journals The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Benjamin Suter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Model Law ◽  
The Right

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.  In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact.  In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test). This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

scholarly journals Southern Criminology, Law and the ‘Right’ to Consular Notification in Australia, New Zealand and the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 100-114
Author(s):  
Sally Kennedy ◽  
Ian Warren
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Legal Requirements ◽  
The Us ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Legal Arguments ◽  
The Right ◽  
Justice Practice

This paper investigates the implementation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in Australia, New Zealand and the United States (US) by using a Southern approach to examining law. We describe the incorporation of Article 36 from a defendant-centred perspective under Australian and New Zealand laws governing police procedure, and the commensurate jurisdictional tensions it has generated in the US. We then empirically analyse 16 non-capital US cases to identify the type of offence, the nationality and perceived English-speaking competency of the foreign suspect, and the point at which the alleged Article 36 violation is canvassed in legal arguments. This analysis highlights the importance of a defendant-centred Southern criminology of law in critically assessing the implementation of international legal requirements into domestic criminal justice practice.

Indigenous Courts

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valmaine Toki
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Prison Population ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court System ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Navajo Nation ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Traditional Setting

In many jurisdictions, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, United States and across the Pacific, offending rates for Indigenous peoples continue to be disproportionate to population size. For example, in New Zealand, Māori comprise over half the male prison population yet constitute only 15% of the national population. In Canada and the United States, where Indigenous people constitute 3.6 and 1.7% of the population, respectively, imprisonment rates are also disproportionate. Notwithstanding attempts to address these statistics, the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in prisons continues. However, Te Kooti Rangatahi, a marae-based (traditional-setting) “Indigenous court” for youths, has demonstrated some initial success as a unique initiative. This “court” integrates tikanga Māori (Māori culture) into the judicial process, with the aim of facilitating the reconnection of young people with their culture and involving the wider community. Te Kooti Matariki, an Indigenous court for adults, employs tikanga but within a mainstream court. A comparative perspective with the Navajo Common Law and Navajo Nation Tribal Court system demonstrates that the inclusion of Indigenous concepts into Western legal systems is not novel and should not in and of itself prevent the extension of Te Kooti Rangatahi and Te Kooti Matariki’s jurisdictions.

scholarly journals The scope of rights of appeal (not recourse) from arbitration awards

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Benjamin Suter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Model Law ◽  
The Right

<p>This paper examines the scope of rights of appeal from arbitration awards in New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.  In countries that have drafted their legislation after the UNCITRAL Model Law appeals are often excluded and only recourse based on very narrow grounds is available. While many countries are more permissive with regards to appeals than the Model Law in that they allow the parties to opt for more expansive review, none of the examined jurisdictions give the parties the right to opt for appeals on questions of law and fact.  In several cases parties have tried to expand the rights of appeal by agreement. Such agreements are deemed invalid in all jurisdictions. When examining whether the invalid clause renders the entire arbitration agreement invalid, courts in common law jurisdictions have applied the doctrine of severance in some variations. Civil law courts usually examine whether the parties would have concluded the contract without the invalid clause (“but for”-test). This paper suggests that many of these tests are not suitable for arbitration agreements where the parties do not exchange considerations but rather promise one another exactly the same. The preferable approach is to combine the “but for”-test with a test that assesses if severance alters the nature of the agreement.</p>

Effectiveness of Programs for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amaia Del Campo ◽  
Marisalva Fávero
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sexual Abuse ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Prevention Programs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sexual Abuse Prevention ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Methodological Considerations

Abstract. During the last decades, several studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of sexual abuse prevention programs implemented in different countries. In this article, we present a review of 70 studies (1981–2017) evaluating prevention programs, conducted mostly in the United States and Canada, although with a considerable presence also in other countries, such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The results of these studies, in general, are very promising and encourage us to continue this type of intervention, almost unanimously confirming its effectiveness. Prevention programs encourage children and adolescents to report the abuse experienced and they may help to reduce the trauma of sexual abuse if there are victims among the participants. We also found that some evaluations have not considered the possible negative effects of this type of programs in the event that they are applied inappropriately. Finally, we present some methodological considerations as critical analysis to this type of evaluations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document