Corey Davis Case (1 Viewer)

[Juanita]

Hey guys,

Just wondering if anyone doing legal studies would have any information on the legal procedures and stages in the Corey Davis case. We're doing crime at the moment and this is one of our assesments.

ok thanx

Juanita

 

[pig_93]

your teacher should have given you like a whole booklety trascript of the case. it is very thorough and comprehensive. there isnt much on the case avaliable!
we did it for a mere case study when we did crim law last term, and it was okay, it was only to embellish the point of doli incapax and all that jazz.
so ask him/her for it, or venture out and find it somehow! its good and im thinking thats about all there is too

sorry im not of more help

 

[for_amusement]

I did the corey davis case for an assessment on the effectiveness of the legal system so procedures didn't really play a large part in it. Talk about the hearing in the childrens court how the magistrate had the discretion to ban the media however did not exercise this. Theres also all the issues of charging a child in an adult court, testimony's given by the wittnesses who were like aged 6-10 or something. reading back don't think this helps. meh. good luck

 

[rhapsodic]

are the cases for defence and prosecution included in the transcripts?

 

[always777]

such a good case i thought. i did it for an assessment. we had to focuc on the changing nature of the law n that
The basics:
*Had a hearing - Children's Court Senior Magistrate decided that no court would convict a child so he let it go
*The Director of Public Prosecutions kicked up a fuss, overuled the Magistrate's decision and took the kid to court. This was mainly because of the reaction of the media and the public towards a little kid's death.
*Traditionally, children under 14 years aer seen as doli incapax - they dont have the knowledge or capacity to know that what they are doing is seriously wrong. So the prosecution had to prove beyond doubt that he knew what he was doing was wrong and would result in a crime.
*The kid on trial was described by his teachers at the trial as anti-social and disagreeable. H was behind his age group at school - that why he was hanging around with younger kids - led to humiliation and rebellion etc. O and he lived with his grandmother - his mum and dad had problems - pehaps something to do with drugs - i'm probably wrong tho
*For amusement has already mentioned that the witnesses were all very young, plus the trial was held lik a year after it happened - very unreliable.
*Not guilty becuase it wasn't beyond doubt that he knew it was wrong.

have fun

 

[amybaker1990]

hi.. i read your post...
i was wondering if you had a copy of this transcript????u speak of..
or know possibly where i could find one asap???
thanks

 

[testiclepilot]

hi.. i read your post...
i was wondering if you had a copy of this transcript????u speak of..
or know possibly where i could find one asap???
thanks

Dude.

Well bumped. The thread is only 3 years old.

I suggest you use google kthx.

 

[loser101]

dont you mean the corey worthington/delaney case???

 

[Tulipa]

dont you mean the corey worthington/delaney case???

Wrong case.

This thread is also three years old.