Favourite Cases (1 Viewer)

[neo o]

Call me a nerd, I don't care. Post your favourite cases, or some of the weirder ones that you've come across during your degree. Mine are:

2. McCoskar v The State [2005] - A Fijian case. An Australian (McCoskar) went to Fiji and spent a significant amount of time with a young man. When he was preparing to leave the country, he reported to the police that the young man had stolen $1,500 from him. When the police picked up the young man, it turned out that the money was paid to him as a "modeling fee". McCoskar was picked up at the airport and the police found a stash of photos of him and the other defendant engaged in sexual acts. Since "unnatural sex acts" at that time were a criminal offence in Fiji at the time, both were picked up and charged. Well done McCoskar, you idiot.

Incidentally, this case also resulted in the Fijian Court striking out criminal provisions targeting homosexuals from the Fijian Crimes Act, as they violated a constitutional right to privacy. At least McCoskar did some good.

1. Mosely v Newsgroup [2008] - An English case, aka the Nazi spank-fest case. Also another privacy case. Max Mosely was the son of the former leader of the equivalent of the English fascist party. He was into sadomasochism, and News of the World paid one of his partners off to wear a wire in one of their encounters. The film showed Max tied up, by women in military uniforms, spanking him, and yelling orders at him in German. They ran the story and Mosely sued.

On determining whether there was a Nazi spank-fest (which wasn't actually relevant to the overall decision, but I think the court did it for the fun of it) we have some gems like

On the ladies yelling in German...

As was further explained, to many English ears at least, the language is perceived as having a harsh and guttural sound and is thought to be more suitable for use by those playing a dominant role in S and M scenarios than (say) French or Italian. Apparently Russian might have also been suitable, but unfortunately none of the participants spoke Russian.

On Aryan blondes

There was, of course, plenty of spanking, and references to “judicial” penalties, but the only passage which is relevant for this purpose relates to an occasion when one of the women was lying face down on the sofa while being given intermittent and rather lack-lustre strokes with a strap. There seems to be some sort of game involving rivalry between blondes and brunettes. At one point, the dark-haired woman lying on the sofa raises her head and cries out “Brunettes rule!” Within a moment or two, a voice from off-camera can be heard (accepted to be that of Woman A, who is indeed blonde) gasping out words to the effect “We are the Aryan race – blondes”. What is clear, however, is that the remark was unscripted and that it occurred amid a good deal of shouts and squeals (of delight or otherwise). One had to listen to the tape several times to pick out exactly what was going on and indeed nobody had spotted “Brunettes rule!” until the middle of the trial. It is also clear that there was nothing spoken by the Claimant on this occasion which reflected Nazi terminology or attitudes. There is no reason to suppose that it was other than a spontaneous squeal by Woman A in medias res.

In any event, it could hardly be suggested that the blondes were accorded any more respectful treatment (as “Aryans”) than the brunettes. One of them is abused as a “dumb ass blonde” (in German) and the spanking is indiscriminate in this respect.

Full link : It's an amazing read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_07_08mosleyvnewsgroup.pdf

 

[circusmind]

This is a highly geeky thread. I approve.

 

[RogueAcademic]

I was going to say - this thread is total and complete geekness. I also approve.

 

[amaccas]

I approve.

 

[neo o]

If you approve, contribute

Here's a rather funny quote from the rather biased Fijian Human Rights Commission on the 2006 Fijian coup...

These freedoms were not however, derogated from to the extent anticipated under a State of Emergency-type situation. Freedom of assembly was restricted since people were denied a permit to march and to protest or express their dissent against the military but they were permitted to take part in a mardi gras and dance in the streets.

DON'T WORRY GUYS, FREE ASSEMBLY ISN'T RESTRICTED, YOU CAN CELEBRATE THE CREATION OF OUR GLORIOUS NEW GOVERNMENT!

 

[travelfish]

Lord Denning's Judgment in Miller v. Jackson (1977) Q.B. 966 - and in particular, this passage at 967:

In summertime village cricket is a delight to everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in the County of Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good clubhouse for the players and seats for the onlookers. The village team plays there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings they practice while the light lasts. Yet now after these 70 years a judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play anymore. He has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket, but now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket field. No doubt the open space was a selling point. Now he complains that when a batsman hits a six the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at weekends. They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. They say that this is intolerable. So they asked the judge to stop the cricket being played. And the judge, much against his will, has felt that he must order the cricket to be stopped: with the consequence, I suppose, that the Lintz Cricket Club will disappear. The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much poorer. And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.

Needless to say - it is pretty clear how Denning decided

 

[DaGizza]

I approve and would contribute if I had studied more than one year of combined law, and that too not at a very reputed law school. I have barely acquainted myself with cases of any sort.

 

[MichaelJackson2]

DPP v Morgan [1976] AC 182, where Morgan, the accused, a member of the Royal Air Force, invited three junior colleagues to his home where he encouraged them to have sex with his wife. Morgan had urged them to ignore any protests or resistance, saying his wife was 'kinky' and that these protests were merely stimulations designed to increase sexual pleasure. His colleagues acted accordingly and had sex with his wife.

 

[neo o]

DPP v Morgan [1976] AC 182, where Morgan, the accused, a member of the Royal Air Force, invited three junior colleagues to his home where he encouraged them to have sex with his wife. Morgan had urged them to ignore any protests or resistance, saying his wife was 'kinky' and that these protests were merely stimulations designed to increase sexual pleasure. His colleagues acted accordingly and had sex with his wife.

 

[amaccas]

lol

 

[Cookie182]

Thabo Meli [1954] 1 A11 ER 373

One of the most interesting criminal cases I came across. The accused devised a plan to kill a man by taking him to this hut, giving him beer and then hitting him over the head. Thinking he had killed the victim, he rolled him off a cliff in order to frame the murder as an accident lol. At that point but, the dude was only unconscious and he ended up dieing from exposure at the bottom of the cliff lol. The contention then for the Privy Council was deciding which act killed the guy- if it was the throwing off the cliff, did the accused have the requisite intent to murder at that point? In summary, the accused was convicted of murder with Lord Reid ruling that there was a continuation of act.

Interesting stuff...and Thabo Meli sounds like such a Bogan.

 

[MichaelJackson2]

the argument raised by defence counsel in thabo meli, that the physical element of murder did not coincide with the mental element (mens rea), was also raised in a boston legal episode where claire had to defend a dude who was accused of stealing a cell phone (as the americans call them). she successfully argued that at the time he took the phone he did not have the requisite intention to permanently deprive the owner of the phone but that this intention came later. i guess the 'continuing act' doctrine in thabo meli didn't apply here because the mens rea came AFTER the physical act whereas in thabo meli the mens rea was formed PRIOR to the physical act that killed the little bugger.