(i got a bit lazy at the end)
Law and Justice Case Law
Carhill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893) - (contract law)
- Mrs Carhill saw a newspaper ad stating that the manufacturers of a smoke ball would pay £100 to anybody who bought the smoke ball, used it correctly and still got flu. Mrs Carhill bought a smoke ball, used it correctly and still got flu. Mrs Carhill wanted to claim the £100. The company refused to pay claiming the advert was not an offer. The court held the wording of the advert did amount to an offer and by buying and using the smoke ball Mrs Carhill had accepted that offer.
Dietrich v. The Queen (1992) – (no legal right to legal aid)
- It concerned the nature of the right to a fair trial, and under what circumstances indigent defendants (defendants who cannot afford legal representation) should be provided with legal aid by the state. The case determined that although there is no absolute right to have publicly funded counsel, in most circumstances a judge should grant any request for an adjournment or stay when an accused is unrepresented.
Dimes v. Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal (1852) – (natural justice)
- Judge disqualified if even the slightest hint of financial interest in the outcome
Mabo v. Queensland [No. 2] (1992)- (native title)
- Mabo v Queensland (No 2)was a landmark Australian court case which was decided by the High Court of Australia on June 3, 1992. The effective result of the judgement was to make irrelevant the declaration of terra nullius, or "land belonging to no-one" which had been taken to occur from the commencement British colonisation in 1788, and to recognise a form of native title.
Mary Yarmirr v. Northern Territory (1998) – (native title)
- First Australian claim of native title over sea
Re Pinochet (1999)
- Lord Hoffman was closely associated with one of the parties and he was disqualified from hearing the case whether or not there was any actual bias or appearance of bias.
Human Rights Case law
Dietrich v. The Queen (1992) – (no automatic right to legal aid)
- It concerned the nature of the right to a fair trial, and under what circumstances indigent defendants (defendants who cannot afford legal representation) should be provided with legal aid by the state. The case determined that although there is no absolute right to have publicly funded counsel, in most circumstances a judge should grant any request for an adjournment or stay when an accused is unrepresented.
McInnis v. R (1979)
- Court of Western Australia on three counts: first, of unlawful assault; second, of unlawful restraint; and, third, of rape. He pleaded guilty to the first but not guilty to the other two. In the result, he was convicted by the jury and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The ground upon which the applicant seeks special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal, which by majority dismissed his appeal to that Court, is that the trial judge erred in refusing his application to adjourn the trial to enable him to obtain the services of counsel and that the refusal so seriously prejudiced him in his trial that it constituted itself a miscarriage of justice
Prosecution v. Nikolic Case (2003)
- some weird rapist and he appealed on the use of hearsay evidence against him
R v. Izumi (1996)
- a torres strait islander woman tried to kill someone twice and said she just wanted to kill him, however the word kill means something different in her language, only to ‘hurt’ or ‘maim’
Toonen v. Australia
- Toonen an Australian citizen and resident of Tasmania, is an activist for the rights of homosexuals. He claimed s122(a) and (c) and s123 of the Tasmanian Criminal Code, which criminalise all sexual contact between consenting male adults in private, breached various Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). He submitted a communication as author and victim against Australia (the State party) to the UN Human Rights Committee, under art 5 of the optional protocol to the ICCPR.
T claimed that the Tasmanian provisions breached the ICCPR because (a) their enforcement violates the right to privacy, as it brings private sexual activity into the public domain; (b) ''they distinguish between individuals in the exercise of their right to privacy' on the basis of sexual activity, orientation or identity; and (c) they discriminate between homosexual men and women.
Yanner v. Eaton (1999)
- something to do with native title
