term1 Definition1term2 Definition2term3 Definition3
Please sign in to your Google account to access your documents:
The People(DPP) v O'Shea
Article 34.4 ' 3. Constitution states that all decisions by the High Court can be appealed by the Supreme Court. DPP had appealed a not-guilty verdict by a jury in the High Court. Defendant said this was unconstitutional. Jury verdict is considered sacrosanct, unappealable in common law. Double jeopardy is very frowned upon. This harmonious, purposive interpretation was the minority. Majority went with literal approach.
Attorney General v Hamilton
Cabinet Confidentiality case. Failed in HC but succeeded in SC. AG interjected during a Tribunal to say that minister had C.C. Not actually stated in constitution, but judges took a harmonious approach in agreeing, citing that the cabinet must act as a collective unit etc. 17th Amendment affirmed CC but two exceptions: For the administration of justice or overriding public interest
People(DPP) v Shaw
Hierarchical interpretation. Illegal detention of kidnap suspect justified on grounds of vindicating the right to life of the kidnapped woman.
Norris v Attorney General
Historical interpretation. Historical Christian prejudice v homosexuality mean there was no constitutional right to engage in homosexual activity.
Need help typing ? See our FAQ (opens in new window)
Please sign in to create this set. We'll bring you back here when you are done.
Discard Changes Sign in
Please sign in to add to folders.
Sign in
Don't have an account? Sign Up »
You have created 2 folders. Please upgrade to Cram Premium to create hundreds of folders!