Law 121 Cases

Front 1

D.

The People v Kimura

Back 1

(1985)
Kimura kills her children and tries to kill herself in an attempt of ‘oyako shinju’ to preserve honour after discovering her husband’s infidelity. She is charged with first degree murder. Psychological factors are used as a defence as she is influenced heavily by her own cultural background, insanity of defence.Pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter.

Front 2

D.
Liversidge v Anderson

Back 2

(1942).
Parliament, 1939, issued the Emergency Powers Act that allowed a range of executive powers. The executive may make any regulations that it sees fit in order to ensure efficient prosecution during WWII. Regulation: 18B of the Defence Regulations: when the Secretary State has ‘reasonable cause’ to believe any person ‘hostile of origin’ is acting against them stay may detain them without warrant from courts. Imprisonment without trial upon reasonable cause.Robert Liversidge is arrested during WWII according to a warrant by Home Secretary (warrant issued by a minister not a court). Liversidge appeals detention to House of Lords on the ground of false imprisonment. Liversidge loses, it was said he had to show that the Home Secretary acted in bad faith. Judiciary’s role is that of review of the executive, not done so in this case. The Lord’s said the executive was allowed to keep secrets, which is something that put the executive beyond the reach of the law.

Front 3

D.
Korematsu v US

Back 3

(1944)
After Pearl Harbour there is a huge call for control of Japanese American population. Roosevelt passed Executive Order 9066. Military leaders set out areas which Japanese people were excluded from, they were put into concentration camps.Korematsu is detained for being Japanese in America. Challenges the decision and loses, 1944.

Error coram nobis, court looks at evidence that was brought before a court and states that because the prosecution did something so wrong the final decision may be changed. Courts found that there was no evidence to suggest Japanese Americans posed any danger to national security.

Front 4

D.
Laurence v Texas

Back 4

(2003)
Whether adults were able to exercise liberty in private. Supreme Court overrules Bowers and Homosexuality is decriminalised in 2004. Posed as a privacy and liberty. Supreme court stated that they cannot stop consenting adults. The Court found that the right to equal protection and due process was a fundamental right under the 14th amendment.

Front 5

D.
Bowers v Hardwick

Back 5

1986 Police offer walks into house with search warrant, discovers two men engaging in homosexual intercourse. Hardwick went to the supreme court on the ground on whether the right to homosexuality was intrinsic within the constitution. Supreme court rules against him 5-4. Weakness: it is not about whether or not we have a fundamental right to sodomy but whether the gov has right to regulate private consenting behaviour.

Front 6

C.

Bolivian Water Revolts

Back 6

(1999/2000).

The Bolivian Government had to privatise water in 1997 so that the World Bank would give them a loan. Aguas del Tunari, the water company, priced this out of the range for many people and this lead to revolts between Dec. ‘99 and Apr. ‘00. After the revolts the Bolivian Water Revolts the government reversed the privatisation. In 2006 the government resolved the complaints filed by foreign investors, $25 mill payout.

Front 7

C.
Bradford Corporation v Pickles

Back 7

(1895).
In the Bradford Corporation v Pickles 1895, Mr Pickles intended on draining the water underneath his farm in order to mine for flagstone. This same water was being used by the Bradford Corporation to supply the town of Bradford. View of Involved Parties:Bradford Corporation - Pickles was using his rights maliciously (in an aim to get money either through the Corporation buying the land or paying for use) and claimed that he could not do so. Pickles - Claimed liberty in using his land anyway he wished. House of Lords - Decided that Property Owners can use their rights as they please, even maliciously.

Front 8

C.
Haddon v Auckand Regional Council (Pakiri Sands Case)

Back 8

(1994)
In 1994, Mr Haddon made a case against the ARC for taking sand from the tribal area where he was the kaitiaki, to Mission Bay. The removal of the sand from his area would be an offence both to the nature of his family’s ownership of the resources in the area. The sand contained tapu, and it shouldn’t be taken to the shores of another tribe. In response the opposing council said that ‘the ethic of stewardship’ would be sustained, the environment where it was being taken from wouldn’t be adversely affected, and hapu would get royalties. The tribunal noted that the hapu ought to be able to exercise a limited form of Kaitiakitanga over the resources, but under the current law (the RMA) it was not able to.The integration of Maori concepts (of law and property) into the Western/British model evidently doesn’t work.The narrow definition of Kaitiakitanga in the RMA 1991 allowed for the sands to me removed legally - this undermined Haddon’s claims to tapu

Front 9

C.
Duke v Symonds

Back 9

(1980)
In Duke v Symonds 1980- A doctor Symonds had enticed Mrs Duke to leave her husband. Mr Duke sues in tort and wins against Symonds and the jury rewards $26000 of damages against Dr Symonds to Mr Duke. The damages were awarded for loss of services, cooking, cleaning etc., and loss of consortium, the love and sexual relations between a husband and wife. The judge treated Mrs Duke like she was property which had been traded away to another owner, so compensation must be made to the original owner.

Front 10

C.
Queen v Crosthwaite

Back 10

(1987).
Question whether women were within the meaning of ‘persons; entitled to hold office under Towns Improvement Act (Ireland). Judges held they were not. Baron Fitzgerald, Women had “inferiority of bodily ability, and the mental inferiority.” Women barred from equal participation in public life. Blackstone: “by marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law.”

Front 11

Hart v Fuller:

Back 11

This was about people in German courts after WWII. They were punished for collaborating and informing on people. A woman was prosecuted for depriving a man of his freedom, under a German law from 1871. A German soldier was in prison because his wife informed Nazi’s that he spoke up against the regime. . The court doesn’t accept her defence saying that the law was unjust. Hart argues she shouldn’t be prosecuted because she was simply following the law at the time. The natural law argument that Fuller makes is that a legal system can become so perverted and twisted that its rules can become invalid. Rules can be so unjust and against humanity that they don’t have to be obeyed.