英语论文网

留学生硕士论文 英国论文 日语论文 澳洲论文 Turnitin剽窃检测 英语论文发表 留学中国 欧美文学特区 论文寄售中心 论文翻译中心

Bussiness ManagementMBAstrategyHuman ResourceMarketingHospitalityE-commerceInternational Tradingproject managementmedia managementLogisticsFinanceAccountingadvertisingLawBusiness LawEducationEconomicsBusiness Reportbusiness planresearch proposal

英语论文题目英语教学英语论文商务英语英语论文格式商务英语翻译广告英语商务英语商务英语教学英语翻译论文英美文学英语语言学文化交流中西方文化差异英语论文范文英语论文开题报告初中英语教学英语论文文献综述英语论文参考文献

ResumeRecommendation LetterMotivation LetterPSapplication letterMBA essayBusiness Letteradmission letter Offer letter

澳大利亚论文英国论文加拿大论文芬兰论文瑞典论文澳洲论文新西兰论文法国论文香港论文挪威论文美国论文泰国论文马来西亚论文台湾论文新加坡论文荷兰论文南非论文西班牙论文爱尔兰论文

小学英语教学初中英语教学英语语法高中英语教学大学英语教学听力口语英语阅读英语词汇学英语素质教育英语教育毕业英语教学法

英语论文开题报告英语毕业论文写作指导英语论文写作笔记handbook英语论文提纲英语论文参考文献英语论文文献综述Research Proposal代写留学论文代写留学作业代写Essay论文英语摘要英语论文任务书英语论文格式专业名词turnitin抄袭检查

temcet听力雅思考试托福考试GMATGRE职称英语理工卫生职称英语综合职称英语职称英语

经贸英语论文题目旅游英语论文题目大学英语论文题目中学英语论文题目小学英语论文题目英语文学论文题目英语教学论文题目英语语言学论文题目委婉语论文题目商务英语论文题目最新英语论文题目英语翻译论文题目英语跨文化论文题目

日本文学日本语言学商务日语日本历史日本经济怎样写日语论文日语论文写作格式日语教学日本社会文化日语开题报告日语论文选题

职称英语理工完形填空历年试题模拟试题补全短文概括大意词汇指导阅读理解例题习题卫生职称英语词汇指导完形填空概括大意历年试题阅读理解补全短文模拟试题例题习题综合职称英语完形填空历年试题模拟试题例题习题词汇指导阅读理解补全短文概括大意

商务英语翻译论文广告英语商务英语商务英语教学

无忧论文网

联系方式

关于Versus Highton一案的启示的法律论文

论文作者:英语论文论文属性:作业 Assignment登出时间:2014-09-24编辑:zcm84984点击率:3547

论文字数:3619论文编号:org201409241313595262语种:英语论文 English地区:中国价格:免费论文

关键词:Versus Highton法律论文Law Essay刑事案件

摘要:本文是关于Versus Highton一案的启示的法律论文,良好的品格作为可受理的证据仍然受到普法的管辖。至于人品太差的情况,1865年刑事诉讼法第3条规定,一方当事人无权以自己亲眼看到的不良品格作为一般证据,来否定信誉。

关于Versus Highton一案的启示的法律论文

从历史上看,既有普法也有在法庭上可受理品格为证据的法律规定。在刑事案件中,有很充分的理由受理被告良好的品格具作为证据,因为有个公平、公正的无罪推定,即一个人的品格好就不易犯罪。良好的品格作为可受理的证据仍然受到普法的管辖。至于人品太差的情况,1865年刑事诉讼法第3条规定,一方当事人无权以自己亲眼看到的不良品格作为一般证据,来否定信誉。


一般来说,有两种不予受理不良品格为证据的例外情况,“类似事实证据”和被告品格的问题。例外情况载于1898刑事证据法(CEA)的s.1(3),(i)被告声称他具有良好品格; (ii)先前的不当行为是犯罪的一个组成部分;(iii)与被告一同被指控者提供的证据。然而,s.1(3)条规定通常被称为被告被揭露的不良品格的盾牌,当类似的事实不适用,或不满足s.1(3)条件时。由于旧法的缺陷,2001年法律委员会报告[1]认为现行法律缺乏明确性,并导致不一致。

Implications Of The Case Versus Highton Law Essay

Historically, there are both common-law and statutory provisions governing admissibility of character evidence in court. In criminal cases evidence of the accused’s good character is admissible with good reason, because there is a fair and just presumption that a person of good character would not commit a crime. The admissibility of good character evidence remains governed by the common law. As for bad character, section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 provides, a party is not entitled to impeach the credit if his own witness by general evidence of his bad character.

Generally, there are two exceptions to the inadmissibility of bad character evidence, the “similar fact evidence” and the issue of the accused character. The exception was contained in s.1(3) of The Criminal Evidence Act (CEA) 1898 where (i)the accused asserted his good character; (ii)where the previous misconduct is an integral part of the offence; and (iii)where the accused give evidence against co-accused. However, the provisions of s.1(3) are often referred to as a ——shield' for the defendant to expose his bad character if the similar fact rule did not apply and conditions in s.1(3) are not satisfied. Due to the defects of the old law, The 2001 Law Commission Report [1] agreed that the existing law lacked clarity and led to inconsistency. The Law Commission recommended that a leave should be required before the admission of bad character evidence. Lord Justice Auld [2] also found the law is highly unsatisfactory. Sir Robin Auld favoured the disclosure of the criminal records of the defendants. Chapter 1 of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003 appeared to codify law governing admissibility of bad character evidence by abolishing the common law rules, amending s.6 of The Criminal Procedure Act 1865. [3]

Section 99 of the CJA 2003 abolished all common rules governing bad character evidence in criminal proceedings. [4] S.98 defines “bad character” as misconduct [5] other than that which has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged. Evidence of bad character covers misconduct whether or not unlawful and whether it resulted in conviction or acquittal. The House of Lords decision in R v Z [6] where evidence on misconduct is admissible because it tends to show that the accused was guilty of a previous acquitted offence. Relying on Z, Scott Baker LJ in R v Edwards [7] said that if evidence of previous allegation is in principle admissible notwithstanding that the accused was acquitted of charges based on allegation in previous trial, evidence relating to allegation that had never been tried should not be admissible is unquestionable. The word “reprehensible” [8] carries with elements of culpability or blameworthiness depends on which views are likely to differ. [9] In R v Weir [10] , reprehensible behaviour is not behaviour which is criminal. A law论文英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写英语论文代写代写论文代写英语论文代写留学生论文代写英文论文留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。

共 1/6 页首页上一页123456下一页尾页

英国英国 澳大利亚澳大利亚 美国美国 加拿大加拿大 新西兰新西兰 新加坡新加坡 香港香港 日本日本 韩国韩国 法国法国 德国德国 爱尔兰爱尔兰 瑞士瑞士 荷兰荷兰 俄罗斯俄罗斯 西班牙西班牙 马来西亚马来西亚 南非南非

   Europe (24-hours)
   EN:13917206902
   china (24-hours)
   CN:13917206902
在线客服团队
    全天候24小时在线客服
      QQ:949925041 
  

微信公众订阅号