权益保护法的权利的留学生作业 [5]
论文作者:英语论文论文属性:作业 Assignment登出时间:2014-10-12编辑:zcm84984点击率:11720
论文字数:3924论文编号:org201409201237377914语种:英语 English地区:加拿大价格:免费论文
关键词:Law EssayRight留学生作业权益保护法权利
摘要:本文是一篇关于权益保护法权利的留学生作业,宪法作为国家的最高法律,为公民提供了法律保护的权利。 [1]所有的人有权享受正当法律程序的权利。据认为,为了使正义得到切实有效地伸张,被指控犯罪的人,应该有一个迅速审判的过程。
Commonwealth Caribbean. She claims that the case showed a repeated failure on the part of the courts to give a generous and purposive construction to the Constitution. [21]
The Jamaican case of Dunkley and Robinson v R [22] also established that the right to legal representation is not an absolute right. The appellants were convicted of murder on July 21 1988 at the Circuit Division of the Gun Court and sentenced to death. At the trial, Dunkley’s lawyer had a disagreement with the judge and withdrew. He was left without representation for the remainder of the trial. The appellants applied for special leave to appeal to the Privy Council. Dunkley’s appeal was allowed while Robinson’s was dismissed. The principle laid down by the courts was where a defendant faces a capital charge and his left unrepresented through no fault of his own, the interests of justice require that in all but the exceptional cases there be a reasonable adjournment to enable him to secure alternative representation. [23] It was apparent that Dunkley was incapable of defending himself and the trial judge made no attempt to remedy the situation. Additionally, it was established in Dunkley v Robinson that the trial judge can only permit withdrawal if he is satisfied that the defendant will not be prejudiced.
Similarly in Mitchell v R [24] the court held that where the lack of representation was not due to any fault on the apart of the accused and the trial could not be properly satisfied that the accused would not (might not) suffer prejudice by the withdrawal of counsel, the conviction would be quashed on appeal on the ground that there should have been an adjournment to enable the accused to try to obtain alternative representative. [25] The court in Mitchell made reference to word “permitted” in s 20(6) (c) in the Constitution. Significantly, an accused person should be permitted to exercise his/her right to have counsel. It is postulated that the lack of counsel may put the defendant at a disadvantage as his/her case may be negatively affected due to the absence of skilled cross-examination by counsel. [26]
Outside of Caribbean jurisdiction, the right to legal representation is seen as an important right afforded to the accused. In Powell v Alabama [27] it was established that the failure of the trial court to give the defendants reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel was a clear denial of due process. [28] In this case, the defendants were charged with the raping of two girls. The defendants, even though the record stated that they had been provided with counsel, had their trial conducted without one present. They were convicted and sentenced to death. The appeal was on the grounds that they were denied the right to counsel, with the accustomed incidents of consultation and opportunity of preparation for trial. [29] The relevant fact in this case was that the defendants had not been afforded counsel from the preliminary hearing until the beginning of their trial. It was reasoned by the courts that it was during this period that counsel was of vital significance as matters would be investigated and the case prepared.
In United States v Wade [30] the court held that it critical that defendants in criminal proceedings should be provided with counsel from the preliminary hearing to the trial. In this case, the respondent was indicted for robbery and conspiracy and without notice to his appointed
本论文由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。