Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. N M Dutch for Appellant I R Murray and R K Thomson for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
|
|
- Beverley Paul
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY SS 203 AND 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA634/2016 [2017] NZCA 275 BETWEEN AND C (CA634/2016) Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 8 May 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Cooper, Mallon and Wylie JJ N M Dutch for Appellant I R Murray and R K Thomson for Respondent 29 June 2017 at 2.30 pm JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The appeal is dismissed. B Order prohibiting publication of name, address, occupation or identifying particulars of appellant pursuant to s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act C (CA634/2016) v R [2017] NZCA 275 [29 June 2017]
2 REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by Mallon J) Introduction [1] The appellant faced 15 charges of sexual offending against two teenage girls (M and G) who lived in his house at the relevant time. Following a jury trial in the District Court at Tauranga before Judge Ingram, the appellant was found guilty of the five charges relating to G and not guilty of the 10 charges relating to M. He was convicted and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. [2] The appellant appeals against his conviction. He contends he ought to have been permitted to cross-examine the two complainants and the third Crown witness (the mother of G) about a possible sexual relationship between the two complainants. Permission to do so had been declined in a pre-trial ruling made by Judge Harding. 1 The alleged offending [3] G and her mother began living with the appellant in July M and her brother moved into the household in June G [4] The charges relating to G covered the period between January 2013 and April 2015 when she was aged between 11 and 13 years old. G said the appellant sexually touched her often, about once a week, during this period. This involved putting his finger in her vagina and licking her vagina. He would take off her shorts and underwear. She froze up and zoned out. If she did not agree to do what he said he would take her phone from her. It would happen when her mother was out of the room or not in the house. [5] On one occasion he asked her if she wanted him to put his penis in her. She said no and he said she was a good girl. On another occasion he asked her if she wanted to touch his penis. She said no and he said ok then. When asked to 1 R v [C] [2016] NZDC
3 elaborate on this incident in her evidential interview, G said that when the appellant asked her the question she responded by saying I m all right, after which he left the room. One time the sexual touching happened in a tent they had set up outside the house to dry out. The last time it happened was in her room on a Sunday during the Christmas holidays. It lasted about 10 to 20 minutes and was the worst time because it was the longest. [6] G said the appellant stopped sexually touching her after she learnt about child abuse at school. She told him he was abusing her and he needed to stop. He said okay. This occurred not long after school started when she was in year eight. She told a friend at school about the offending. Her friend said she needed to tell someone if it happened again. G told her mother about this offending after the police visited the house to speak to M. About a week before this, she had told M the appellant used to touch her. She said M told her he was doing that to her now. G told M she should tell him to stop. M said she could not because she froze up every time it happened. M [7] The charges relating to M covered the period between July 2013 and November 2015 when she was aged between 13 and 15 years old. M said the appellant sexually assaulted her when G and her mother were not at the house. The appellant would not care if M s brother was around. It happened too many times to remember, she thought about once every second week. This usually involved the appellant putting his finger in her vagina and every now and then he also licked her vagina. This would usually occur on her bed in her bedroom. It also happened in the conservatory and the lounge. She froze up or zoned out when it happened. [8] On one occasion the appellant told her to clean her room. When she said no he took her phone from her and told her she was not getting it back until her room was clean. He followed her into her room. He lay her on her bed and pulled off her jeans and underwear. He put gel on his fingers and put them in her vagina. He also licked her vagina. This went on for about half an hour. During this incident she got up to get herself a drink and to go to the toilet. She put her pants back on to do so.
4 When she went back to her room to get her phone, he took her pants off again and carried on. She was talking to her friends on Facebook on her phone while this was happening. [9] The appellant would sometimes squeeze her breasts when he said goodnight. On one occasion he guided her hand over his penis on the outside of his pants when he had new headphones for her in his pocket. On another occasion he inserted a dildo in her vagina. He stopped because she said it hurt. She went to the toilet and when she returned he licked her vagina. [10] The last time he offended against M was the same day the police came to talk to her. Earlier in the day she had been wagging school with a friend. The appellant caught them and told M to get in the car. When they got home the appellant and M went and sat on the couch. M s brother was also there. The appellant put his fingers in her vagina under her underwear. There was a blanket over them. This went on for about two hours. Occasionally he would stop so she could get a drink, go to the toilet or do one of her jobs. Later that evening the police arrived. They had been alerted by the school because M s friend had told a teacher that M had gotten into the car with a strange man. The arrival of the police led to M disclosing the abuse. [11] M was aware the appellant had also been abusing G. G had asked M if the appellant was abusing her. G said the appellant had been abusing her and then he gave her money for it or a drink of V or coke. When G had money, M would ask her if it was because G was letting the appellant abuse her and G would say yes it was. The pre-trial decision [12] The defence was that none of the offending occurred and both complainants had colluded to make up the abuse. The defence theory was that the complainants had done so because M missed her mother and wanted to be able to see her and G also wanted more time with her mother. The two complainants were close and made up the abuse to support each other. The defence wished to cross-examine the complainants about sexual activity between them, with the intention of submitting that what they attributed to the appellant had actually occurred between the two of them.
5 [13] This was founded on two things. First, a report filed by a lawyer for the child in the Family Court, which said G had conveyed to her friends at school that M had been sleeping with her and doing sexual things, although that was denied by M. Secondly, there were notes in a notebook, which, for the purposes of the pre-trial application, the Crown accepted recorded comments by one complainant to the other. One note said: Should we do da thing for a little while since my mum and dad are on der computer. Another note said: We could do a bit now and u lick me pussy if u want? No thanx. It may be clean but I don t really like the taste of pussy. But we can do what we were doing befor. K but can you use uyr finger not a pen, a pen hurts. K then but only a short time. [14] Judge Harding declined to grant the defence permission to cross-examine the complainants and G s mother about this. He accepted the documents provided an evidential basis for the defence to suggest M and G had a sexual relationship. However, he considered this did not make it more likely they lacked veracity in their allegations against the appellant. The Judge considered the defence could put the prospect of collusion to M and G, based on the evidence they were like sisters and had spoken to each other about the abuse, without cross-examining them about their sexual activity. In the Judge s view it was not surprising that the activities in the notebook were similar to the allegations made against the appellant as they were not unusual sexual activities. The appeal [15] Permission is required to question a witness in a sexual case, directly or indirectly, about their sexual experience with any person other than the defendant. 2 A Judge may grant permission only if he or she is satisfied the evidence or question is of such direct relevance to facts in issue in the proceeding that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to exclude it Evidence Act 2006, s 44(1). Section 44(3).
6 [16] The appellant submits the evidence about a sexual relationship between the two complainants meets this heightened relevance test. Three reasons are put forward. [17] First the appellant says the evidence is relevant to whether M and G had a motive to lie about the offending. 4 He says it is relevant to how close M and G were. He submits that the closer the relationship between the two, the more likely it was they would both lie in order to support each other s wishes regarding their respective mothers. He submits the Judge was therefore wrong to refuse permission to cross-examine on this topic on the basis there was already evidence that G and M were close. [18] As matters transpired the evidence was somewhat equivocal about how close the relationship between G and M was. M accepted they had a pretty good relationship, wrote in diaries together, walked to and from school together, went into each other s rooms at night and talked, and had heaps of conversations about M wanting to go back and live with her mother. M also accepted that G had talked to her about feeling a bit left out and a bit unloved since the baby came along. 5 [19] G on the other hand said she did not initially have the best relationship with M and her brother. When it was put to her that it got a bit better in 2015 she said not really. She accepted they sometimes wrote diary notes to each other, but said they did not go into each other s rooms at night and talk except once or twice. She said they sometimes walked to school together but just talked about what happened at school. She accepted that M talked to her all the time about wanting to spend more time with her mother. M did not say how she could do that. G denied she had talked to M about feeling a bit left out since the baby had come along (she said [n]ever [s]he was my sister ) nor about wanting to go back to living with just her mother. 4 5 This is one of the three ways such evidence may be relevant as discussed in K (CA188/11) v R [2011] NZCA 146. The cross-examination on this topic involved a series of propositions put to M to all of which M responded yes.
7 [20] Defence counsel s closing submission did not emphasise their closeness. Rather she focused on the opportunity G and M had to collude and their respective motives for doing so (that is, to each have more time with their mothers). She submitted the collusion had led to G and M making remarkably similar allegations (for example, they both said they zoned out and froze ). She also made submissions about the implausibility of the allegations. [21] We consider that evidence of a sexual relationship between G and M does not meet the heightened relevance test on this basis. Sexual activity between them, if it occurred, does not necessarily correlate with closeness. As it was put in Tautu v R, [i]ntensity or strength of feeling is not synonymous with sexual activity. 6 Moreover, as was the position in Tautu v R, there is no obvious logic in the submission that G s motive to fabricate her complaint would be greater if her relationship with M was shown to be a sexual one. 7 [22] The second reason advanced by the appellant is that a sexual relationship between the complainants explains the similarity in the allegations M and G made. He submits the notebook entries provide a basis for suggesting that the complainants allegations were based on the sexual activity between them. [23] We consider this also does not meet the heightened relevance test. The only similarity between the complainants allegations and the diary entries is the suggestion of engaging in digital penetration and oral sex. Those activities are not in and of themselves unusual. The diary entries suggest that previously a pen had been used in their activities. Neither M nor G made this allegation against the appellant. There is no other detail in the diary notes to support the suggestion that the allegations are based on their own activities. The defence were able to make the submission that the similarities in their allegations supported the possibility the two complainants had colluded. The diary notes would not have added anything relevant to this submission. 6 7 Tautu v R [2017] NZCA 219 at [21]. At [21].
8 [24] The third reason advanced by the appellant is that a sexual relationship between the complainants is relevant to explaining why the complainants knew about the activities they attributed to the appellant, other than because the appellant did these things. In our view this also does not meet the heightened relevance test. The jury had before them an admission of facts as follows: The fact that a child has sexual knowledge does not necessarily mean they have been sexually abused. A child s behaviour and knowledge are affected by a number of factors. This has been particularly the case in the period since the 1990s, which has seen [the] advent of the internet together with a greater openness in society generally in talking about sexual matters. As a result, children can derive sexual knowledge from a number of different sources, irrespective of whether they have been sexually abused or not. [25] The appellant submits this was an admission about children generally. The report filed by a lawyer for the child in the Family Court and the diary notes were, however, specific evidence of the sexual knowledge of the complainants. It is therefore submitted it had heightened relevance. [26] We do not agree with this submission. The admission meant that the complainants sexual knowledge was irrelevant to the issues before them. The jury could assess the allegations with the understanding that the allegations were not more likely to be true because the complainants were able to describe the sexual activity they say occurred. The evidence about possible sexual activity between the complainants was therefore not directly relevant to any issue at trial. [27] It follows that we consider the District Court Judge was correct to decline permission for the defence to question the complainants and G s mother about a possible sexual relationship between the complainants. Result [28] The appeal is dismissed. [29] An order is made prohibiting publication of the name, address, occupation or identifying particulars of the appellant pursuant to s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 on the basis that it would be likely to lead to the identification of the complainants.
9 Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA82/2014 [2014] NZCA 304 BETWEEN AND TOESE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v MCE [2015] QCA 4 PARTIES: R v MCE (appellant) FILE NO: CA No 186 of 2014 DC No 198 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against
More informationDAVID STANLEY TRANTER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985 AND S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE
More informationCARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. J U Mooney for Appellant JEL Carruthers for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA297/2017 [2017] NZCA 535 BETWEEN AND CARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 15 November 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Lang and
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Galigan [2017] QCA 231 PARTIES: R v GALIGAN, Robert Brian (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 53 of 2017 DC No 61 of 2016 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Winkelmann, Peters and Collins JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA508/2015 [2016] NZCA 138 BETWEEN AND MRINAL SARDANA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 8 March 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Winkelmann, Peters and Collins
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v S [2000] QCA 256 PARTIES: R v S (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 80 of 2000 DC No 80 of 1999 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 385/97 THE QUEEN
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 385/97 THE QUEEN v CLIFFORD ANDREW RODGER CoramEichelbaum CJ Tipping J Goddard J Hearing 30 April 1998 Counsel H Croft for Appellant S P France for Crown Judgment
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN)
1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE
More informationTHE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents
NOTE: ORDER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND OF THE HIGH COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT'S
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HOWARD WESLEY WEEDON, Appellant No. 2032 MDA 2014 Appeal from
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued October 17, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00664-CR NO. 01-12-00665-CR JUNIOR GARVEY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the
More informationRespondent. Counsel: Paul Heaslip for the Appellant Sarah Mandeno for the Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY A193/00 BETWEEN R LYON Appellant AND THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Date of hearin g : 14 November 2000 Counsel: Paul Heaslip for the Appellant Sarah
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND THE QUEEN PETER CHARLES HALLMOND. Fisher J Potter J. W N Dollimore for appellant K Raftery for Crown
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA42/01 THE QUEEN V PETER CHARLES HALLMOND Hearing: 21 June 2001 Coram: Appearances: Blanchard J Fisher J Potter J W N Dollimore for appellant K Raftery for Crown
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v SCW [2018] QCA 10 PARTIES: R v SCW (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 104 of 2017 DC No 959 of 2016 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against
More informationMOLOI, J et MOHALE, AJ
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION,
More informationUNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES. Staff Sergeant WALTER M. PATTON IV United States Air Force ACM S30426
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES v. Staff Sergeant WALTER M. PATTON IV United States Air Force 8 February 2006 Sentence adjudged 17 May 2003 by SPCM convened at Fort George
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
,. I I: ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA (1) R,EPORTABLE: YES/ NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/ NO (3) REVISED a., 11 tidtf: a.t. DATE SIGNATURE CASE NUMBER: A178/16
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT RUBEN M. TIRADO, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D15-802 [May 3, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA ATTANGA {CORAM: MBAROUK, J.A., MWARIJA, J.A. And MWANGESI. J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 391 of 2016 CHARLES JUMA............ APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC.......................
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Columbus House, Newport Sent to parties on: On 3 April 2017 On 23 May Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE L MURRAY
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06052/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Columbus House, Newport Sent to parties on: On 3 April 2017 On 23 May 2017 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v M [2003] QCA 380 PARTIES: R v M (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 92 of 2003 DC No 334 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal
More informationJOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA361/2016 [2017] NZCA 69 BETWEEN AND JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: Court: Counsel: Judgment: 15 February 2017 (with an application
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Spell, 2009-Ohio-2562.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- CHARLES T. SPELL Defendant-Appellant JUDGES: Hon. William
More informationPUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA563/2008 [2009] NZCA 145 THE QUEEN v WAYNE ALEXANDER
More informationEleventh Court of Appeals
Opinion filed August 5, 2010 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals No. 11-09-00041-CR ARNOLD P. POWERS, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Tarrant County,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 30, 2007
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 30, 2007 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SCOTT G. CLEVENGER Appeal from the Circuit Court for Grainger County No. 4190 O. Duane
More informationMutua Mulundi v Republic [2005] eklr REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS Criminal Appeal 23 of 2003 (From Original conviction (s) and Sentence (s) in Criminal Case No. 720 of 2001 of the Resident Magistrate s Court at
More informationBEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2016] NZREADT 78 READT 042/16 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND An application to review a decision of the Registrar pursuant to section 112 of the Real
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY AP 290/02 BETWEEN PAUL KHAN WHATUIRA A N D NEW ZEALAND POLICE ORAL JUDGMENT OF HAMMOND J
cs6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY AP 290/02 BETWEEN PAUL KHAN WHATUIRA Appellant A N D NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 10 December 2002 Counsel: C Nicholls for Appellant M
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/35017/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 10 January 2018 On 11 January Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/35017/2015 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision Promulgated On 10 January 2018 On 11 January 2018 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Hoet [2016] QCA 230 PARTIES: R v HOET, Reece Karaitana (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 64 of 2016 DC No 548 of 2016 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Court of Appeal Appeal against
More informationAppellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent. Miller, Cooper and Winkelmann JJ. A Shaw for Appellant A M Powell and E J Devine for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA600/2015 [2016] NZCA 420 BETWEEN AND DINH TU DO Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 24 August 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Miller, Cooper and Winkelmann
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 196/97
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA 196/97 THE QUEEN v IAN CHARLES PHIPPS Coram: Hearing: Counsel: Gault J Anderson J Robertson J 19 August 1997 (at Auckland) R. Asher QC and J.H. Wiles for Appellant
More informationADDIE NKOSINGIPHILE SHABANGU
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2006 BETWEEN: LAURIANO RAMIREZ Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST DIVISION,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA305/2008 [2008] NZCA 415 THE QUEEN ALISTAIR MARK STUART LYON. Robertson, Cooper and Winkelmann JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA305/2008 [2008] NZCA 415 THE QUEEN v ALISTAIR MARK STUART LYON Hearing: 20 August 2008 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Robertson, Cooper and Winkelmann JJ Appellant in
More informationARBITRATION SUBJECT. Appeal of termination for violation of found property policy. ISSUES CHRONOLOGY SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Glendon #4 ARBITRATION EMPLOYER, INC. -and EMPLOYEE Termination Appeal SUBJECT Appeal of termination for violation of found property policy. ISSUES Was Employee terminated for just cause? CHRONOLOGY Termination:
More informationkenyalawreports.or.ke
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS APPELLATE SIDE HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL 184 OF 2002 (From Original Conviction(s) and Sentence(s) in Criminal Case No 1320 of 2001 of the Principal
More informationPUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY s139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY s139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA33/01 THE QUEEN V PAUL MORRIS Hearing: 17 September 2001
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 22 December 2014 On 8 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANBURY. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/03806/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 22 December 2014 On 8 January 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT MACKENDY CLEDENORD, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D16-1566 [ May 23, 2018 ] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The application for an extension of time within which to appeal is granted.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA542/2016 [2017] NZCA 212 BETWEEN AND JOHN SIONA MOALA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 10 May 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Gilbert and Katz JJ
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN. CASE NO: CA&R 361/2014 Date heard: 5 August 2015 Date delivered: 13 August 2015
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMPOPO HIGH COURT, THOHOYANDOU HELD AT THOHOYANDOU
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMPOPO HIGH COURT, THOHOYANDOU HELD AT THOHOYANDOU In the matter between: CASE NO: A15/2012 MPHO SIPHOLI MAKHIGI RAMULONDI KHUMBUDZO First Appellant Second Appellant
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 21 January 2015 On 11 February Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEANS. Between MR AQIB HUSSAIN.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/01309/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Glasgow Determination Promulgated On 21 January 2015 On 11 February 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 18 MARCH The two appellants were charged in the Wynberg Regional Court with
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) APPEAL CASE NO.: A350/09 In the matter between: PHILIP CORNELIUS NICOLAS PLAATJIE First Appellant Second Appellant and THE STATE Respondent
More informationCircuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. C-02-CR UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2017
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. C-02-CR-16-002416 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 772 September Term, 2017 TIMOTHY LEE STYLES, SR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND Woodward
More informationCOUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr M.E SETUMU COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT : ADV. NONTENJWA
. Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Mag. Appeal No. 13 of 2011 BETWEEN DAVENDRA OUJAR Appellant AND P.C. DANRAJ ROOPAN #15253 Respondent PANEL: P. WEEKES, J A R. NARINE, J A Appearances: Mr. Jagdeo
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT PETERSON BALTAZARE SIMBERT, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D16-1633 [August 23, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court for
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON. STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTONIO BRIGGS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTONIO BRIGGS Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 96-09730, W. Fred Axley, Trial Judge No. W1999-00280-CCA-R3-CD
More informationCharles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Sherri T. Rollison, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA GERALD YARBROUGH, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-07-258-CR RODNEY PERKINS APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ------------ FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM
More information20 South Second Street 8026 Woodstream Drive, NW Fourth Floor Canal Winchester, OH Newark, OH 43055
[Cite as State v. Meek, 2009-Ohio-3448.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- DAVID MEEK Defendant-Appellant JUDGES: Hon. Julie A. Edwards,
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) DC/00014/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) DC/00014/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 March 2018 On 27 April 2018 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 FRANCIS MADIKAEGBU STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 487 September Term, 2015 FRANCIS MADIKAEGBU v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Wright, Rodowsky, Lawrence F. (Retired, Specially Assigned),
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MBEYA (CORAM: MSOFFE, J.A., MBAROUK, J.A., And MANDIA, J.A.)
Dr. Moses Norbert Achiula versus Republic IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MBEYA (CORAM: MSOFFE, J.A., MBAROUK, J.A., And MANDIA, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2012 MOSES NORBERT ACHIULA.APPELLANT
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. APPELLANT S / RESPONDENT S FACTUM (Select One)
C.A. N o A-226-09 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN: TYSON ROY (Appellant) - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondents) APPELLANT S / RESPONDENT S FACTUM (Select One) NAME OF LAW FIRM Address of law firm
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. FELIX GARZON, Appellant No. 492 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.164 OF 2004 COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM MUNUO, J.A MSOFFE, J.A AND KILEO J.A Nurdin Musa Wailu Vs, The Republic (Appeal from the Conviction of the High Court of Tanzania
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee On Appeal from the Fayette County Court of Appeals, 12"' Appellate District
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO : CASE NO. 08-1864 vs. Plaintiff-Appellee On Appeal from the Fayette County Court of Appeals, 12"' Appellate District EDWARD WELTON JR. Defendant-Appellant Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 12, 2014 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 12, 2014 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHARLES GODSPOWER Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County No. F-67377 David Bragg,
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ANGEL ORQUIZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. O P I N I O N No. 08-09-00097-CR Appeal from the 384th District Court of El Paso County,
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Glasgow Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 November 2015 On 31 March Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEANS.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/08210/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Glasgow Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 November 2015 On 31 March 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 4, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-1071 Lower Tribunal No. 14-554 Terrence Jefferson,
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 14 March 2006 On 18 April 2006 Prepared. Before
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal RH (Para 289A/HC395 - no discretion) Bangladesh [2006] UKAIT 00043 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 14 March 2006 On 18 April 2006
More informationUNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES. Senior Airman CLINTON T. PICKERING United States Air Force ACM
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES v. Senior Airman CLINTON T. PICKERING United States Air Force 15 May 2014 Sentence adjudged 8 November 2012 by GCM convened at Ellsworth
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR. Between I L (ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE) and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/12026/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 May 2016 On 1 June 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationGeorge Hezron Mwakio v Republic [2010] eklr. REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Criminal Appeal 169 of 2008
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Criminal Appeal 169 of 2008 GEORGE HEZRON MWAKIO...APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC... RESPONDENT JUDGMENT The Appellant herein GEORGE HEZRON MWAKIO has
More informationORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE PERSON NAMED VERONICA IN THIS JUDGMENT.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS NAMED OLIVIA AND KIRSTEN IN THIS JUDGMENT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 AND S 139 OF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC 162. DAVID KEITH SILBY Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY CRI-2015-488-000048 [2016] NZHC 162 BETWEEN AND DAVID KEITH SILBY Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: Appearances: 11 February 2016 (By
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellants IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LEO MCNEIL Appellee No. 1795 EDA 2008 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS JESUS CASTILLO, Appellant, V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. O P I N I O N No. 08-08-00332-CR Appeal from the 346th Judicial District Court of El
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Liverpool Employment Tribunals Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 7 th February 2018 On 6 th March 2018.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: PA/01590/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Liverpool Employment Tribunals Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 7 th February 2018 On 6 th March
More informationSOUTHEAST APARTMENTS MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL. OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No February 26, 1999
Present: All the Justices SOUTHEAST APARTMENTS MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL. OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No. 981000 February 26, 1999 KIMBERLY M. JACKMAN FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2014-03058 BETWEEN RAVI NAGINA SUMATI BAKAY Claimants AND LARRY HAVEN SUSAN RAMLAL HAVEN Defendants Before The Hon. Madam Justice C. Gobin
More informationAppellant. YANG WANG AND CHEN ZHANG Respondents
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA58/2017 [2017] NZCA 280 BETWEEN AND Y&P NZ LIMITED Appellant YANG WANG AND CHEN ZHANG Respondents Hearing: 11 May 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Cooper, Mallon and
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG) CASE NO: CA186/04. In the matter between: and FULL BENCH APPEAL
In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG) CASE NO: CA186/04 NEO NGESI APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT FULL BENCH APPEAL MOGOENG JP; LANDMAN J & KGOELE
More informationEzekiel Wafula v Republic [2005] eklr REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA Criminal Appeal 36 of 2004 (1) Arising from Webuye SRM Cr. Case no. 155 of 2003 EZEKIEL WAFULA..APPELLANT VS REPUBLIC..RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T
More informationEASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. CA & R 91/2017
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CRAIG. Between MR ABDUL KADIR SAID. and. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/00950/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Courts of Justice Oral determination given immediately following the hearing
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO: CAF 7/10. TSHEPO BOSIELO Appellant
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG In the matter between:- CASE NO: CAF 7/10 TSHEPO BOSIELO Appellant ATANG BOSIELO First Second Appellant and THE STATE Respondent FULL BENCH APPEAL HENDRICKS J; LANDMAN
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-09-00360-CR JOHNNIE THEDDEUS GARDNER APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ------------ FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2006- COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT ARUSHA- RAMADHANI, C.J., MROSO, J.A. And, KAJI J.A. NYEKA KOU Vs. REPUBLIC (Appeal from the Decision of the High Court of Tanzania at Arusha)-
More informationOntario Superior Court of Justice. Small Claims Court Goderich, Ontario. - and - Bill Steenstra
Court File No. 231/08 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Small Claims Court Goderich, Ontario Between: Hydro One Networks Inc. - and - Bill Steenstra Heard: April 21, June 4 and August 30, 2010 Judgment:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v D [2002] QCA 445 PARTIES: R v D (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 189 of 2002 DC No 1351 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Appeal against
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On: 2 May 2018 On: 8 May Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE. Between [G N] and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On: 2 May 2018 On: 8 May 2018 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE Between [G N]
More informationThe appellant is challenging the decision of Lukelelwa, J. in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.125 OF 2005 COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MTWARA. (CORAM: RAMADHANI, C.J, MUNUO J.A, AND MJASIRI, J.A) ISSA HAMIS KIMALILA APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC RESPONDENT (Appeal from the
More informationCase Summary: Criminal Law Rape Conviction on one count of rape of a ten year old girl and sentence of 25 years imprisonment confirmed on appeal.
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED... DATE... SIGNATURE Case No. A350/2014 In the matter between: DANIEL MOENG Appellant
More informationWHETU SONNY JAMES WAIWAI Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Ellen France P, Keane and Dobson JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA603/2015 [2016] NZCA 167 BETWEEN AND WHETU SONNY JAMES WAIWAI Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 3 March 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Ellen France P, Keane
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CR. ANTHONY SHANE KILLEBREW, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed March 16, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01511-CR ANTHONY SHANE KILLEBREW, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WOODCRAFT. Between. MR SULEMAN MASIH (Anonymity order not made) and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated Heard on 22 nd of January 2018 On 13 th of February 2018 Prepared on 31 st of January
More informationTaxi licensing Roy Light, St John s Chambers 10 December 2013
Taxi licensing Roy Light, St John s Chambers roy.light@stjohnschambers.co.uk 10 December 2013 Utilitarianism Recent cases R (application of Singh) v Cardiff City Council [2012] EWCH 1852 (Admin) taxi drivers
More informationDECISION AND REASONS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/17105/2012 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 21 April 2015 On 10 June 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A112490
Filed 8/21/06 P. v. Hall CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 6 July 2015 On 22 July 2015 Prepared on 7 July Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JM HOLMES.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at North Shields Determination Promulgated On 6 July 2015 On 22 July 2015 Prepared on 7 July 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TANZANIA AT MWANZA (CORAM: MUNUO, J.A., MASSATI, J.A And MANDIA, J.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2010 FURAHA MICHAEL...... APPELLANT VERSUS THE REPUBLIC........ RESPONDENT (Appeal
More information