Following The Supreme Court Decision In Ravi Case

Watch the Lord Chief Justice giving evidence to the Justice Committee on 23rd February about his 2015 annual report. The 2016 Annual Report by the Senior President of Tribunals is also available. The Law Commission has published recommendations relating to Offences against the person with a view to modernisation of the law. Following the Supreme Court decision in R v Jogee, there has been an incredible amount of comment. London Review of Books by Francis Fitzgibbon QC on Joint Enterprise is well worth reading. The BBC Trust has published in full the report by Dame Janet Smith DBE of her inquiry into the BBC’s culture and practices during the Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall years. The Review was established in October 2012 to conduct an impartial, thorough and independent review of the culture and practices of the BBC during the years that Jimmy Savile worked there. A further investigation, into the conduct of Stuart Hall, was undertaken by Dame Linda Dobbs DBE, and is published as part of the report.

The CMO provides services relating to judicial supervision and monitoring; judicial audit and inspection; judicial assignments and placements; and circuitization and decircuitization of courts; and delineation of the territorial areas lower courts. It is also responsible for the compilation, analysis and validation of case data gathered, fiscal monitoring, audits and reconciliation. It also reviews work systems, procedures and processes and formulation of plans and strategies for the OCA and the lower courts. The FMD is mandated by the OCA with the power, authority and duty to examine, audit and reconcile all funds collected by the Clerks of Court (Accountable Officers / Officers-in-Charge) of the RTC, MeTC, MTC, MCTC, MTCC, SDC and SCC. The Judicial and Bar Council is tasked to oversee the appointment of judges in the first and second lever courts, as well as justices of our appellate courts. It interviews prospective applicants, evaluates their qualifications, and receives complaints or letters of support from the public regarding the applicants. It then forwards the list of qualified nominees to the President. Its ex-officio Chairperson is Chief Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro. The MCLE Committee is in charge of administering the rules, as may be necessary, for the implementation of the MCLE, subject to the approval of the Supreme Court. In consultation with the IBP Board of Governors, the MCLE sets the schedule of MCLE fees with the approval of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court today said that the legislators could not be banned from practising as lawyers in courts. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking ban on the legal practice of MPs, MLAs and MLCs who are legal professionals. The Supreme Court said that no law debars the MPs, MLAs and MLCs from practising in court. The petition had been filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay. He contended that allowing MPs, MLAs and MLCs to practise in a court of law amounts to violation of the fundamental right to equality before law as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Though the number of lawyers being elected to the Lok Sabha has reduced since 1952 when the first Lok Sabha was elected. Back then, 36 per cent of the Lok Sabha MPs were lawyers. In the current 16th Lok Sabha, only 7 per cent members are lawyers. But they continue to dominate government and proceedings of Parliament.

Ashwini Upadhyay’s petition referred to the Bar Council of India provisions saying that Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India banned MPs and MLAs from practising as lawyers in courts. The Rule states, the petition said, that any full-time salaried employee, whether he or she belongs to a corporation, private firm, or the government, cannot practise as a lawyer before a court of law. No public servant can engage in the pursuit of any other vocation and certainly cannot offer his or her services as a lawyer while in service. The petitioner cited a 1979 judgment by of the Supreme Court in M Karunanidhi versus Union of India case to back its argument for a ban on legal practice by MPs and MLAs. Karunanidhi had argued in the case that he was not a public servant in the capacity of a legislator. The five-judge bench had then ruled that MPs and MLAs are public servants. The petition further argued that as MPs have the power to decide on impeachment of judges of the Supreme Court and the high court, they are in a position to put pressure on the judges. It also contended that MPs and MLAs appearing as lawyers in courts is a case of conflict of interests as they happen to benefit from both, the complainant and the respondent involved in litigation. The MPs and MLAs draw their salaries from the Centre or state governments and charge fees from the complainant, who moves against the government in courts. The Supreme Court had in March issued notices to the Bar Council of India and the Centre seeking their responses in the matter. Later, the Bar Council of India put a restriction on MPs, who move impeachment motion against a judge from appearing in the same court as a lawyer.

Supreme Court of India, Bombay High Court judgments. NearLaw is much more than a key word search app, but is a well structured database containing researched and indexed Court case law data containing judgement of Supreme Court. Judgements are interlinked. Interlinking is a unique concept available only in SpotLaw. Legal cases with Headnote Keywords for fast research in this Law Library app. Comprehensive Law Finder App among all Case Law apps (such as eCourts App) with Advanced Search to search judgements using Topic wise, Keyword Search, Subject (Act Statute Name) with Section, Order, Article or Rule. Free Law Dictionary Online containing Legal phrases, concepts and maxims. Cooperative Court Cases, Labour Court cass, Industrial Court Cases, Motor Accident Claim Cases, All Important Tribunals Cases, as reported in the eCourts services app. Bombay High Court cases, Bombay High Court orders, Bombay High Court judgments with Updates (Subscription Module Upgrade). NearLaw offers Free Judgement search for all cases including those SC cases reported in Judgement Information System or JUDIS or eCourts.

The data of the judgments is in public domain and not the copyright of NearLaw. The editorial inputs including Headnote, Ratio Decidendi, Longnote, Statute name, Section, Order, Rule identification is NearLaw copyright. We’ve released latest app version 14 of NearLaw app. Though we’ve tried our best, there could still be few bugs on few Android phones. If facing any issue, our request is please don’t uninstall. Most of the times, issues are due to internet connectivity issue, which is beyond our control. Supreme Court of India, Bombay High Court judgments. NearLaw is much more than a key word search app, but is a well structured database containing researched and indexed Court case law data containing judgement of Supreme Court. Judgements are interlinked. Interlinking is a unique concept available only in SpotLaw. Legal cases with Headnote Keywords for fast research in this Law Library app. Comprehensive Law Finder App among all Case Law apps (such as eCourts App) with Advanced Search to search judgements using Topic wise, Keyword Search, Subject (Act Statute Name) with Section, Order, Article or Rule.

Free Law Dictionary Online containing Legal phrases, concepts and maxims. Cooperative Court Cases, Labour Court cass, Industrial Court Cases, Motor Accident Claim Cases, All Important Tribunals Cases, as reported in the eCourts services app. Bombay High Court cases, Bombay High Court orders, Bombay High Court judgments with Updates (Subscription Module Upgrade). NearLaw offers Free Judgement search for all cases including those SC cases reported in Judgement Information System or JUDIS or eCourts. The data of the judgments is in public domain and not the copyright of NearLaw. The editorial inputs including Headnote, Ratio Decidendi, Longnote, Statute name, Section, Order, Rule identification is NearLaw copyright. We’ve released latest app version 14 of NearLaw app. Though we’ve tried our best, there could still be few bugs on few Android phones. If facing any issue, our request is please don’t uninstall. Most of the times, issues are due to internet connectivity issue, which is beyond our control.

Judge Cook went on to illustrate that this presumption shifts the burden to the defendant to prove that the guideline sentence is unreasonable. In the absence of a showing that the district court imposed an “unreasonable” sentence, we affirm. February 1, 2006, 11:55 a.m. One of my esteemed colleagues, Sumter Camp, added some comments to my post and I thought they were important enough to place in the post itself so that everyone could benefit. Court will use to review for reasonableness. See, e.g. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 385 fn 9 (6th Cir. 2006 WL 89159 (6th Cir. Slip Op. 4, fn. 3. The court in Williams goes out of its way to reach an issue that should have been precluded by the Circuit’s rule prohibiting one panel from over-ruling another panel’s decision. Hopefully, Williams will ask for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc given that the Circuit’s law was clear before this opinion, but has now been muddied. Note: Mr. Williams is represented by Dianne Smothers, AFPD, Western District of Tennessee, who has assured me that rehearing and/or reahearing en banc will be sought.

Suit for Specific Performance of contract. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 31.10.2008, made in I.A.No.113 of 2003, in O.S.No.635 of 2001, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal. 3. On 20.1.1995, a further sum of Rs.15,000/- had been paid by the petitioner and the period for performance had been extended till 19.1.1999, by making the necessary endorsement. The petitioner has also stated that he is in possession of the suit property. However, the respondents 2 to 5 were evasive and not inclined to execute the sale deed. They had also threatened the petitioner asking him to vacate the suit property. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the suit, in O.S.No.635 of 2001, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, praying for a decree for specific performance. At present I am not giving any finding with respect of Exhibit-6 and compromise petition in the light of an objections raised by petitioners in their other two petitions.

Simple I have stated the facts which are available on record. If these petitioners are made parties in the suit as prayed then dispute will arise between petitioners and plaintiff No.1 with respect of compromise and Exhibit-6. Its result will be that there will be dispute between the co-plaintiffs with respect of their right, title and interest in suit property. This suit will turn into a regular title suit. To decide right, title and interest of co-plaintiffs in suit property is beyond the scope of this suit. Suit for specific performance of contract can’t be turned into a regular Title Suit. A third party or a stranger to a contract cannot be added as a party to a suit for specific performance. The scope of a suit for specific performance could not be enlarged to convert the same into a suit for title and possession. Admittedly, the suit in O.S.No.170 of 2001 is for a decree for Specific Performance. In our opinion it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. In our opinion, if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for imleadment.

Deciding you need to hire a crime defense attorney is never a pleasant experience. If you do, it means you have been accused of a crime and need someone to manage the case for you to ensure a fast resolution. You may have been charged with a felony or misdemeanor, either way you will need a professional to speak to witnesses, manage the paperwork and fight for you in court to ensure a fair punishment. Before you start looking for a crime defense attorney, you need to have a good understanding of the charges brought against you. Knowing your charges can help you identify the best person to work on your case, someone with experience in that sector of the law with a proven track record. It’s also advisable to do some research to identify what this type of lawyer does. They should manage all the pre-trial documentation, gather evidence, interview witnesses and attend court.

Knowing what this type of attorney does helps you identify if this is the type of legal assistance you need to find the best and fastest resolution for your case. Your next step before looking for a crime defense attorney is to identifying the type of lawyer you need. Some of these law specialists focus in federal law, some in state law and others in traffic. There are also those with years of experience that specialize in all sectors. The type of lawyer you need will be determined by the charges against you. You may need to search online to find a law firm in your local area that can help you with your case or one may be referred to you through family or friends. Before you meet with the lawyer for the first time it’s advisable to learn as much about them as you can. Take their experience, their specialty, their track record and anything else you need to know into consideration.

Ensure they have extensive experience in both district and supreme courts and have a proven track record. When you feel you have found the perfect match and you feel confident that the crime defense attorney you have chosen will prove you with the best service and support, it’s time to make an appointment. During the appointment you can expect to be questioned as the lawyer gets a good understanding of your case, the charges against you and hears your side of the story. If you can bring with you what you can, a copy of your arrest, any witnesses you have and anything else you can think of to prove your innocence in a court of law. During this meeting, a good law firm will discuss your case in detail and give you realistic outcomes you can expect in terms of your case. This can be anything from paying a fine to community service to jail time. The law firm should have a team that will work on your case with the crime defense attorney. If you can meet the team, or some of the team. Also identify who you should call if you want to find out how the progress is going. In addition to this, you will probably also want to confirm the billing structure of the law firm. Some lawyers charge by the hour and others charge a flat rate, ensure they are aware of your budget moving forward. Finally, be honest. There is no point lying during your meetings with your crime defense attorney. Being honest will help them put together the best case with the best outcomes.

United States v. Webb, No. 03-6110 (6th Cir. Facts: Webb pled guilty to knowing possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(0) . He stipulated that he knowingly possessed a machine gun in a duffle bag. As part of his plea agreement, the parties jointly recommended a base offense level of 22, a 3 level increase for destructive device, and a 2 level increase for stolen firearm. Plain Error, But No Prejudice: The district court plainly did err by determining Webb’s sentence under the assumption that the sentencing guidelines were mandatory. Further, as held in US v. Barnett , prejudice should be presumed where a defendant has been sentenced under the assumption that the guidelines are mandatory rather than advisory. Reasonableness of Sentence: In determining the reasonableness of the sentence imposed, the appellate court must consider the length of the sentence, the factors evaluated, and the procedures employed by the district court in reaching its sentence. So, a sentence is unreasonable if the district court fails to consider the applicable guidelines range or other factors listed under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). In Webb, the Sixth Circuit declined to set out a rigid definition of “reasonable” or specific procedures that a district judge must employ. Validity of Appeal Waiver: Compare Webb, in which the panel permits Webb to challenge the validity his guilty plea despite an apparent appeal waiver, to US v. McGilvery, No. 04-1013 (6th Cir.

At the outset I must thank you all for your esteemed patronage of this blog. What had started as a humble experiment will grow into such a huge family was much beyond my initial estimate. You would pardon me for the long delay in the posts. However that was on account of various professional commitments of mine. In particular, and I am pleased to inform this to you, perhaps the biggest engagement of mine in near past has successfully come through. Titled as ‘Goods and Services Tax: Constitutional Law and Policy’, my book has been published by leading law book publisher of India i.e. the Eastern Book Company. The forward has been written by Justice S.B. Sinha (former judge, Supreme Court of India) and the book has been pre-reviewed by various Senior Advocates including the Attorney General of India. 99022062. I hope the contents of the book will find your approval and as usual I will get your esteemed patronage for this recent endeavour.