Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Legal Herald - World Legal Issues

Indivudual Cases - Legal Herald

Mother Convicted of Killing Her Newborn

June 21st 2006 04:39
Remember that rumour about the teenage skank who didn't know she was pregnant, had her baby in a Kmart change room, then dumped the child in the bin? Well, if you take out the teenage skank part and the Kmart part and the bin part, it's no rumour at all. It's the real life story of Amy Shorter who was recently convicted of murdering her own newborn baby. How did this mother of three end up committing such a heinous crime? It seems beyond comprehension.

Wal-Mart, Madison Heights, Virginia
from www.wikipedia.com


Ms Shorter was shopping at Wal-Mart one day and began to feel severe abdominal aches. The 27 year old went into a handicapped toilet cubicle and discovered the cause of her pain as she gave birth to a baby girl. It was argued in court that she had no prior knowledge of her pregnancy and the surprise birth caused her to panic to such an extent that she left the newborn in the bathroom and fled the scene.

Wal-Mart employees found the baby and a nurse who was shopping at the outlet at the time attempted to perform CPR. She was taken to hospital but died 5 days later.

Shorter was charged with felony murder as well as malice murder. However, the jury was unable to come to a unanimous decision as to the malice charge and she was only charged with felony murder. Understandable I suppose. How could a mother ever purposefully leave her child in a bathroom to die? Surely she didn't intend on actually killing the baby, right? But then again, how can she have not known that she was pregnant?

Amy Shorter will spend the rest of her life in jail and will only be eligible for parole in the year 2019.

The image used in this post is from Wikimedia Commons and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5
119
Vote
Comments (9)Comments (9) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Murder Cases
   


The Archibald Prize Challenge

June 20th 2006 00:39
from www.morguefile.com


The Archibald Prize is a prestigious award given to the winner of a portraiture competition held each year at the Art Gallery of NSW. The artworks are a tribute to the most influential people in our culture and often depict actors, sports stars, entertainers and politicians. Sound pretty straightforward? Surprisingly, the competition is often shrouded in legal controversy...

The latest court case involved a claim made by an artist against the Art Gallery of NSW Trust that the 2004 Archibald Prize awarded to Craig Ruddy was in fact wrongly awarded. It was argued that Ruddy’s portrait of Aboriginal actor David Gulpilil should have been disqualified because it was a charcoal drawing rather than a painting and therefore not an artwork for the purposes of the competition.

Sure, I can see the guy’s point from a technical point of view. Charcoal is charcoal and paint is paint. But taking the matter to court! Doesn’t that just make him a sore loser? It’s a portraiture competition and at the end of the day, as long as some person’s head is represented, then that’s all that matters, right?

Absolutely. After days of determining the definition of what is considered an “artwork” and the differences between “drawings” and “paintings”, it was finally established by the NSW Supreme Court in a gloriously simple statement that art is a matter of interpretation.

Indeed, art is beyond definition. For that reason alone, there was no basis for excluding Ruddy’s portrait from the competition and the NSW Art Gallery Trust did not make a wrong decision in awarding him the Prize in 2004.

You can take a look at some of the charcoal pieces and learn more about Craig Ruddy at www.craigruddy.com.au

104
Vote
Comments (7)Comments (7) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Australian Cases
   


The Judge Accused of Wanking In Court

June 19th 2006 02:22
from www.commons.wikimedia.org


Retired Judge, Donald Thompson, will be on trial in Oklahoma very soon for allegedly exposing and pleasuring himself whilst presiding over a matter in court. His court reporter, Lisa Foster who has been employed by Thompson for 18 years, testified in a preliminary hearing that she not only saw him using a “penis pump” on four separate occasions in 2002 and 2003 but also alleges that she saw him shave his scrotum in court! Thompson is further accused of using state computers to view pornographic images.

I honestly do not know whether to laugh or cry.

Why laugh?

1.Because I know that being in court is boring, but not THAT boring.

2.Because I don’t actually know what a penis pump is, but it sounds funny.

3.Because it really would’ve hurt if that shaver accidentally slipped.

Why cry?

1 Because we put our faith in judges to give their full attention to matters so they make informed decisions about the rights and liberties of our people.

2. Because we put our faith in judges to send the baddies to jail and the good guys home and generally maintain an orderly society.

3.Because I wonder how many other judges out there do not give their full attention to legal proceedings.

4.Because maybe he’s innocent, and if he is, he will forever have to live with the disgrace and humiliation of this case.

What do YOU think?

The image used in this post is in the public domain.
146
Vote
Comments (29)Comments (29) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Bizarre Cases
   


Kate Moss Escapes Drug Charges

June 16th 2006 06:29
Kate Moss
from www.wikipedia.com


In September 2005, the British tabloids released pictures of supermodel Kate Moss allegedly snorting cocaine at a London music studio. They called her Cocaine Kate and before you knew it, the entire world did too. She issued a public apology for her behaviour and paid a visit to a rehab clinic in Arizona soon after the pics were made public. But a recent announcement by British prosecutors has indicated that no charges will be laid against the 32 year old mum, despite the evidence.

Sure we have snaps of her taking some kind of substance, but before charges can be laid against her, prosecutors need to know what exactly that substance was. When Moss was interviewed by police, she declined to identify what she was using. There is also no forensic evidence to establish that she was in fact using an illegal substance at the time.

Furthermore, no eyewitnesses are willing to come forward to say that they actually saw the model using cocaine. The alleged use took place during a BabyShambles recording session which means the only possible witnesses to the crime would be Moss’s bad boy ex-boyfriend Pete Dougherty, members of his band and the recording crew.

In the absence of such evidence, Kate Moss walks away, freeof any drug related charges. Sounds like a very lucky escape if you ask me...

The image used in this post is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5. Click the link for full terms and conditions of the license.
98
Vote
Comments (3)Comments (3) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrity Cases
   


Kitten Cruelty Case

June 15th 2006 09:18
from www.wikipedia.com


I’m no animal lover. In fact, I’m terrified of them. Yes, even that cute, little, harmless looking kitty in the photo. But despite my irrational fear and unfounded hatred, I do believe that all creatures great and small should be treated respectfully. After all, they are living and breathing, just like you and me. They can feel what we feel, including pain and suffering. That’s why the decision handed down today in a Sydney Local Court regarding severe animal cruelty is an important one.

45 year old Stephen John Clancy was convicted, sentenced to one year in jail and prohibited from ever being allowed to own another pet, after attempting to kill his 12 week old kitten. The facts of this case make my skin crawl. As much as I don’t like animals, I will never be able to comprehend how this man managed to repeatedly bash little Katie, attempt to drown her in a bowl and then toss her into a garbage bin. Apparently he was high on drugs at the time and now says that he is sorry for his actions.

All I can say is that I am disgusted that human beings are capable of such behaviour.

Clancy is one of the first to be convicted under the new animal cruelty laws inserted into the NSW Crimes Act last year. The RSPCA has said that this case sends out a strong message that such acts are not to be tolerated.

As for Katie the Kitten? She fractured her pelvis, broke her ribs, lost a tooth and suffered severe bruising. She managed to climb out of the garbage bin after the attack and make her way back to Clancy’s home. The RSPCA were then informed and little Katie is now in a new home, being looked after and nursed back to health by a couple in Sydney’s west.

The image used in this post is from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License. Permission is granted to copy the picture under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2. Click on the links for terms and conditions.
102
Vote
Comments (5)Comments (5) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Australian Cases
   


Heather Mills To Sue Over Prostitution Claims

June 14th 2006 10:11
Sir Paul McCartney, from www.wikipedia.com
The soon to be ex-wife of Beatles legend Sir Paul McCartney will be suing a British newspaper for publishing a story about her being a prostitute. Heather Mills denies there is any truth to the story and will be taking the matter to court on the grounds that the statements made were defamatory.

What exactly were the contents of this controversial article? According to News of The World, one of England’s top-selling Sunday papers, the former model was a high class prostitute for some of the world’s wealthiest businessmen. The paper claims that in her 20’s, Heather Mills was paid thousands of pounds a night to service well-known clientele including Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi Arabian arms dealer. Furthermore, pictures from a 1988 German publication were also released, portraying the 38 year old in what the paper calls “obscene and pornographic” positions.

Lawyers for Mills say that the proceedings will be underway once her divorce from McCartney is settled, which is another interesting story in itself.

The pair married on June 11 2002 in a lavish ceremony in Ireland and officially announced intentions to divorce on May 17 2006. The tabloids are going crazy trying to estimate just how much Ms Mills will be receiving in terms of monetary value post-divorce.

You see, back in 2002 before they were to marry, Mills offered McCartney to sign a pre-nuptial agreement to protect his assets should they divorce. But I guess being so blinded by love, McCartney refused. His fortune is said to be worth an estimated 825 million pounds. I can’t even work out how much that would be in Australian dollars. Let’s just say, the guy is a billionaire and Heather Mills could potentially walk away a very very rich woman.

Stay tuned to www.legalherald.com for a follow up on both court cases.

The image used in this post is copyrighted however the copyright holder allows anyone to use the image for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use and modification.
110
Vote
Comments (5)Comments (5) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrity Cases
   


Paris Hilton's Hit And Run

June 13th 2006 06:00
Paris Hilton www.wikipedia.com


Social butterfly and heiress to the Hilton Hotel fortune, Paris Hilton, is under fire after she hit a parked car, then sped off before the owner of the damaged car arrived. Under Californian law, Ms Hilton could be facing up to 6 months behind bars. Is the Simple Life starlet now a ‘hit and run’ criminal?

As it turns out, the whole thing was caught on video surveillance. The video portrays Paris after a shopping spree saying goodbye to a friend, getting into her Range Rover, backing up and crashing into the Honda Civic behind her. There is no evidence in the video to suggest that she left her details for the owner of the damaged car, but rather the video shows Ms Hilton speeding off after the sound of the crash. Sounds like a clear violation of ‘hit and run’ laws to me.

Did she really think she could get away with it? She has paparazzi following her 24/7 who no doubt, will be selling images of the incident to magazines at this very moment. Has the peroxide finally seeped into her head?

No, not yet.

Her publicist, Elliot Mintz, recently announced that Ms Hilton left her details with one of the car park attendants to pass on to the Honda owner. She surprisingly did the right thing and consequently, has not violated any laws.

The image used in this post isobtained from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License and the GNU Free Documentation License. Permission is granted to reproduce the photo under the terms of those licenses which you can read by clicking on the links.
79
Vote
Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrity Cases
   


Celebrity Sex Tapes

June 12th 2006 04:02
MATURE CONTENT
Read MoreRead More
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrity Cases
   


Landmark Medical Law Case

June 10th 2006 06:44
from www.morguefile.com

On Tuesday May 9, 6 out of 7 judges of the High Court of Australia ruled that children born with severe disabilities do not have the right to make compensation claims for ‘wrongful life’. In simple terms, ‘wrongful life’ claims are about suing doctors in negligence, not for the injuries sustained but for being born.

The case involved Alexia Harriton and Keeden Waller who were both born with severe medical problems. Whilst Keeden is suffering from permanent brain damage, Alexia is blind, deaf and suffers spasticity. The parents of both girls say they would have terminated their pregnancies had the doctors detected certain conditions in the mothers that could cause disabilities in their children. But these conditions went undetected. And I guess that’s where all the legal problems began.

In Alexia and Keeden’s case, it is true that the doctors were negligent. As a result, the girls were born into a life where they require 24 hour assistance by carers and nurses. Surely you’d think they would be entitled to some form of compensation right?

Wrong. In negligence claims, you need to prove that a duty of care was owed by the doctors to the girls, that the duty of care was breached and that as a result damage was suffered by the girls.

The case failed because no legally recognisable damage could be established. Had the conditions been detected by the doctors, the mothers say they would have had abortions. So in determining what the damage is for the purposes of this case, the High Court had to compare the girls current lives to non-existence. Clearly impossible and for some of the judges, immoral.

If the court had ruled in favour of the girls, it would be acknowledging the idea that the girls are better off dead. It would mean that human life is worthless. The implications of such a decision would be clearly disastrous.

And yet, you can’t help but sympathise with Alexia and Keeden who will never be able to lead a life like yours and mine.

88
Vote
Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Australian Cases
   


FIFA World Cup Sparks Human Rights Concerns

June 8th 2006 09:22
from www.wikipedia.com


FIFA fanatics around the world are counting down the hours til the start of the 2006 World Cup in Germany tomorrow. It is without a doubt the event of the year. Millions, maybe even billions of people will be plastered to their television screens for the next 4 weeks cheering on their favourite teams, running around with their shirts over their heads when a goal is scored and swearing crazily when the damn guy misses. But did you know that amidst all this excitement, there are two serious human rights issues that the German government is dealing with?

The first major concern is that there will be an increase in the trafficking of women throughout the games. International organisations such as Amnesty International fear that an estimated 30 000 women and girls will be sexually exploited and forced into prostitution. The reasoning is that there will be such large numbers of people heading to Germany during this time, a high demand will be placed on all services including those from Germany’s red light districts. Amnesty and other organisation throughout Europe are calling upon the German government to do everything they can to monitor the sex industry and prevent the trafficking of women for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This is a grave violation of human rights as it affects a woman’s right to human dignity, physical and mental integrity and other fundamental freedoms regarding a person’s right to life.

The second major concern is that of racial violence. Recent attacks on three males of Ethiopian, Turkish and Korean origin within the nation have sparked concerns for all visitors to the country who are of African or Asian appearance. According to a local German newspaper, Neo-Nazis are planning violent attacks on such racial groups. Again, should these horrific acts take place, they would be a severe violation of fundamental human rights as it would involve discrimination on the basis of a person’s ethnicity or religion. However, German leaders have responded to these concerns announcing there will be no tolerance of any form of xenophobia. A campaign for racial tolerance is being launched in schools throughout the country. FIFA is also doing its part by launching a “Say No To Racism” campaign during the games. Banners will be put up before all matches at the 12 stadiums to remind everyone that the World Cup is a celebration of cultural diversity as much as it is a celebration of sport.

Let’s hope that everyone remembers that.

Oh, and just one more thing. GO AUSTRALIA!

The image used in this post is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v 2.5. For full terms please see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
98
Vote
Comments (3)Comments (3) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: International Cases
   


What is Pro Bono ?

June 7th 2006 08:24
from www.morguefile.com


No No No. As a friend of mine once said, we're not talking about the lead singer of U2 here. The term “pro bono” is derived from the Latin word “pro bono publico” which means for the public good. Lawyers who provide legal assistance and advice for free or at a reduced cost are said to engage in pro bono work. But the definition is the subject of much debate in the legal world where the term can mean different things to different people.

Does pro bono involve only free advice? Does it include representation in court? Does it include non-litigious matters? These are the questions that plague legal minds. But let it not plague yours. The reality is that there is no universally accepted definition of pro bono. We can only look to various sources to obtain guidance on the matter.

For example, the Law Council of Australia has provided the following definition of pro bono as situations where:
1. a lawyer, without fee or expectation of a fee or at a reduced fee, advises and/or represents a client in cases where:
(i) a client has no other access to the courts and the legal system; and/or
(ii) the client’s case raises a wider issue of public interest; or
2. the lawyer is involved in free community legal education and/or law reform; or
3. the lawyer is involved in the giving of free legal advice and/or representation to charitable and community organisations.

Apart from the definitional debate, there is also much discussion as to whether pro bono work should become mandatory for legal practitioners. Should this happen, no doubt the public perception of lawyers would improve, lawyers themselves would feel that they are actually doing good for the community and most importantly, people who do not have access to the justice system because of the simple fact that they cannot afford it will have more avenues open to them to pursue legal matters.

However, not everyone wants to be forced into doing free work. Small firms and private practices for example, often do not have the time or the resources to contribute to the pro bono schemes. And how many hours a week would legal practitioners be expected to contribute?

In the US, a pro bono target has been implemented. This involves aiming to commit a certain number of hours a year to pro bono work. The scheme maintains the voluntary quality of pro bono work by not making it mandatory and also encourages practitioners to aim for their targets, usually about 50 hours a year. In the grand scheme of things, doesn’t that sound pretty fair?
84
Vote
Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Lawyers Cases
   


Bush Wants To Ban Gay Marriage

June 6th 2006 07:24
from www.wikipedia.com


President Bush has backed a resolution that same sex marriages be banned in the United States. He plans on doing this by means of a proposed constitutional amendment. Apparently, the idea was put into his head by Senator Allard, a Republican of Colorado. So what does this mean for the estimated 10% of Americans who are homosexuals and intend on marrying a person of the same sex?

Well, it could mean one of two things:

EITHER, that all states in the US would be prohibited from recognizing gay marriages. According to George W, “ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society”. He has clearly backed the resolution claiming that a focus on the traditional roots of marriage will help to stabilise society. (Though his opponents say he's just sucking up to the religious and conservative voters, just in time for the upcoming November elections.)

OR, nothing much at all. According to procedure, for the amendment to be passed, two days of debate must be initiated before the 100 senators can vote on the proposed changed. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures. It’s pretty complicated and everyone pretty much knows, it ain’t gonna happen.

The image used in this post is in the public domain as it is a work of the US Federal Government.
120
Vote
Comments (7)Comments (7) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: International Cases
   


Ludicrous Case For Kanye West and Ludacris

June 5th 2006 07:31
Grammy Award winner Kanye West and rapper pal Ludacris were recently accused of stealing lyrics for their 2003 hit single Stand Up from a small New Jersey group known as I.O.F. The District Court of Manhattan cleared the names of the two rappers last week and dismissed the accusations of any breach of copyright laws.

from www.morguefile.com


The musicians from I.O.F attempted to argue that the rhythms and words used in their music was plagiarised by West and Ludacris. Specifically, the words “like that” which are repeated a number of times in both songs. However, lawyers for West and Ludacris successfully argued that these words and rhythms were in no way original to I.O.F. Ten jurors returned the verdict in favour of the two rappers after just one day of deliberations.

It sounds like it was a pretty standard copyright case.

But then I started thinking: Imagine how awesome it would have been to be a juror in this matter. I mean, submissions of evidence would have involved listening to rap music plus Ludacris’ hairdo would have been enough to keep me entertained. And what about the lawyers who had to question the guy. Do you think they interrogated him by referring to him as Mr Ludacris? (For all you gullible ones, his real name is Chris Bridges and no doubt, he was referred to as Chris Bridges throughout the proceedings.) Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like for the first time in history, jury duty may have actually been quite...fun?
78
Vote
Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrity Cases
   


The Man Who Killed Gianni Versace

June 1st 2006 23:29
from www.wikipedia.com


Criminal Profile:
- Andrew Cunanan
- Born August 31, 1969
- Died July 23, 1997
- Ranked 449th, FBI’s 10 Most Wanted Fugitives list.

Andrew Cunanan was a 28 year old male from Rancho Bernardo who was described by his friends as intelligent and charming. He liked to party and was a well-known figure in the LA and San Francisco gay scene. But little did his friends know that this charismatic socialite would end up being one of the world’s most notorious criminals.

Between April and July 1997 Cunanan went on a murderous rampage across the US. His victims were initially people he knew and loved. Cunanan’s first victim was long-time friend, Jeffrey Trail whilst the second was his lover David Madson. Both were found with gunshot wounds to the head. As Cunanan attempted to dispose of the bodies and escape the police who were on his tail, anyone in his way became a victim. Cunanan’s third victim was a well-known real estate developper, Lee Miglin and in order to dispose of the body, Cunanan killed his fourth victim, William Reese, stole his truck and managed to escape.

Cunanan’s final and most spoken about victim was Gianni Versace. Versace was returning from a walk down Ocean Drive that July morning when Cunanan pulled out a semiautomatic pistol and gunned down the Italian designer outside his Miami Beach mansion.

One week later, Cunanan’s own body was found in a house bout in Miami. He killed 5 innocent people before finally turning the gun on himself. Why did he do it? What were his motives?

Many people thought at the time that Cunanan’s killing spree was a form of revenge on past lovers who had potentially infected him with the HIV virus. Indeed, he was known to engage in sexual services for older men in exchange for money. However, the autopsy report shows that Cunanan was in fact HIV negative. Maybe he didn’t know this. Or maybe he did. I guess no one will ever really know why he did it.

The photo of Andrew Cunanan used in this post is in the public domain because it is a work of the United States Federal Government.
100
Vote
Comments (6)Comments (6) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Criminal Profiles
   


Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's Namibian Baby

May 31st 2006 14:53
from www.wikipedia.com

Ladies and Gentlemen, she has finally graced us with her presence. Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt was born on Saturday 27th May in Swakopmund, Namibia. You will notice that unlike everyone else, I will refrain from labelling her as the world’s most beautiful baby. Sure, she probably is. But imagine the pressure this girl will have to face living up to everyone’s expectations. Think about it. She could end up with Angie’s giant forehead, Brad’s bad skin and a tattoo with Billy Bob Thornton’s name on it. So let’s all please call her by her name, Shiloh Nouvel, even if we can’t pronounce it.

from www.wikipedia.com

Now what does all this have to do with the law you ask? Well, the Namibian Government is offering little Shiloh Nouvel citizenship in their country. The thing is, that under Namibian law, merely being born in the country does not entitle you to automatic citizenship. So how is it that this 4 day old child has managed to entice the Namibians into the offer?

Under Namibian law, a person may be entitled to something known as “Honourary Citizenship”. This refers to citizenship offered to that person by the President of Namibia. The President must be of the opinion that the person to whom the offer is being made has rendered a distinguished service to the country.

Now, I’m not quite sure that Shiloh Nouvel herself has rendered any distinguished services as of yet. I’m guessing President Hifikepunye Pohamba‘s decision to offer such citizenship would be based on all the saintly work in which Brangelina have been involved over the past year or so. This includes Angelina’s work as Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, large monetary donations from the couple to local Namibian schools and hospitals and the increase in tourism the two have generated by their mere presence in the African nation.

The couple’s publicist has announced that they are yet to decide whether or not to accept the offer. I say go for it. It’s an honour usually reserved for royalty. And maybe kids whose names we can’t pronounce.



The images used in this post were obtained from www.wikipedia.com
The picture of Angelina Jolie is subject to the GNU Free Documentation License. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and modify a work under that license.
The picture of Brad Pitt is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the United States Air Force
99
Vote
Comments (2)Comments (2) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrity Cases
   


The Legal Definition of Death

May 30th 2006 08:03
Morbid topic, I know. But believe it or not there are millions of cases around the world that discuss the legal definition of death.

from www.morguefile.com


Under the Human Tissue Act 1983, NSW, for the purposes of the law of NSW, a person has died when there has occurred:
a. irreversible cessation of all function of the person’s brain or
b. irreversible cessation of circulation of blood in the person’s body.

This is an important matter for the courts to consider because in some situations, medical treatment may be withheld from a patient at their request or at the request of the patient’s family. The thing is, that if a doctor agrees and pulls the cord that is sustaining that person’s life, then he or she could be accused of murder. So the courts have to decide the point at which a person is legally dead and whether it was the doctor who either lawfully or unlawfully caused it.

Generally, under Australian law, a competent adult patient is entitled to refuse treatment even if he or she will die as a result. A doctor who acts on a patient’s refusal will not incur any civil or criminal liability.

However, the keyword is REFUSAL of treatment. A patient, no matter how competent he or she may be, cannot request a positive act to bring about death. That would be murder, and that’s what the whole euthanasia debate is about. Giving a lethal injection to a patient is considered a positive act and is unlawful in Australia whilst turning off a patient’s respirator is considered an omission rather than a positive act and is lawful.

That doesn’t mean that any old doctor can turn off any old respirator any old time he wants. No. In some instances, patients can’t actually refuse the treatment themselves because, for example, they are in a coma. So what is the doctor supposed to do?

A doctor can lawfully withdraw treatment in two circumstances. Firstly, if it is futile treatment and secondly, if the treatment imposes a burden on the patient not justified by the potential advantages. Futile treatment refers to treatment that is of no practical value. An example of this is where death is inevitable and the treatment will not cure the person. There was a case in England that involved a boy who was critically injured and left in a permanent vegetative state. Although his brain stem was in tact, his lungs had been reduced to a watery mass and he had lost all his senses. There was no chance of him recovering and for that reason, any treatment would have been futile.

Treatment that imposes a burden on the patient refers to any treatment that will result in an unacceptable quality of life. There have been no Australian decisions that confirm the withdrawal of treatment in such circumstances, but again there are English cases that support the concept in cases of very profound disability. There was one such case where a child was born with severe brain damage, had lost sight and hearing and was unresponsive. The child was in a condition where he could not survive but for the ventilation and feeding equipment that he was attached to. In that situation the court decided that treatment should be withdrawn because all the treatment was doing was prolonging an unacceptable quality of life.

In short, a doctor can only withhold treatment from a patient if:
1. the doctor has the patient’s consent and the patient is considered a competent adult
2. the treatment is futile
3. the treatment imposes an unjustifiable burden on the patient
Otherwise, the doctor may have to face a murder charge.
96
Vote
Comments (2)Comments (2) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Australian Cases
   


Breast Implants for Teenagers?

May 29th 2006 05:04
from www.morguefile.com


When 19 year old BB6 housemate Krystal, announced on national television that she had silicone implanted into her breasts, the nation was divided in its thoughts on the matter. For some, she was too young to have had plastic surgery. For others, Krystal was an individual, capable of making her own choices in life. For me, well, I didn’t actually know her name was Krystal. I just knew her as that kid on Big Brother with fake boobs.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, the bottom line is that under Australian law, Krystal has the legal right to receive cosmetic surgery if she so chooses. For starters, Krystal is not a minor. Minors are defined under legislation to attain majority at 18 years of age.

Generally, if you are a minor you cannot consent to a medical procedure. There is a presumption in the law that minors are incompetent to make such a decision. Only your parents can consent to medical treatment, and any parent in their right mind probably would not consent to their daughter’s breast augmentation.

However, as children grow up, they gradually acquire the right to make their own decisions about some procedures, and when that happens, the child’s consent is sufficient authority for the procedure to be undertaken. So does that mean teenage girls potentially can receive breast implants? Well, yes, but the answer is not quite as simple as it seems.

There is a test that is generally applied known as the ‘Mature Minor Test’: A minor is capable of giving informed consent when he or she achieves a sufficient level of understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to understand fully what is proposed. By law, a child must understand the nature of the treatment and its consequences before a doctor can undertake the particular procedure. The more serious and invasive the surgery is, the more carefully a doctor must assess the child’s level of understanding. Doctors are legally obliged to consider the patient’s apparent maturity, intelligence and attitude, signs of mental illness, depression, social history and so on. So if a doctor is approached by a teenage girl who fits the criteria of a Mature Minor, then legally, he or she can go ahead with the operation.

It’s a distressing thought isn’t it? This is the state of the law in a society so obsessed with self image, in a society where girls are growing up idolising Pamela Anderson, Tara Reid and even Krystal. There have been calls by surgeons, parents and the public to ban cosmetic surgery of minors but so far, the law stands as it is.


100
Vote
Comments (8)Comments (8) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Australian Cases
   


Schapelle Corby's Defence Witness Jailed

May 26th 2006 09:38
On May 27 2005, Schapelle Corby, a beauty student from Queensland was sentenced to a 20 year jail term in Bali for the importation of 4.1kg of Cannibas into the country. Now, one year later, the story continues as a defence witness is sentenced to eight years in jail.

photographed by Kevin Connors
from www.morguefile.com


That witness is John Ford. Remember him? He was a prisoner at Port Phillip Prison and out of the blue it seemed, he was flown over to Indonesia in order to give evidence in Corby’s trial. The 42 year old male testified that while he was in prison, he overheard two men planning to place the marijuana in Corby’s luggage. According to Ford, Corby was an innocent traveller who had no idea the drugs were in her boogie board bag. He named Ron Vigenser, a fellow inmate, as the owner of the drugs. But the prosecutors in Corby’s case said that this evidence was inadmissible because it was all hearsay. The judge agreed.

When Ford was returned to his Australian prison cell, he was attacked, beaten and stabbed. Probably because he dobbed in Vigenser, though no one really spoke of it. Officials moved him to solitary confinement as a form of protection.

Today, he found himself in a county court where a jury found him guilty of a number of rape and stalking charges. On one occasion Ford broke into his victim’s house and left a blood soaked teddy bear on his victim’s bed. It makes you wonder if eight years in prison is really enough...
97
Vote
Comments (7)Comments (7) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Australian Cases
   


Property Law

May 25th 2006 09:10

Buying or selling a house? Renting? Leasing? Squatting? Then listen up, this is something that anyone who lives in anything besides a cardboard box should know.

House, photographed by Taliesin
from www.morguefile.com


Land titles refer to ownership of the land and the nature of that ownership. In NSW, there are a variety of different titles to land such as Crown Land and Native Title. What type of land are you on right now and how much do you know about it?

Fee Simple
This is the best title you can have. It is absolute ownership of the land, subject to any rights the Crown may have. A proprietor of an estate in fee simple can pass on title by sale, gift or on death.

Life Estate
This is an estate in the land which terminates once the holder of the estate or another specified person dies. Sometimes, life estates cease on the occurrence of an event other than death. For example, a father might transfer title to his daughter once she is married.

Old System Title
Between 1788 and 1863, the old system title was the only title available in NSW. A person claimed they owned the land by producing proof of possession, that is, by documents that have been signed, sealed and delivered.

Torrens Title
Under the Torrens system, legal title to the land can only be obtained by registration. Under the Real Property Act 1900, once land has been registered, title becomes absolute and indefeasible (though there are exceptions to the rule).

Strata Title
Before the Strata Legislation was introduced, a person who wanted to own a unit in an apartment block often had to be a shareholder in a company that owned an entire block of land so that the shareholder had the exclusive right to occupancy of a particular unit. However, now Strata subdivisions of land permit ownership of parts of a building.
89
Vote
Comments (2)Comments (2) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Australian Cases
   


Michelle Rodriguez Behind Bars Again

May 24th 2006 07:27
Hide it. Lock it up. Bury it. I don't care, just keep the booze away from Michelle Rodriguez. She's behind bars once again, but unlike her last prison sentence of only 5 days, this time she'll be locked up for 60. Yes, 60 DAYS! That's two whole months of the orange jumpsuit, bad hair, no make up and of course everything else that goes along with spending time in jail.

Michelle Rodriguez
from www.wikipedia.com


I mean, it must be pretty bad for the average citizen to be locked up in a confined space for two months. Just take a look at Big Brother. Everyone goes mental in there after two hours. But for the Hollywood star who is so accustomed to a lavish lifestyle of luxury and indulgence, surely being in jail will be a hell to which they would never want to return. Well, for some at least.

Rodriguez was on a 3 year good behaviour probationary period for a drink driving offence committed in 2004. However, in late 2005, the Lost actress was caught driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol whilst on location in Hawaii. Having broken the earlier probation term, Rodriguez will now have to commence her 60 day prison term by the end of May.

And that's not all. Los Angeles Superior Court judge, Rex Hesseman, has also ordered Rodriguez to perform 30 days of community service. The starlet will find herself working for the LA Sheriff's Department, the "Mothers Agianst Drunk Driving" victim impact panel and the local hospital and morgue.

Let's hope this time, she really learns her lesson.
80
Vote
Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrity Cases
   


Michelle Williams' Dad Released on Bail

May 23rd 2006 08:30

Question – What is the easiest way to be released on bail?
Answer – Have a famous child.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, it seems that having a Hollywood star in the family is a definite means of being granted bail. Well, for stock market machine, Larry Williams at least.

He’s the father of Dawson’s Creek actress, Michelle Williams and on Saturday 20th May 2006, was arrested at Sydney’s Kingsford-Smith Airport on tax evasion charges. The 64 year old is wanted by the IRS for allegedly evading $1.5 million (US) in taxes.

www.wikipedia.com


One of the main factors that influence a magistrate in deciding whether or not a person should be released on bail is the likelihood of that person leaving the country and attempting an escape. In Mr William’s case, he is a prominent figure in the share market world, he is the father of an Oscar Nominee and also has a father-son relationship with his daughter’s boyfriend, famous Aussie actor Heath Ledger. His status in this sense seemed to give him a free ticket to bail.

Well, not totally free. Central Local Court magistrate Allan Moore today granted Mr Williams bail for $1 million (AUD). The other conditions of bail were that he must surrender his passport, not leave the Sydney CBD area and report to police three times a day. He is due to appear in court again on May 29.

75
Vote
Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrity Cases
   


BLOGGER'S MURDER TRIAL

May 22nd 2006 08:27

When I came across this case, I didn’t really know what to think...

Her name is Rachelle Waterman. She’s a 17 year old from Alaska who is a member of her school volleyball team, the Academic Decathlon and the local choir. (Shock: there are sporty, smart AND musical people out there??)

Rachelle Waterman with her father
from www.wikipedia.com


For several years, Rachelle had been keeping a blog of her life. She wrote about her day-to-day activities, interactions with her parents and posted photos of herself. Nothing out of the ordinary. She appeared to be no different to any other girls her age and from the sounds of things, she had a lot going for her.

But unlike most teenagers, Rachelle was on trial for the murder of her mother, Lauri Waterman. (Real point of shock: OHMYGOD, your own mother?? I mean, I don’t think anyone should be killing anyone, but especially not the person who brought you into the world.)

Lauri was abducted, attacked with a blunt object then doused in petrol and set alight in a car. Her daughter was accused of having conspired with two ex-boyfriends Jason Arrant and Brian Radel to carry out the killing. And let’s not forget poor Mr Waterman, father of the accused and husband of the victim. I can’t even begin to imagine how he must have been feeling throughout the trial.

Arrant and Radel testified against Rachelle.(Suspicious, two ex boyfriends, working together?) So did she do it? Many people thought so. But many people thought otherwise. The police seized her computer and used it to search her files and in particular, her blogs, for any evidence relevant to the trial.

The verdict was recently returned in favour of Rachelle. The judge dropped all charges against her. Had she been convicted, Rachelle Waterman would have faced 317 years behind bars.

You gotta feel sorry for the girl. She lost her mum and instead of having time to mourn and grieve that loss, she had to be interrogated, examined and cross-examined, by police, lawyers and the entire world. Sure, she’s had her name cleared, but she will probably always be known as the girl who was on trial for the murder of her own mother. Even worse still, Lauri never wanted her daughter to date either Arrant or Radel. Had Rachelle listened to her mum, maybe she would still be alive today...
86
Vote
Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Murder Cases
   


The Da Vinci Code Court Case

May 21st 2006 04:22
The recent release of the Da Vinci Code on the big screen has left everyone talking, everywhere. To tell you the truth, I don’t even remember what on earth we used to talk about BEFORE the movie (or even the book) was released. Which can only mean one of two things. Either, that I am a 23 year old with the memory of a 103 year old, or that Dan Brown has cast a magic spell over us all so that we live and breathe the Da Vinci Code, for a little while at least.

from www.wikipedia.com


So here I am, living it and breathing it while I tell you about the multi-million dollar court case that almost landed author Dan Brown in a very sticky situation:

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, decided to sue publisher Random House. They claimed that Brown’s book “appropriated the architecture” of their book. In simple terms, this means they were trying to argue that Brown breached copyright laws by copying a substantial amount of their book.

Brown did not deny that he had used Baigent and Leigh’s book as a source of information in writing The Da Vinci Code. He admits using common themes such as the present existence of Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s bloodline and attempts by the Catholic Church to hide this. Brown even acknowledged the claimant authors in his book, in cryptic form. The character LEIGH TEABING was created by putting together Richard LEIGH’s surname and rearranging the letters of Michael BAIGENT’s surname. But according to the court, simply drawing on ideas in historical research is not enough to constitute a breach of copyright. The high court rejected the claimant’s case and ordered them to pay 85% of Random House’s legal costs. This is estimated to be over AUD $3 million.

What’s even more interesting than the outcome of the case is the written judgement by Justice Smith. His Honour created a code of his own by italicising letters throughout the 51-page summary. For days, people everywhere were trying to discover what the legal code was. It turned out to be a joke in Latin that I didn’t quite understand and I’m not so sure that very many other people did either. But hey, hats off to the guy for trying...
95
Vote
Comments (3)Comments (3) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrity Cases
   


Law-ha-ha

May 20th 2006 05:10
Who ever said that the law was boring? Ok so maybe I did once. But I TOTALLY take it back. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I have found for all you legally inclined people out there a website that is so hilarious, so ingenious and yet so legal all at the same time.

Impossible, you’re thinking? Too good to be true? Well, log onto LawHaHa and see for yourself.




In the words of the legal eagle behind it all, Mr Andrew McClurg, this site is “an interactive humour network for legal types from all stripes: law students, lawyers, judges, legal secretaries, prison inmates, recidivist parking metre violators, anyone with a computer basically.”

It’s legal stand up comedy online featuring weird legal news, funny law school moments and opinion polls. And it is surprisingly educational. I mean, who ever knew that the comb-over was patented?? But my absolute FAVOURITE and a must-read for anyone who has ever read a legal article or any journal article for that matter, is “The World’s Greatest Law Review Article”. It’s a very clever piece and it’s funny. I actually laughed out loud when I read it, which is something I have NEVER experienced whilst reading a law text.

And that’s why I realised I need to spread the news about this site. Lawhaha is just what the legal profession needs- a laugh.
101
Vote
Comments (4)Comments (4) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Lawyers Cases
   


Michelle Rodriguez Too Fast, Too Furious

May 18th 2006 08:16
It’s really quite sad when public figures find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Not only do they kill the glamorous Hollywood image that they have worked on creating for themselves but also, they set a bad example for their fans and for those who look up to them. Michelle Rodriguez is no exception.

from www.wikipedia.com


Whilst on location in Hawaii for the filming of the hit TV series Lost, this Hollywood starlet pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Rodriguez, along with her co-star, Cynthia Watros were arrested in Oaho late last year. But it is Rodriguez that everyone has been talking about.

After her appearance in the Kaneohe District Court of Oahu, Rodriguez was given the option of a 5 day prison sentence or 240 hours of community service. She chose the jail time. According to StarMag, Rodriguez has had to sell her house and car in order to pay for legal costs. It seems this confrontation with the law was a wake up call for the 27 year old actress to get her life back in order.

However, this is not the first time Rodriguez has had to confront the legal system. In November 2003, she was arrested in LA , managed to escape a prison sentence but was placed on a 36-month good behaviour probationary period. Having failed to comply with the terms of the court, she is now facing another 18 months in jail.

I think what is really disappointing about this story is that Rodriguez has managed to drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol not once, but twice AND involve herself in a hit and run accident all in the space of 2 years. These are serious traffic offences that put her life as well as the life of others at risk. It’s not ok to drink and drive. Let’s hope Rodriguez’s jail term sends out this message loud and clear.

75
Vote
Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrity Cases
   


Habitual Traffic Offenders

May 17th 2006 08:02
from www.morguefile.com



I am no saint. I have had parking tickets, speeding fines and even been through a red light once or twice. No doubt, most of us are guilty of committing traffic offences once in awhile. However, I must admit, whenever I do get hit with a painful $260 fine, I make an effort, for the sake of my pockets, to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

But then there are the habitual traffic offenders (HTO). They are the ones who commit the more serious offences such as reckless driving, driving under the influence of alcohol or exceeding the speed limit by over 30km/h. A person becomes an HTO if, within a period of 5 years, they have committed 3 or more serious offences on different occasions.

In New South Wales, if the court convicts a person of a traffic offence and declares them an HTO, that person may be disqualified from driving a car for a set number of years. But that’s not all. The RTA also has the power to disqualify you for another 5 years on top of your court sentence.

Moral of the story, boys and girls? Drive sensibly or you could lose the privilege of having your license for a very, very long time.
74
Vote
Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Australian Cases
   


Restraining Order Against Charlie Sheen

May 16th 2006 06:36
from www.thesmokinggun.com


You know him from the CBS hit series Two and a Half Men and Platoon. You know her from Wild Things and Starship Troopers. Who would have thought that several sitcoms, movies and 2 kids later, Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards would be caught up in a legal battle so scandalous? So messy? So very much like Hollywood...

If you’ve been living under a rock, let me fill you in on the goss. Denise Richards recently filed for a divorce from hubby Charlie Sheen after 3 years of a somewhat unsteady marriage. Scandalous yes, but then again it seems that almost everyone in Hollywood gets a divorce at least once in their lifetime. But what makes the Richards-Sheen story stand out from the rest is that a temporary restraining order was issued against Sheen for reasons that will make you realise how unglamorous Hollywood can be.

In a 17-page declaration by Richards, it is alleged that she was pushed and shoved by Sheen several times, threatened with violence and made to fear for the safety of her parents. Of course, Sheen denies all the allegations.

The restraining order requires him to stay 90 metres away from Richards, her home and her car at all times. He must also stay away from their two children except during supervised visits which are to take place just once a week.

Anyone who has been through a split will know just how messy, time consuming and emotionally draining it can be. But imagine having it announced to the whole world. Divorce, restraining orders and a smorgasbord of legal issues are probably the last things anyone under the target of the paparazzi would want publicised. It’s bad enough as it is, could this story get any worse?

When Denise Richards recently decided to hook up with Richie Sambora, (YES, as in the Richie that was going out with Denise’s good friend, Heather Locklear) I think you could say that the story got a whole lot more complicated...
75
Vote
Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrity Cases
   


CULTURAL RITE or VIOLATION OF RIGHTS?

May 15th 2006 08:30
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). It’s one of those things you hear about but don’t really think about if it doesn’t affect you. The reality is that an estimated 140 million of the world’s women and girls have undergone the procedure and currently it is believed that 6000 females are being genitally mutilated every year. So what is it exactly and why is it causing such an uproar in the international legal community?

www.morguefile.com


FGM is the term used to describe the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or any injury to the female genital organs for cultural or other non-therapeutic reasons. It is extensively practiced in Africa and parts of the Middle East and Asia as a traditional custom preparing young girls for their passage into womanhood.

The practice varies from region to region. In its most severe and controversial form, FGM involves the cutting off of the clitoris, labia minora and labia majora, followed by a stitching up of what’s left of the vagina to ensure the girl’s chastity. The procedure is often performed by a relative using broken glass, a jagged tin or a razor. It can result in severe bleeding and scarring, painful intercourse, obstructed labour, infertility, haemorrhages and even death.

So, isn’t it obvious that cutting off parts of a girl’s vagina is a grave violation of her rights? Well, yes. The United Nations thinks so. This is reflected in a number of international legal documents such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Countries (or state parties as we like to call them in the legal world) that have signed and ratified these documents are under an obligation to put a stop to FGM in their particular state.

Sounds straightforward, but really, how do you put a stop to a practice that is so deeply entrenched in tradition? For most practitioners and participants, FGM is an integral part of their cultural identity. Their grandmas did it. Their mums did it. They have viewed it as a celebration of womanhood, not a violation of human rights. When countries like Ghana make FGM a criminal act, it seems inevitable that the practice will go underground.

So maybe that’s why FGM is causing such an uproar in the legal world. The almighty power of the law is clearly ineffective in resolving this issue. Some say that only education and time can ameliorate this situation. But at what cost to human life?

For more information, see www.amnesty.org
75
Vote
Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: International Cases
   


LEGAL NEWS

May 15th 2006 07:30
www.morguefile.com
Stern faces. Big words. Curly white wigs. Let’s face it, the law is a scary thing. It is complex, daunting and involves Latin. Enough said.

The thing is, you don’t need to be a criminal or a lawyer to be caught up in its hungry jaws. The law is an all-encompassing monster that chews up everyone. Scarier still, you never know when it will creep up on you.

So prepare yourself. Educate yourself. The law is definitely something we should all know a little bit about. Sure you might have learnt a thing or two from Ally McBeal, The Practice or Law and Order but let’s widen that knowledge and take it all a step further in true Elle Woods style. Learn about cases and reforms, updates on celebrity court cases, the world’s most notorious criminals and profiles on the world’s most inspirational leaders and how they shape the legal world today.

If you have any questions, comments or opinions (and if you are a law student, I’m sure you do) feel free to post them. One thing that I have learnt after 5 years of law school is that an opinion or comment is never wrong. They are always valid as long as you can back it up.

It’s time to generate some knowledge about the law minus the boring stuff. So here I am, legally brunette, ready to break down some serious global legal issues every week.
77
Vote
Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Lawyers Cases
   


Previous Page (1-100)



[ Legal Herald Home ] [ Create A New Post ]

Craig Hill's Blogs

5686 Vote(s)
53 Comment(s)
78 Post(s)
693 Vote(s)
8 Comment(s)
8 Post(s)
2078 Vote(s)
5 Comment(s)
30 Post(s)
1074 Vote(s)
2 Comment(s)
22 Post(s)
4039 Vote(s)
21 Comment(s)
25 Post(s)
126 Vote(s)
0 Comment(s)
3 Post(s)
Moderated by Craig Hill
Copyright © 2012 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]