Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
List of Amendments
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 3119 Views: 367 Comments: 0
Amendment I 1791 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II 1791 A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III 1791 No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor...
by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Amendment XXVI 1971 Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

The Constitution of Australia is a...The Constitution of Australia is a written document, which came into effect when the six colonies federated to form the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. It consists of eight chapters and 128 sections and lays down a set of laws or restraints by which the Federal Government must operate. It establishes the composition, procedures, functions, and powers of government, government authorities, such as the Governor General and other essential institutions. The Constitution is the basic framework for a civilised and well-governed Australia. However in the recent past, reason for parliamentary and federal concern has been thrust into the limelight. In addition, there has been a growing need for judicial interpretation and the ever-present reliance on convention. The Australian Constitution has several primary features. Such aspects include the preamble and covering clauses; Chapter one which establishes the Federal Parliament and the respective roles of each house; the Federal Executive Council and provisions for the Governor General are outlined in Chapter 2; Chapter 3 covers the Judiciary and establishes the role of the High Court; in Chapters 4 through 7 other issues of the constitution are founded, particularly those pertaining to the economy; and Constitutional change in outlined in Chapter 8. The preamble is an introductory statement that outlines the sources of authority and the mission, objectives and scope of the constitution. Chapter one states that Federal parliament shall consist of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives sect 1. The Senate is designed to act as a States house, while the House of Representatives performs as the Peoples House. Exclusive and residual powers are fore grounded and the procedure for overcoming conflict between the two houses is also outlined. Chapter 2 focuses primarily on the Federal Executive wing of government and the Governor General. Executive power is vested in the Governor General as the Head of State; there is no mention of the executive role of the Prime Minister. The composition and procedures of the Federal Executive Council are founded in this chapter also. The Judiciary are the chief concern of Chapter 3. In this the role and foundation of the High Court is inaugurated, as well as issues surrounding appeals to the Privy Council, dealt with. Chapters 4 through 7 are written in regard to the Australian economy and trading, preservation of the states and conditions by which a new state may be started. Chapter 8, the final chapter, describes the process by which the constitution may be changed. Despite the Constitution's role as the structure of Australian political procedure and indeed the very fabric of Australian society, in the past there have been reasons for federal and parliamentary concern. The growing number of Federal powers and the diminishing number of states powers, is of immense concern to the state parliaments. A great many Commonwealth powers, under section 51, are concurrent with those of the states, and it is by this that the Commonwealth has been able to extend its control. Section 109 states that if Commonwealth legislation conflicts with state legislation, the Commonwealth immediately takes precedence, thus encroaching on what was once state political territory. In recent years there has also been growing concern over the role and powers of the Senate. Under section 53 the Senate is not able to introduce or amend money or taxation legislation, these powers reside in the H of Reps alone. In all other aspects the Senate is on equal terms with the H of Reps. However the Senate can simply reject, defer or refuse to pass money bills. The implications of this are massive, without the Supply Bills, there is no money for government or the Public Service. The powers of the governor general have also caused some unease. In effect the constitution give the G-G the power to be government. The man/woman has the power to dissolve government, is the commander and chief of the armed forces, appoint members of the Federal Executive Council, appoint senior government officials, assent and with hold assent on legislation and appoint Justices of the High Court. Section 90 gives the Commonwealth government exclusive control over the collection of customs and excise. The controversy surrounding section 90 is concerned not so much with the power it gives the Commonwealth government but instead the restrictions it places on the state governments. The limited number of rights of the individual is of concern to the government as well as all Australian citizens. As citizens, we have only three constitutional rights and rely heavily on implied rights. There has been discussion as to whether a Bill of Rights should be included, much like that of the United States. Written Constitutions, such as the Australian one, are supplemented by conventions that help shape the formal operation of politics. Conventions are rules, not laws, and thus cannot be formally enforced. In Australia many of the common conventions have been adopted from the British Westminster system. A key and vital convention to the running of this country, is that of responsible government. This implies the basic rules of politics, such as the supremacy of parliament, the executive government must enjoy the majority in the lower house of parliament and the Head of State acts on the Prime Ministers advice. Conventionally the G-G does not exercise his powers, this to is also of extreme importance, for if he/she chose to disregard these conventions he/she could essentially be government dictator. Another convention concerns casual vacancies sect 15 where by people of the same party and faction should be sent to replace a dead or resigned senator. The Senate is also meant to pass all money bills without delay, however this too is only a convention. While conventions are vital to the running of the Australian political system, they do cause concern. An example of where conventions were being blatantly disregarded and a crisis occurred was in 1975. In 1974 the Liberal opposition refused to pass the supply bills in the senate, to counter-act this Whitlam requested a double dissolution. The ALP won the general election, with only one seat short of a majority in the Senate. However this situation changed in 1975 when two ALP vacancies occurred in the Senate. Rather than follow convention and send two ALP members to replace them, two Liberal-voting independents were sent. During 1975 there was a scandal surrounding the 'Loans Affair', which led to the dismissal of Cairns and Connor. Seeing that public opinion polls were favouring the opposition Liberal, Malcolm Fraser advised that the Senate defer the Supply Bill until a General Election was called. Whitlam refused, believing that some of the opposition would cross the floor. However on the 11th of November the Governor General dismissed the Gough Whitlam and appointed Malcolm Fraser as caretaker PM. Upon this the supply bills were immediately passed and a general election called. It was a landslide victory to the Coalition. Many conventions were broken in 1975. Supply bills should be passed in the senate unless faulty; the G-G acts on the advice of the PM; replacement senators should come from the same party; the PM should call a general election if the supply bill is not passed; and the PM should have the confidence of the majority of the H of Reps. Australia's heavy reliance on convention can lead to crisis as it did in 1975, this is a cause for concern in today's politics. The difficulty in changing the constitution is also of concern. To change the constitution 50% of the population must vote yes to the question put to them and then four of the six states must also say yes. This is the only method of change. Thus in order to change something, without as much difficulty, there has been growing popularity in the use of judicial interpretation. By "re-interpreting" the constitution it can become more applicable to today's society and thus serve the population of Australia better. While the constitution has served the people of Australia well in the past, it does have certain faults and by all means needs amending in some areas. Additions regarding such subjects, as Internet censorship and individuals rights would vastly improve this document, as well make it more applicable to the 21st Century. Amending undefined areas of "grey" would also diminish some of the confusion surrounding the Australian Constitution. As Sir Robert Menzies once said: "The Constitution is the organic law"¦it ought, in my mind, be expressed in language which is clear, simple and comprehensive."   

The Constitution of Australia is a written document, which came into effect when the six colonies federated to form the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. It consists of eight chapters and 128 sections and lays down a set of laws or restraints by which the Federal Government must operate. It...

Words: 1420 View(s): 179 Comment(s): 0
Living Wills, sometimes called Advanced Directives,...Living Wills, sometimes called Advanced Directives, are legal documents accepted in all 50 states. They clearly define a person's wish to decline life-support or medical treatment in certain circumstances, usually when death is imminent. Generally, a living will takes effect when a person becomes terminally ill, permanently unconscious or conscious with irreversible brain damage. A living will also allows a person to state with particularity the forms of treatment are wanted and not wanted. For example, if a one does not want artificial life support, then sign the living will stating that desire. It is also important to discuss your beliefs and wishes with you family, spouse and other people whose opinions you respect, such as clergy, physicians, attorney or an accountant. Living wills are recognized in every state, but each state has different requirements. If someone is interested in making a living will, contact an expert in the state that you live in, such as a hospital, local agency on aging or local bar association. To help ensure that the living will be honored, give copies to family members, physicians, lawyer and other involved in caring for the person's welfare. Federal law now requires most health care facilities hospitals, nursing homes, HMOs and home health agencies to ask patients if they have a living will or would like to complete one. Can Medical Care Legally Be Stopped If There Is NO Living Will? When there is no written document, a spouse or close family member may still request that treatment be withheld if the patient cannot do so, but the request could be denied. The way states and health care providers handle such cases varies widely. Typically, a doctor or hospital representative will meet with a person's family to discuss what that person's wishes were. In some cases a health care facility may want to withhold or provide life support against a family's wishes. In some cases a formal hearing may be held to determine how to proceed. How To Make A Living Will The rules for preparing a living will vary from state. Some states require that the document be signed with the same formalities required for execution of a will, but many state recognize the effectiveness of more informal declarations. Generally a living will: Should Be in Writing. Should Be Signed and Dated. Should Be Signed Voluntarily Should State Specific Treatments It is evidence of the patient's wish, and it is the patient's wish that has legal force, not the document. Living wills cannot request euthanasia or unreasonable treatment. Living wills, once activated, should ensure that your physician and the medical facility uphold your health care treatment beliefs and wishes. Your family or your physician cannot revoke them; your living will can only be revoked orally by you or by court acting on your behalf. With a living will, you maintain control over your end-of-life decisions. If your wishes are explicitly stated in your living will, your doctor and your family should not be able to supersede them. As long as your wishes are known, they should be respected. Limitations to the Power of a Living Will Remember that living wills only become active when the patient becomes terminally ill "“ when death is imminent and the patient can no longer communicate his/her wishes to their physician, spouse, or family. Living will DO NOT become active immediately after you sign them. It is important that one discuss their feelings about health care options with their physicians. Many doctors are not yet comfortable with the idea of living wills so they may be hesitant to encourage their patients to consider the alternatives options and issues surrounding living wills and health care options. In addition, the legality of living wills is still being challenged in about 25 percent of all cases, decisions are made -"“ by family or physician "“ that are contrary to the patient's wishes as stated in their living will i.e. the court determined that the patient's death was not imminent, therefore, the constraints and treatment preferences stated in the living will were not yet activated. However, living wills are preferences stated in the living wills are gaining legal power in the eyes of the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of honoring a refusal of treatment and stressed the difference between types of end-of-life decisions and physician-assisted suicide. The living will can be written or oral. It must not have been made under pressure or coercion. The person must have been competent of that time to make the decisions involved. This is presumed unless there is evidence to the contrary. Note: a person may have a mental illness and still make a valid living will as long as they understood the implications of what they were doing. Competency means competent to make the decisions in question, not necessarily competent to make other decisions such as, relating to financial affairs. If the living will applies exactly to the circumstances that subsequently arise, health care professionals must follow it. If it does not apply exactly, by describes a general wish, then the health care team should consider it among other evidence of what the patient would wish. Relatives may also be able to supply information on the patient's wishes. Having gathered all the information, a health care decision should be made on the basis of the patient's best interests with due regard to their wishes, as well as these can be determined. Writing Your Own Living Will When signing a Living Will make sure that a statement is enclosed specifying your "WISHES" about the extraordionary measures to be taken to keep you alive if you become permanently unconscious or terminally ill. Make sure you express your beliefs fully and as explicitly as possible. It is strongly recommended but not essential that you consult an attorney when writing a living will. Your attorney will best be able to help you develop your health care preferences and beliefs into a document that clearly states your wishes. If you do not have an attorney and still plan to write your own living will, consider obtaining a copy of a living will form from your state health department, local hospital, local Area Agency on Aging, or physician. You can use the living will form as a guide to help you think about and formulate your ideas concerning your preferences. When developing your living will, you need to think about possible treatments that you may or may not wish to receive under various conditions. Some treatments you may wish to withdraw only in certain circumstances, others you may always wish to receive. Your living will should clearly state how you feel about receiving certain types of treatment in various health-care situations. Some of the options are explained below: DNR "“ "Do Not Resuscitate" order DNR simply states that if you are deemed by a physician to be terminally ill, you do not wish to receive cardio-pulmonary resuscitation CPR if your heart stops beating or you stop breathing. You feel that CPR will be futile or will serve to only prolong your life. Surgery "“ If you become terminally ill, you may not wish to have surgery, es-pecially if that surgery is elective or if it life-prolonging in the case of imminent death. For example, a terminal cancer patient may not wish to have minor surgery, such as a tonsillectomy if they have tonsillitis. If you are writing your own will, you may want to make your wishes regarding surgery case specific, you have the ability to state what YOU want. Pain Medication. A living will should address the types of medication you wish to have administered and under what circumstances. Respirators "“ Respirators are a means of artificial respiration for patients who cannot breathe on their own.. If you disagree with the means or "artificial" medical treatments, these should be address in the living will.   

Living Wills, sometimes called Advanced Directives, are legal documents accepted in all 50 states. They clearly define a person's wish to decline life-support or medical treatment in certain circumstances, usually when death is imminent. Generally, a living will takes effect when a person becomes terminally ill, permanently unconscious or conscious...

Words: 1327 View(s): 164 Comment(s): 0
Death penalty-to be or not to...Death penalty-to be or not to be? Sometimes crime cannot be punished enough. Sometimes crime is so cruel that there is no realistic punishment for it. There are too many victims out there, that suffered and their attacker gets a simple painless death. I am saying painless comparing to murders that happen every day that are simply horrifying. As Paul A. Winters says "If a person commits a uniquely gruesome murder, he deserves to be put to death" Winters et al. 154. So many murderers are convicted of the crime of murder and they only get years in jail. Their victims feel the pain, but imagine the pain and sorrow that the families of the victims feel, and that pain lasts for the rest of their lives. If someone from my family was killed, I wouldn't think a second what to do with the murderer. I would want him dead. Most of the families feel this way and the best way to stop the pain is to get rid off the cause of the pain. Death sentence is effective because it deters crimes, but many people argue that life without parole is much harder to serve for the person who committed the crime, "Abolitionist claim there are some alternative to the death penalty, they say that life without parole serves just as well" Guilmette 2. I agree that putting away the murderer is effective, but just isn't enough. Laws change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. As long as the murderer there is a small possibility that he could strike again. Capital punishment is the most effective weapon against the murderers; because no executed murderer has ever killed again. You cannot say that about those sentenced to prison. Death sentence also depends on the case. I am not saying that everybody who commits the murder should be placed on the death row. There are different types of the murder and every murder that was planned or intentional should be severely punished. As Hugo Adam Badeu says, "Despicable crimes should be dealt with realistically" Badeu et al. 131. I have no mercy for the killers, and nobody should have any mercy for anybody who does harm to another human being. Who gives a right to anyone to commit crime anyway? Michael Kronenwetter says, "The death penalty has always been considered especially appropriate for the crime of murder" Kronenwetter 6. Murder is the biggest crime and biggest offense, and it should be treated like that. Over the years, public safety has become a meaningless thing, not worth defending anymore, and the death penalty has been persecuted for just that reason. Every country in the world is ready and willing to kill thousands, even millions of human beings in brutal, merciless way to defend their nation from the aggression of other countries. I don't see why public safety doesn't deserve as much respect and protection as a nation's national security does. In fact, it can be argued that supporting armies and war is far more barbarous than the death penalty is. The whole reason why nations and government exist is to defend their citizens from vicious criminals. When it fails to do that, they become of little use to its citizens. I think that the people in all the nations will soon realize that capital punishment, like the military or police force and even taxes is an unavoidable consequence of every civilized society, and it will no longer be the question of whether or not a nation should have the death penalty, but rather how it should be used. "According to polls, more than 70 percent of Americans feel that murderers deserve the death penalty" Winters et al. 168. What can you say to the parents of the kids that were killed in Columbine High School, their kids will never come back, and their killers were kids, too. What can be done about juvenile murderers? "President Clinton proposed that the age at which penalty could be applied should be reduced from 21 to 18" O'Rourke 1. I agree with that and if that law could be put in place, no killer would be protected. Everybody who is mature enough to the consequences of the things they do should be equally punished as everybody else. Most of the people don't agree with this, but that's just the way it is. As I said laws change and convicted could be out on the streets again, and they could strike again. Those who advocate the abolition of capital punishment have supported their cause with many arguments. They have claimed that some have been wrongly sent to death row, while other decisions have been unfairly applied to minorities and the poor. Others argued for the sanctity of human life, as well as the expense involved in capital punishment. But those who believe in the opposition of the death penalty are often misled. They should consider the following cases that underlie the support for capital punishment, for it is certainly the only way to deal with the cruelty of crime that has infected our society. Capital punishment was once supported by the theory of deterrence, yet studies have shown weaknesses in this argument. Although the death penalty may not have an effect in deterring crime, it protects society from the threat of the same criminal committing a violation again when they are set free. A notable example is the case of Ali Agca, who attempted to assassinate the Pope after he had previously been tried and convicted of murder. Opponents may often refute this by suggesting a life sentence without parole, yet research has shown that the crime rates in prisons are gradually increasing. What happens when a person sentenced with life imprisonment kills another inmate or guard during that time? This brings about reconsideration for those who advocate sentences without parole instead of capital punishment. A second way to look at the validation of capital punishment is the concept of retribution. Retribution cannot be confused with the concept of revenge. It is society"s right of intolerance to heinous crimes that bring about the need for death row. Criminals have not only injured their victims but also the important values that govern society, which is the respect for life. Society has a responsibility to protect its citizens, doing what is necessary and appropriate to those who break the laws. Thus, capital punishment is necessary to ensure the priceless value of human lives. Thirdly, some people urge to abolish the death penalty because of their concern for the sanctity of human life. That is precisely the reason why this form of crime prevention should be maintained. Capital punishment is different from murder because the person being executed had committed a crime and was tried and found guilty. An execution carried out after a trial cannot be compared to a murder committed by a criminal. Lastly, it is suggested and often proven that the death penalty discriminates against the poor and minority groups. One must see that this problem does not concern the justification of the penalty, but the unfair way in which it is distributed. This problem may be improved by properly reviewing the cases, imposing decisions without regard to race or class. This can be achieved so that all defendants receive equal protection ground. Capital punishment has proven to have good benefits upon the country in determining the consequences that criminals deserve. This is needed to ensure the safety and moral values of society. If this is the case, there is no need for us to consider the expenses involved in the death penalty. Certainly human lives are more important, for it may easily be yours. We should not abolish capital punishment, but hold our country accountable for properly exercising the death penalty upon those who deserve it. Many criminals don"t fear the judicial system. They know that they will get out in ten years if they murder someone. They are not afraid of jail or their punishment. How can we force them to stop killing or stealing if they are not afraid of the punishment we give them. Most rational men are afraid of death. They don"t want to die. There are also men that don"t fear death, but enjoy killing. They must be controlled, but if they are sentenced to life they are soon free to kill again. Again, I am not saying we should kill all the men in jail and any other criminal in the world. That is not the answer either, but we must have the death penalty as an option so that they will be afraid to break the law, and to control those who don"t fear death but love to break the law. What do you do with men who do not fear the loss of their life? One criminal of America, Carl Panzram was quoted in saying, "In my life I have murdered 21 human beings. I have committed thousands of burglaries, robberies, larcenies, arsons and last but not least I have committed sodomy on more than 1000 male human beings. For all of these things I am not the least bit sorry. I have no conscience so that does not worry me. I don"t believe in Man, God nor devil. I hate the whole damned human race including myself" Panzram 1. Men like this who do not care for any law and do every unthinkable act are being supported in some jails around the world. What do you do with people who only want to kill and cause chaos? There is very little you can do, especially if they do not care if they are imprisoned. Panzram cares for nothing. He doesn"t mind his fifteen years in prison, or even his twenty-five. Panzram was executed and can no longer bother man kind, but there are others like him. Australia has abolished the death sentence. They can no longer control the men like Panzram. Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 innocent people in Tasmania. He is now being supported by the people of Australia. There is one option, which Australia no longer has. They cannot put this man to death, they are not allowed. This cannot be the case in other countries, so that those criminals like Panzram and Bryant, will be able to do what they want and not be executed for it. We must keep the death penalty for the people like this; people who like to kill and that don"t fear imprisonment. The death penalty should be maintained"¦   

Death penalty-to be or not to be? Sometimes crime cannot be punished enough. Sometimes crime is so cruel that there is no realistic punishment for it. There are too many victims out there, that suffered and their attacker gets a simple painless death. I am saying painless comparing to murders...

Words: 1764 View(s): 286 Comment(s): 0
Obligations II [Tort] 2002-3: Assignment 1....Obligations II [Tort] 2002-3: Assignment 1. LLB 2nd Year. Legal Advisors Memorandum To: The Guardian; Editor & Legal Department From: Amandeep Singh Gahunia Date: 13th December, 2002 Subject: The Michael Fawcett Case Copies to: Catherine Bennett The following document concerns the legal aspects and issues, which will arise through Mr Fawcett's claim of defamation against your newspaper and Catherine Bennett. Please do not hesitate to contact us for further legal advice regarding this subject. Mr Fawcett's claim of Defamation. Mr Fawcett claims the publication in question reflected on his personal reputation in a manner which lowered him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society and could have the effect of people avoiding and shunning him, in that the passage tried to identify him as the alleged palace rapist. If this were to be true, the "permanent" form of the publication fulfils the test for the crime of libel, which is actionable per se. It must be warned that there is no necessity that the words actually give rise to what Mr Fawcett actually feels; even if his best friend was not believe a word of what he feels is being implied, he may still be defamed. Yet, this is to be left to "reasonable" reader test, who is neither, unusually suspicious or naive, but a right a "right thinking member of society generally". It is clearly established that importance lies with what words may be reasonably taken to mean, not what the newspaper or writer intended by them. Therefore, this case seems similar to Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd, where the majority of the Court of Appeal held that the publication might convey an impression on the "reasonable" reader that the claimant's character was impugned when it was not so. The nature of the words are, not defamatory in their ordinary meaning, but are in the light of circumstances known to Mr Fawcett, to whom the words were published; "the ordinary and natural meaning may"¦include any implications"¦which a reasonable reader guided not by any special but only general knowledge, and not fettered by any strict legal rules of construction would draw from the words". This means a juxtaposition of material about Mr Fawcett with other material, which was present, may make an otherwise innocent statement defamatory. However, the mere fact that an article about the claimant appeared in the newspaper, when this particular story of the palace rapist was being circulated, does not necessarily carry a defamatory assertion. Nevertheless, Mr Fawcett has said in his particulars of claim the meaning he attributes to the words; his name and the media interest was questioned in such a way, in regards to the current royal scandals, that implied the defamatory statement through the use of innuendo. The statement in question, which was published to others, had direct reference to the claimant through name. Consequently, there is no doubt a hypothetical, sensible reader, having knowledge of the special circumstances, would believe Mr Fawcett had been referred to. The test of the reasonable reader means even the writing of a fictitious character, or another person with similar characteristics, could lead the associates of the claimant to believe the article referred to him, hence, defaming him; in light of this, the actual reference to Mr Fawcett is a serious one. There is an actionable wrong of defamation, as the words were communicated to at least one person other than the claimant, through the national circulation and publication of the newspaper. The latter fact denotes the possibility that the claimant might attract larger damages due to the mass commercial nature of the your business. There is publication to the printer, when you handed the literature in question to them, and there can be no reservations that this was an intentional act. It must be forewarned that common law spreads the net of liability very wide on this issue, so not only will Catherine Bennett, the author, be treated as the publisher, but also the editor, printer, proprietor and others who participated in the publication. It must be noted there may be many separate publications, technically every reader, upon which the claimant will sue and is particularly significant if a true innuendo is relied on. In determining whether The Guardian took reasonable care to the publication of a defamatory statement, the court will take into regard the extent of the responsibility in the decision to publish the statement, the nature and circumstances of the publication, and the previous conduct of the author, editor or publisher. Consequently, The Guardian, having received notice on the possible defamatory nature of the article, will be liable for further publications of the same article. To continue in this vein could be extremely costly to The Guardian, in terms of loss of distributors and, resultantly, the possibility of loss of readers. This has been highlighted in previous cases, where, for example, a claimant brought a criminal and civil actions against the Private Eye magazine in respect of one article, along with 37 of its distributors. Similar to this situation, the claimant believed the magazine was carrying out a defamatory campaign against him and his reputation, with the result many distributors settled not to distribute the Private Eye again. Hence, there exists a possible serious allegation in the nature of the information, with obviously limited steps taken in verification, an absence of the claimant's side to the story, the timing of its release in the midst of all these royal scandals and the inquiring tone of the article. Possible Defences to the claim. Through the factual analysis above, it must have been drawn to your notice how Mr Fawcett's claim certainly fills the criteria required for defamation, that of communication to be published, defamatory and referred to the plaintiff; on the other hand, there exists a number of possible defences. The utilisation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is one method, and has already been referred to in previous cases which would have fallen into the liability of unintentional defamation, but that would have been incompatible with article 10. Following this, it would have been an impossible burden for the publisher to check up on every name related to the royal scandals; each could possibly sue for the current claim. Also, participators in the publication can escape liability if it is proved they were innocent of the libel contained, nothing in the work disseminated by them led them to suppose it contained libel and it was not by any negligence on their part that they did not know it contained the libel. If the statement has an underlying truth in the way Mr Fawcett assumes, The Guardian can plead justification. This cannot be the only plea that can be taken for, at the risk of it being unsuccessful, the jury is likely to find the conduct of the newspaper wanton and will return the verdict for higher charges. Further, if the matter of public interest is introduced, the creation of a liability for invasion of privacy could occur. To justify the "repetition" of this possible defamatory statement the newspaper must show the content was true, and make clear and explicit the meaning they seek to justify. However, if it is optimistic that the jury will accept the 'broader' meaning of the justification claim, and hence Mr Fawcett was not 'bad' in point 1, then you can try to show he was 'bad' in point 2, for example an indication of his character and conduct in concerns over selling Prince Charles' unwanted gifts, to reduce the damages. So the answer "possibly not" to explain media interest in the claimant could be expressed in a wider meaning to impute a more general wrongdoing, and the words are reasonably capable of bearing this due to their extreme vagueness. In addition, the use of fair comment, an element of free speech, will protect honest expressions of opinion based on true facts made in good faith on matters of public interest. Although this notion of public interest seems limited at the first instance, it has been interpreted widely, so that the defence is available for comments made on public figures, which Mr Fawcett certainly was in his close role with Prince Charles. The statement must be one based on true facts, but it is not necessary that all the facts upon which the comment is based should be assessed in the alleged libel. Consequently, the words could be used to imply certain conduct and commented on that conduct, based on the possible illegitimate dealings in unwanted gifts. Also, in deciding whether the statement is one of fact or comment, the court will confine itself to the subject matter of the publication and will not regard the wider context of the material. Thus, if the article by Catherine Bennett is considered by itself and on its own merits, without considering the surrounding literature concerning separate stories of the palace rapist, then the statement can not be defamatory in the way claimed by Mr Fawcett. You can further be assured that the defence of fair comment will not fail merely because the truth of every allegation of fact is not proved. However, this defence of fair comment may be defeated, by proving that the statement was made with malice and evil motive, according to the facts provided, this seems not so. Absolute Privilege is a defence, which cannot be applied to this claim, due to the nature of what it protects; parliamentary, judicial and official proceedings. Qualified privilege, radically extended over certain media publications, protects statements made without malice or indirect motive, which, again, has not been established from the factual information provided. This defence can be provided to the newspaper if it can be seen to be in the "discharge of some public or private duty whether legal or moral, or in the conduct of his own affairs, in matters where his interest is concerned. In such cases the occasion"¦affords a qualified defence"¦" which would mean the article is privileged. Both the author and the editor and all those who participated in the publishment had a common interest, and duty, in distributing news they felt the public would be interested in, namely all to do with the colourful lives of the Royals and associates; the same would have been done by any "right-minded men" in their position and occupation. This is a legitimate interest, which is protected by law through the freedom of expression, article 10 of the ECHR, although both this issue and that of duty is a matter for the judge. Unlike previous cases, the content in the article was "logically relevant" in the purpose intended, an article which reflected a humorous discussion on the Royal scandals. This topic is reflected in not only this national newspaper but many others also, which rules out the idea of a conspiracy campaign against the claimant. This publication to the world at large can rely upon the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives direct effect to the Convention by means of provision requiring public authorities not to act in a way inconsistent with it. Thus, modern conceptions of democracy require that the role of the media in informing the public of matters of controversy be more recognised than in the past. With the application of Renyolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd, the court may be flexible to give appropriate weight to the importance of freedom of expression by the media on all matters of public concern, the significance of which was recognised by its decision. Appropriate steps to take. If certain steps are followed, an apology, settled out of court and incorporated in a statement in open court approved by the judge, may constitute a defence in an indirect manner. This means an admittance of wrongdoing, and a suitable correction, such as compensation, should suffice. However, since defamatory words are often capable of more than one interpretation, it is open to you to make a qualified offer in relation to a specific defamatory meaning. Alternatively, you may want to go to court where either the court may dismiss the claimant's claim "if it appears that it has no realistic prospect of success", or direct you to provide suitable correction through compensation. It must be noted that changes in this area have arisen due to concern about the seemingly endless rise in levels of awards, thus, any possible damages will not be as heavy as previous cases. In the light of this, the greater effects of Human Rights Act 1998, the possible defences outlined above and the possibility of increasing the circulation of your newspaper by being able to write about your involvement in such a high status case, I conclude you should fight the claim, a course of action which will be extremely beneficial on the balance of the analysis.   

Obligations II [Tort] 2002-3: Assignment 1. LLB 2nd Year. Legal Advisors Memorandum To: The Guardian; Editor & Legal Department From: Amandeep Singh Gahunia Date: 13th December, 2002 Subject: The Michael Fawcett Case Copies to: Catherine Bennett The...

Words: 2171 View(s): 241 Comment(s): 0