There seem to be lapses. Why? Why can’t we be honest? In any case, don’t get your hopes high, because basic principles of natural justice e.g. ‘beyond a reasonable doubt'; ‘precedence'; ‘fair hearing’ are all turned on its head.In order to win a case in court, the party making the charge of wrongdoing must meet a burden of proof. The weight of the burden depends on the type of trial — civil or criminal — and sometimes on the specific charge. In criminal trials, the burden of proof is reasonable doubt, which means that a normal person should not have any serious doubt about the truth of the charges. Reasonable doubt is sometimes characterized as 95% certainty about the verdict. In civil trials, the burden of proof is usually the much weaker preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a normal person weighing all of the relevant evidence would consider the charges more likely true than not. Preponderance of the evidence is sometimes characterized as 51% certainty. Finally, in a small handful of cases (such as patent infringement and termination of parental rights) an intermediate burden called clear and convincing evidence is used. Clear and convincing evidence is sometimes characterized as 75% certainty.
The different burdens of proof are loosely reflected in the number of jurors required to reach a verdict. In the federal system and in almost every State, unanimity is required in criminal trials. In civil trials, unanimity is sometimes but not generally required; the exact number of jurors needed to render a verdict differs among jurisdictions. (The number of members on a jury also differs substantially among jurisdictions. In criminal trials, 12 is the usual number, but it is sometimes lower. In civil trials, smaller juries are more common. Juries almost always have at least 6 members.)
There are two primary sources of laws and legal rules: legislatures and judges. When the law has been created by legislators, it is called statutory law. When it has been created by judges, it is called common law.
Criminal laws are all statutory. But most of civil law has its origin in common law, albeit modified by various statutes. The rules of common law are not to be found in codes written by a single authority, but instead in the case law — that is, the body of decisions made in previous decisions by judges. The guiding principle of common law is the notion of precedent. This means that judges are, in general, expected to make rulings that follow the pattern established in previous, similar cases. When a new case arises whose resolution is not clearly dictated by existing precedents, the judge’s decision in the case becomes the precedent for future cases of a similar nature. In this way, the common law develops over time in response to the cases that appear before the courts.
Common law is a venerable system with roots that precede the existence of the state. The Anglo-American common law can be traced back to the local courts of Anglo-Saxon villages, long before there was an English king. For many centuries, the common law system had authority independent of the king, but eventually the common law system was absorbed into the (previously separate) legal system of the state.
The United States inherited the common law system of the British, and at some point the U.S. Congress even passed a law that adopted the whole of the British case law as the starting point for American courts. However, the law has developed differently in each State, so the current precedents may differ from State to State. Louisiana, which was settled by the French, has a civil code system instead of common law. Civil code is a system in which all civil law is passed by the legislature, as in France and much of continental Europe. In the other States, civil law is now a hybrid of common law and civil code.
Criminal laws are all statutory. But most of civil law has its origin in common law, albeit modified by various statutes. The rules of common law are not to be found in codes written by a single authority, but instead in the case law — that is, the body of decisions made in previous decisions by judges. The guiding principle of common law is the notion of precedent. This means that judges are, in general, expected to make rulings that follow the pattern established in previous, similar cases. When a new case arises whose resolution is not clearly dictated by existing precedents, the judge’s decision in the case becomes the precedent for future cases of a similar nature. In this way, the common law develops over time in response to the cases that appear before the courts.
Common law is a venerable system with roots that precede the existence of the state. The Anglo-American common law can be traced back to the local courts of Anglo-Saxon villages, long before there was an English king. For many centuries, the common law system had authority independent of the king, but eventually the common law system was absorbed into the (previously separate) legal system of the state.
The United States inherited the common law system of the British, and at some point the U.S. Congress even passed a law that adopted the whole of the British case law as the starting point for American courts. However, the law has developed differently in each State, so the current precedents may differ from State to State. Louisiana, which was settled by the French, has a civil code system instead of common law. Civil code is a system in which all civil law is passed by the legislature, as in France and much of continental Europe. In the other States, civil law is now a hybrid of common law and civil code.
Why Najib and Rosmah Mansor did not the stand say under the court oath that the meeting was not related to events on June 26.why hide under his his AG’s sarong
Anwar’s lawyer Sankara Nair said the defence would call Najib and Rosmah Mansor to the stand to be grilled for their part in the conspiracy.
The complainant Saiful had met Najib two days before lodging the police complaint that eventually led to Anwar’s arrest. The prime minister had initially denied ever knowing Saiful but as photos of Saiful and his own aides began appearing in cyberspace, Najib U-turned and admitted to the meeting.Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his wife are not relevant witnesses to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s ongoing sodomy trial, their lawyers claimed today, adding that the duo would not be able to offer any material evidence to the court.
Datuk Hisyam Teh, one of the lawyers representing the Prime Minister and Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor in their joint application to avoid testifying, said that the opposition leader has failed to furnish proof that the two were relevant witnesses.
The lawyer said Anwar’s application to compel Najib and wife to testify was merely a “fishing expedition” to seek information.
While Najib admitted to meeting Anwar’s accuser, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, on June 24, 2008 — two days before the alleged sodomy act — the PM’s lawyers stressed that the meeting was not related to events on June 26. read more Lawyers insist Najib, Rosmah not key to Sodomy II | Din …
The 64-year old Anwar was accused of sodomising his personal aide Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 25, at a plush condo on June 26, 2008 just weeks after Anwar announced his decision to make a parliamentary comeback.
If convicted, Anwar stands to be imprisioned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years under section 377B of the Penal Code.
Scores of Anwar supporters had packed the cortroom from as early as 4.30am. Many were from his constituency of Permatang Pauh in Penang. They were obviously upset by the ruling, which they felt insulted the Opposition Leader given the flimsiness of the charges that have been lambasted by world leaders from the United States, UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden to Ireland PKR leaders called for calm. Anwar’s wife and PKR president Wan Azizah told the media that it was another dark day for justice in the country.
Everyone knows Pattail got promoted to AG
For his role in Anwar’s case for sodomy
Maha Shithead purposely brought him
To stop and kill Anwar Ibrahim
For his role in Anwar’s case for sodomy
Maha Shithead purposely brought him
To stop and kill Anwar Ibrahim
They now trying to do the same scenario
Najis, Musang, Pattail, bastards, the trio
Trying, again to do it all over
But round one went to Anwar’s favour
Najis, Musang, Pattail, bastards, the trio
Trying, again to do it all over
But round one went to Anwar’s favour
The judges have become brave and daring
Saying enough is enough to your raping
Of the court and the judiciary
With your repeated cases of sodomy
Saying enough is enough to your raping
Of the court and the judiciary
With your repeated cases of sodomy
Pak Lah has not only been sleeping on his job as PM during the last 5 years, he is also very deaf to what the citizens had been crying-out loudly that his AG “practises selective prosecution”.
This serious perception is not only common local-coffee-shop topic but also among foreigners. So if Pak Lah really has ears, he should have heard this talk and should have taken remedial action instead of allowing him to “bermaharajalela” for too long.
So now Pak Lah, you are paying partly for his wrong-doings.
This serious perception is not only common local-coffee-shop topic but also among foreigners. So if Pak Lah really has ears, he should have heard this talk and should have taken remedial action instead of allowing him to “bermaharajalela” for too long.
So now Pak Lah, you are paying partly for his wrong-doings.
Pak lah left behind a legacy of being the most incompetent Malaysian PM. His circle of advisers and ministers shows him little respect and makes him looks like an idiot. Sad to say he lacks any leadership skills for the job.
..’The govt. must be prepared to review the presently unfettered powers of the AG’
Absolute power in the hands of AG can lead to absolute corruption just as absolute power in the hands of politicans can and will lead to absolute corruption.There must be proper check and balance if truth and justice are to have meaning and value to people who have respect for the system of rule of law.
Absolute power in the hands of AG can lead to absolute corruption just as absolute power in the hands of politicans can and will lead to absolute corruption.There must be proper check and balance if truth and justice are to have meaning and value to people who have respect for the system of rule of law.
You trust this Guni 4 Tahil? He was already a crook and a samseng during his school days. His brother was quite o.k.
Mahathir is the REAL culprit who destroyed our judiciary.Current crop of AG, DGP and the crooked police are his products! These shitheads whom are already corrupted to the core should be caught,charged and sentence in open,just and public court.These SOB’s are the living dead and souless bast*rd who won’t even think twice about prostituting their own mothers,daughter and country just for the sake of money!
No comments:
Post a Comment