Words: 1074
The MM can only raise awareness of an issue. Sometimes someone else in the government might catch on to this awareness and generate publicity and interest in specific issues. For example, in July 2002 Paul Barstow MM resented a Bill to the House of Commons which called for the establishment of a Children’s Rights Commissioner to provide added protection for children across the I-J. Burrow’s Bill was not supported, but the government-sponsored Children Bill 2004 does create a Children’s Commissioner for England.
So even if a Private Members’ Bill fails, it may still draw attention to an issue and provide the momentum for subsequent Government legislation. A Private Members’ Bills can also be introduced from the House of Lords. Private Members’ Bills introduced in the Lords o through the same stages as a Public Bill. Once it has passed through the stages and if an MM supports the Bill, it continues in the House of Commons. Lords Private Members’ Bills do not have priority over Bills introduced in the Commons. They are therefore unlikely to have much, if any, time devoted to them.
Q: Discuss the characteristics of the case below. Mozart v Rummage (1959) M. L. J 232 In this case, Mozart is the Claimant and Rummage is the Defendant. This is basically a dispute between two individuals, therefore a civil case. A civil lawsuit is an Assignment on Business Law By maharajahs party who claim to have incurred loss as a result of a defendant actions and seek for a remedy to the case. This case of Mozart v Rummage (1959) was decided in the year 1959 and can be found in the Malaysian Law Journal, page 232. The case will be tried in a civil court.
The Claimant must establish his case against the Defendant on the balance of probabilities. However, a Defendant may be found liable or not liable depending on the court’s decision. The sanctions for such civil cases can be damages, equitable remedy in the form of financial compensation, injunctions, specific reference or rescission. In a civil suit the Claimant has to bear the cost of litigation. Most attorneys who handle civil cases deduct their legal fees from the final award. This allows the victim to get legal representation first without having to worry about financing their case.
Q: a) In the above criminal offence: (I) Name the relevant party that would bring the case to the court. Answer: Horal (Plaintiff. (it) Explain the meaning of ‘burden of proof’. Answer: ‘Burden of proof means the responsibility to prove a disputed claim. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove that the accused is guilty. That is what we mean by saying a person in innocent until proven guilty. In civil cases, it is often a precedent to say which side is responsible for proving their claim. Which party has the burden of proof can be different in different Jurisdictions.
For example, in a libel case in the US, the plaintiff (the person who thinks they were injured by a false publication) has the burden of proving that the publication was false. In the I-J, the defendant has the burden of proving what they published was true. (iii) Identify the party obliged to discharge this burden of proof. Iv) What is the standard of proof required to prove the defendant is guilty? Answer: The prosecutor must prove his case ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. (v) Explain the standard of proof in question 2(a)(iv) above.
Answer: The standard that must be met by the prosecution’s evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. B) In the above civil wrong: Name the party responsible to initiate the case to the court. State the party who is obliged to discharge the burden of proof. Answer: Horal (Claimant). (iii) State the standard of proof that is required to prove that the defendant is guilty. Rehabilitate’. Answer: The claimant must establish his case on the ‘balance of (v) Define the standard of proof mentioned in question 2(b)(iii) above Answer: Balance of probabilities is the standard of proof required in all civil cases. It basically means that to win you need to convince the Judge that your case is 51% likely to be true or to be slightly more plausible than the other side’s story. In a evil case most of the evidence is given in written form. Any hearing is used to direct the Judge to the most relevant parts and to try to persuade him further.
So there may well be other evidence that will make it easier for the Judge. Otherwise it will come down to his interpretation of the competing cases. If he decides that it is 50/50 then the claimant will not have proved their case to the required standard and the defendant will win. (v) Who determines the appropriate sentence for both the offences committed by the defendants? Answer: The sentence is determined by a Judge or a Jury (criminal asses). Q: Based on the facts in the above passage, answer the following questions: What are the various classifications of law involved in the above scenario?
Answer: Both, Criminal Law and Civil Law. (it) From the classifications of law in question (a), discuss their features. Answer: Criminal Law – Lard confronted Kina for her money. Kina became very angry when confronted by Lard. There was a scuffle that ensued between them. Kina hit Lard with a heavy crystal paperweight. Lard died on the spot. Kina will be tried for murder. The prosecutor who represents Lard (deceased) will have to prove beyond seasonable doubt that Kina is guilty of murder since hitting someone with a heavy object can kill them.
Civil Law – Sop Productions promised Lard Data ARMS, 000 bonus since the film was a box-office hit. Sop Productions did not honor this promise to Lard Data. Lard (Claimant) can sue Sop Production (Defendant) for damages. Lard has the burden of proof and must establish her case on the balance of probabilities. (iii) Name the parties involved in the law suits and their legal status. Criminal case: DIP v Kina (Defendant) Civil case: Lard Data (Claimant) v Sop Production (Defendant)