The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.
The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act and several other peripheral statutes.
R v Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199, is a 1990 appeal heard before the Supreme Court of Canada which established the criteria and standards by which Canadian courts judge whether an accused's right to a speedy trial under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 11(b) "to be tried within a reasonable time" has been infringed.
R v Tessling [2004] 3 S.C.R. 432, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court held that the use of thermal imaging by police in the course of an investigation of a suspect's property did not constitute a violation of the accused's right to a reasonable expectation of privacy under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
R v Morrisey, [2000] 2 SCR 90 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that there can be exemptions for mandatory prison sentences where the sentence is unreasonable or has an effect upon the accused that may be considered harsh.
R v Jorgensen, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the knowledge requirement for criminal offences. The Court held that the offence of "knowingly" selling obscene materials requires that the accused be aware that the dominant characteristic of the material was the exploitation of sex and that he knew of the specific acts which made material obscene. Where the accused has a suspicion of the dominant characteristics or specific acts of the material but decided not to make any further inquiries than the accused will be deemed to have known of the material's content. This decision confirms much of what was held in the earlier case of R. v. Sansregret.
R v Finta, [1994] 1 SCR 701 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court found that a 45-year delay before charging an individual under the crimes against humanity provisions of the Criminal Code does not fall within the meaning of "unreasonable delay" under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The period for "unreasonable delay" begins from the point that charges are laid.
Canadian administrative law is the body of law that addresses the actions and operations of governments and governmental agencies in Canada. That is, the law concerns the manner in which courts can review the decisions of administrative decision makers such as a board, tribunal, commission, agency, or Crown minister, while exercising ministerial discretion.
R v Rahey, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 588 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The accused challenged a delay of over eleven months on an application for a directed verdict as violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter. The Court found that there was a violation of section 11(b) and granted a stay of proceedings.
Mills v R, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the right to a trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the meaning of a "court of competent jurisdiction" under section 24(1) of the Charter. The Court held that a thirty-one month delay was not unreasonable in the circumstances and that preliminary hearing judges are not within jurisdiction, superior courts can sometimes be within jurisdiction, and criminal trial courts were always within jurisdiction.
Thomas Albert Cromwell is a Canadian jurist and former Puisne Justice on the Supreme Court of Canada. After eleven years on the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, Cromwell was nominated to succeed Michel Bastarache and occupy the seat traditionally reserved for Atlantic provinces on the Supreme Court of Canada by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and assumed office on December 22, 2008. Cromwell retired in September 2016, and was succeeded by Malcolm Rowe.
Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190 was, prior to Canada v Vavilov, the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of substantive review and standards of review. Dunsmuir is notable for combining the reasonableness (simpliciter) and the patent unreasonableness standards of review into a single reasonableness standard.
The Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin—known as the Kaufman Commission or the Morin Inquiry—was a 1996 royal commission appointed by the Government of Ontario to address the wrongful conviction in 1992 of Guy Paul Morin for the murder of Christine Jessop on 3 October 1984, for which he was exonerated by DNA evidence on 23 January 1995.
A Gladue report is a type of pre-sentencing and bail hearing report that a Canadian court can request when considering sentencing an offender of Aboriginal background under Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. Gladue was the first case to challenge section 718.2(e) of the criminal code
The basis of the Bahamian Law and legal system lies within the English Common Law tradition. Justices of the Supreme Court, Registrars and Magistrates are all appointed by The Governor-General acting on the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, which is composed of five individuals who are headed by the Chief Justice as their chairman. The Chief Justice and the Justices of the Court of Appeal, including the President, are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Once appointed, the salaries and other terms of appointment of the Chief Justice, Justices of Appeal and Justices of the Supreme Court cannot be altered to their disadvantage. Justices of the Supreme Court can serve until the age of 65 years and, where agreed among the judge, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, may serve until the age of 67. Justices of Appeal can serve until the age of 68 years and, where agreed among the judge, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, may serve until the age of 70 years. The law of The Bahamas makes provisions for the appointment of 12 Justices to the Bench of the Supreme Court, inclusive of the Chief Justice, and for five Justices of the Court of Appeal, inclusive of the President. The Chief Justice, as Head of the Judiciary, is an ex officio member of the Court of Appeal, but only sits at the invitation of the President.
Criminal procedure in South Africa refers to the adjudication process of that country's criminal law. It forms part of procedural or adjectival law, and describes the means by which its substantive counterpart, South African criminal law, is applied. It has its basis mainly in English law.
R v Spencer, 2014 SCC 43 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on informational privacy. The Court unanimously held that internet users were entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy in subscriber information held by Internet Service Providers. And as such, police attempts to access such data could be subject to section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Russell S. Brown is a puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. He was nominated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to replace outgoing justice Marshall Rothstein and has been serving in the role since August 31, 2015. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, he was a justice at the Alberta Court of Appeal, and before that a law professor at the University of Alberta.
R v Stairs, 2022 SCC 11 is a constitutional rights decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court established new standards for searches of a person's home after they have been arrested. At issue in the case was whether the traditional common law power of Search Incident to Arrest, which allows police officers to engage in warrantless searches of lawfully arrested persons, was compliant with section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it related to searches of the home.
