Your search
Results 1,796 resources
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Although there is a presumption of juror impartiality in Canadian law, this presumption may be set aside where there is evidence of widespread racial bias in the community from which the jury will be drawn. Following R. v. Parks (1993), defendants are entitled to challenge potential jurors if they believe that racial bias will interfere with the ability of the jurors to judge the case impartially. Although the challenge procedure has been in place for some time, little attention has been given to whether this procedure effectively screens jurors for bias. The present study provides an in-depth examination of the challenge for cause procedure through a detailed analysis of the jury selection phase of a sample of cases that occurred in an Ontario courthouse between 2009 and 2011. A total of 32 defendants and 1,392 prospective jurors were involved in these proceedings. Only a small minority of potential jurors (8.3%) reported that they would be unable to judge the case impartially due to the defendant’s race. Despite this, triers found on average 20.9% of prospective jurors unacceptable, suggesting that something other than expressed bias motivated the determination of juror acceptability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
[From Introduction]Inherent in our constitutional right to a jury trial in criminal cases—for offences where imprisonment for five years or more is a possible sentence— is the right to have jurors who are our “peers” and “equals.” This right can be traced back to 1215 when King John signed the Magna Carta to make peace with the wealthy men of England.The route from the Magna Carta to Canadian criminal law in the early twenty-first century is long and convoluted, and extra twists and turns are added when we consider the use of juries in Canada’s North. Here, where the effects of colonialism are still felt on a daily basis, and where communities from which a jury might be drawn sometimes number only a few hundred persons, the ability to obtain a jury comprised of “the peers” of our clients, who are usually Indigenous, can be challenging and sometimes difficult. In this article I offer my perspective, as a practising criminal defence lawyer in the Northwest Territories, on the challenges we face in trying to obtain juries that truly represent the communities from which our clients originate. ... ...More
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
The adversary system of trial, now the defining feature of Anglo-American criminal procedure, developed late in English legal history. For centuries, defendants were forbidden to have trial counsel. Prosecution counsel was allowed but seldom used. The criminal trial was meant to be a lawyer-free occasion at which the defendant could hear the accusing evidence and respond to it in person. The transformation from lawyer-free to lawyer-dominated criminal trials happened within the space of about a century, from the 1690s to the 1780s. This book explains how the lawyers captured the trial. In addition to conventional legal sources, the book draws upon a rich vein of contemporary pamphlet accounts about trials in London’s Old Bailey. The book also mines these novel sources to provide the first detailed account of the formation of the law of criminal evidence. Responding to menacing prosecutorial initiatives (notably reward-seeking thieftakers and crown witnesses testifying to save their own necks), the judges of the 1730s decided to allow the defendant to have counsel to cross-examine accusing witnesses. By restricting defense counsel to the work of examining and cross-examining witnesses, the judges intended that the accused would still need to respond in person to the charges against him. But defense counsel manipulated the dynamics of adversary procedure to defeat the judges’ design, ultimately silencing the accused and transforming the very purpose of the criminal trial. Trial ceased to be an opportunity for the accused to speak, and became instead an occasion for defense counsel to test the prosecution case.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
The important aspects of human wellbeing outlined in human rights instruments and constitutional bills of rights can only be adequately secured as and when they are rendered the object of specific rights and corresponding duties. It is often assumed that the main responsibility for specifying the content of such genuine rights lies with courts. Legislated Rights: Securing Human Rights through Legislation argues against this assumption, by showing how legislatures can and should be at the centre of the practice of human rights. This jointly authored book explores how and why legislatures, being strategically placed within a system of positive law, can help realise human rights through modes of protection that courts cannot provide by way of judicial review.
Explore
Resource type
- Blog Post (6)
- Book (562)
- Book Section (183)
- Case (229)
- Conference Paper (3)
- Dictionary Entry (70)
- Document (2)
- Encyclopedia Article (2)
- Journal Article (720)
- Magazine Article (2)
- Newspaper Article (2)
- Preprint (2)
- Presentation (1)
- Report (11)
- Web Page (1)
Topics
- Aboriginal law (4)
- Aboriginal peoples (2)
- Abuse of process (5)
- Access to information (1)
- Administrative law (11)
- Admissibility (1)
- Appeals (5)
- Arrest (2)
- Assurance (1)
- Bankruptcy and insolvency (6)
- Banks (1)
- Canada (2)
- Charge to jury (2)
- Charter of Rights (31)
- Child and family services (1)
- Choice of forum (1)
- Civil liability (1)
- Civil procedure (2)
- Communications law (1)
- Constitutional law (48)
- Contracts (2)
- Copyright (8)
- Copyright Pentalogy (5)
- Costs (1)
- Court having jurisdiction (1)
- Courts (8)
- Criminal law (85)
- Crown law (1)
- Custody (4)
- Declaration of invalidity (1)
- Discoverability (1)
- Division of powers (4)
- Evidence (15)
- Expropriation (2)
- Extraterritoriality (1)
- Family law (7)
- Fiduciary duty (1)
- Financial institutions (1)
- Fitness to stand trial (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Immigration (3)
- Impaired driving (2)
- Income tax (4)
- Informer privilege (1)
- Infringement (2)
- Insurance (2)
- Intellectual property (8)
- Judicial review (5)
- Jurisdiction (5)
- Labour relations (1)
- Limitation of actions (1)
- Mediation (1)
- Negligence (1)
- Obligation of loyalty (1)
- Obstructing justice (1)
- Occupational health and safety (1)
- Open court principle (1)
- Patents (1)
- Prerogative writs (1)
- Prescription (1)
- Private international law (2)
- Property (1)
- Prosecutorial immunity (1)
- Provincial offences (1)
- Publication bans (1)
- Real property (1)
- Right to security of person (1)
- Sale of goods (1)
- Securities (2)
- Sentencing (9)
- Sex workers (1)
- Sexual assault (6)
- Status of persons (1)
- Statutes (1)
- Taxation (6)
- Telecommunications (1)
- Torts (1)
- Trafficking in persons (1)
- Transportation law (2)
- Treaty rights (1)
- Trial (5)
- Voyeurism (1)
- Young persons (2)
Publication year
-
Between 2000 and 2026
- Between 2000 and 2009 (420)
- Between 2010 and 2019 (698)
- Between 2020 and 2026 (678)