Your search
Results 868 resources
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
The lawyer’s duty to encourage respect for the administration of justice remains largely amorphous and abstract. In this article, I draw lessons about this duty from historical instances in which Attorneys General inappropriately criticized judges. Not only are Attorneys General some of the highest-profile lawyers in the country, but they also face unique tensions and pressures that bring their duties as lawyers into stark relief. I focus on the two instances where law societies sought to discipline Attorneys General for such criticism of judges, as well as a more recent instance in which no discipline proceedings were pursued. I also consider the obligations of Attorneys General when other Ministers inappropriately criticize judges. I conclude that a lawyer must take all reasonable steps in the circumstances to confirm the factual and legal accuracy of any criticism of the judiciary; that law societies should allow reasonable but defined latitude for public criticism of judges; and that, where a client inappropriately criticizes the judiciary, their lawyer must make good-faith efforts to urge the client to discontinue and apologize for such criticism—and if those efforts are unsuccessful, the lawyer must repudiate that criticism themselves or withdraw.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Modern negotiations between the Crown (or private parties) and Canada’s Aboriginal peoples are largely based on the legal principles articulated in major court decisions. Yet those decisions have not yet confronted a fundamental question: how, in the first instance, do we determine which groups can lay claim to the Aboriginal and treaty rights “recognized and affirmed” by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982?
-
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.
-
In the following paper, the author analyzes the central issues raised by the recognition of aboriginal title under State law. He offers answers to the many unresolved issues concerning the sources of aboriginal title, its conditions of existence and attributes. Concerning the sources of aboriginal title, the author highlights the Supreme Court’s stato-centric approach to the defnition of aboriginal rights and argues, in particular, that the doctrine of continuity of pre-colonial law has more of a metaphoric rather than operational meaning. As for the conditions of the title’s existence, the author concludes that they still remain sufficiently undetermined as to generate legal insecurity and allow judges to conduct, under the guise of an assessment of the historical record, contemporary socio-economic arbitrations between indigenous peoples and the non-indigenous majority. Finally, the analysis of the attributes of aboriginal title brings to light the uncertainty which persists with regard to several fundamental issues, such as, for example, the identity of the holder of title. This uncertainty of the law, as well as the failure of the Supreme Court of Canada to reconcile aboriginal title with modernity, cast doubt on the capacity of indigenous peoples to develop their lands according to their contemporary priorities.
-
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.
-
Weinrib, J. (2014). The Modern Constitutional State: A Defence. Queen’s Law Journal, 40(1), 165–212.
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.
-
Recent DNA exonerations have shed light on the problem that people sometimes confess to crimes they did not commit. Drawing on police practices, laws concerning the admissibility of confession evidence, core principles of psychology, and forensic studies involving multiple methodologies, this White Paper summarizes what is known about police-induced confessions. In this review, we identify suspect characteristics (e.g., adolescence; intellectual disability; mental illness; and certain personality traits), interrogation tactics (e.g., excessive interrogation time; presentations of false evidence; and minimization), and the phenomenology of innocence (e.g., the tendency to waive Miranda rights) that influence confessions as well as their effects on judges and juries. This article concludes with a strong recommendation for the mandatory electronic recording of interrogations and considers other possibilities for the reform of interrogation practices and the protection of vulnerable suspect populations.
Explore
Resource type
Topics
- Criminal law (1)
- Equity (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Voyeurism (1)
Publication year
-
Between 1900 and 1999
(190)
-
Between 1910 and 1919
(1)
- 1918 (1)
- Between 1930 and 1939 (5)
- Between 1940 and 1949 (6)
- Between 1950 and 1959 (8)
- Between 1960 and 1969 (14)
- Between 1970 and 1979 (18)
- Between 1980 and 1989 (51)
- Between 1990 and 1999 (87)
-
Between 1910 and 1919
(1)
-
Between 2000 and 2026
(678)
- Between 2000 and 2009 (235)
- Between 2010 and 2019 (291)
- Between 2020 and 2026 (152)