Noelle Briggs L63

Public Law
Rule of Law Homework
1. Rule of Law violated: Accessibility of the law
Case: Daker v Humphrey [2014]
Appellant Waseem Daker was convicted by jury of malice murder, burglary,
false imprisonment, aggravated battery and criminal attempt to commit
aggravated stalking. He was sentenced to life in prison and a term of years.
The appellant decided to push for a new trial and stated his intention to take
additional legal action. During his incarceration, appellant contended he
complained several times to prison officials about having no access to a law
library or legal materials.
2. Rule of Law violated: Limiting of Discretion
Case: Lindell-Cloud, Determination (New York StateCommission on
Judicial Conduct)
[1995]
Alana J. Lindell-Cloud, a justice of the Great Valley Town Court, was served
with a Formal written Complaint dated July 7, 1994, stating that she based a
fine in a traffic case on the fact that the defendant, one Karen A. Gross, had
been responsible for terminating her private employment.
3. Rule of Law violated: Universal Application
Case: McCleskey v. Kemp [1987]
This was a case where the death penalty sentencing of Warren McCleskey for
armed robbery and murder was upheld. The Court said the "racially
disproportionate impact" in Georgia death penalty indicated by a
comprehensive scientific study was not enough to overturn the guilty verdict
without showing a "racially discriminatory purpose.
4. Rule of Law violated: Protection of fundamental rights
Case: Siliadin v. France [2005]
Siliadin was a Togolese national who arrived in France in 1994 with the
intention to study. Instead she was enslaved as a domestic servant in a
private household in Paris. Her passport was also confiscated and she worked
without pay, 15 hours a day, having no days off, for several years. It was
revealed that the criminal law in force at the time had not protected her
enough, and that although the law had been changed subsequently, it could
not apply to her situation. That is protection from slavery and forced labour.

5. Rule of Law violated: Right of access to Court

Case: Philis v Greece [1997]
Philis was a consultant engineer who complained that Greek law denied him
the right to seek redress through the courts for non-payment of fees for
design projects. Limitation must not affect essence of right and they also
ought not to restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way
as to impair the right. For example, the right of access to a court was not
absolute, but might be subject to limitations, since the right by its very
nature called for regulation by the State.

6. Rule of Law violated: Need for reasonableness and good faith

Case: Smith v East Elloe Rural District Council [1956]
Smith challenged a compulsory purchase order as unlawful and made in bad
faith and sought damages for trespass. However, it is written that an order
could not be challenged by legal proceedings, unless in certain circumstances
which did not apply to this case. Smith argued that this could not apply where
the order was made in bad faith. Held: An order would not bear any bad faith
on its face, so any bad faith could only be revealed by proceedings.
7. Rule of Law violated: Fairness of Procedure
Case: Sheppard v. Maxwell [1966]
A United States Supreme Court case that scrutinized the rights of freedom of
the press as outlined in the 1st Amendment when it interfered a defendant's
right to a fair trial that is prescribed in the 6th Amendment. Plainly put the
court sought to determine whether or not the defendant was denied fair trial
for the second-degree murder of his wife, because the judge failed to protect
Sheppard sufficiently from the prejudicial publicity that came with his trial.
8. Rule of Law violated: Compliance with international obligation
Case: Charleau v Commissioner of Police TT [2006]
This case dealt with the arrest of two (2) Barbadian fishermen who were
sighted pursuing fishing activities off the coast of Tobago. They were brought
to shore by the Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guard and turned over to the local
police. The men were charged with committing an offence contrary to
Section 30 of the ARCHIPAELEGIC WATERS AND ECONOMIC ZONE ACT,
1986.