Abc Assignment Help

Forensic Law: Case Judgement and Decision Analysis

Writing Case Notes - Law

Note:  Before attempting to write a case note, familiarise yourself thoroughly with the case.  It is also useful to have a good understanding of the legal principles being addressed in the case.

Structure

1.What were the facts?

Identify the important, relevant facts of the case and, if appropriate, its background (ie whether the case is on appeal from a lower court; the basis for the appeal etc). Significant conflicting evidence should be briefly noted. In this section you are reporting, not judging or evaluating and this is not a long section. Clarify clearly the parties to the case (eg, plaintiff, defendant, contractor).

2.What was the nature of the case and what was / were the central legal issue(s)?

Concisely set out the essential legal issue(s) that arose and was / were to be decided.  Indicate the significant decision? Does the decision create legal precedent, or uphold legal precedent? Is it safe/unsafe in legal and public policy terms? The emphasis here is on being concise.

3.What was the decision in this particular case ?

Briefly outline the decision – what the court held – as well as the court’s reasoning.  Indicate whether there was dissenting judgment and whether the legal principles being resolved were approached in different ways by the various Judges.

4.What is your analysis of the decision?

This is the most significant section of your case note: this is where you demonstrate your critical analysis and evaluation of the case.

a) Was the court’s decision appropriate?

b) Does this decision change/conform with existing law? Was the reasoning consistent with previous reasoning in similar cases? Is it likely that the decision will significantly influence existing law?

c) Did the court adequately justify its reasoning?  Was the reasoning logical/consistent?

d) What are the policy implications of the decision? Are there alternative approaches which could lead to more appropriate public policy in this area?

See also:

https://academicskills.anu.edu.au/resources/handouts/note-case-notes


Answer

FORENSIC LAW CASE STUDY

1. Judgment in this case

In this case, Myoung Il Jung prayed to the court that he was not at all guilty of the charges of murder. The victim was Duck Huan Kim and Dok Su Kim. The process of the trial had started on the 19th of June 2006. There was counsel from both the sides.

As the trial proceeded in the court there were several pieces of evidence that were submitted from both sides. After examination of the evidence the court came to the judgment that there are no extraordinary items present in the conflict. This could clearly state if the judgment can be done carefully by adhering with the Forensic laws and the relevant evidence it is no possible to take decision in a proper way if the king has explained beyond reasonable doubt that all the evidence which goes for the crown has to be chosen with the evidence that has been submitted by the opposition. From such evidence, the court has given certain reasons and finally given its judgment or decision.

The judge decided that he does not accept the item as a real risk consisting of foul superstitions that is relevant to the words of the council who stood as senior counsel for the accused. He stated that there is a chance that there can be reliance which is said to be undue by the jury that stands on the foundation of the evidence belonging to Dr. Sustino. A difficulty may arise while the evidence of Dr. Sutino would be comprehended from different angles, distances, and inspecting of different photos.

The court has also stated that the value of the proofs that have been submitted by Dr. Sutino has a chance that it would not go away by the adverse effects of dangerous superstitious and beliefs to the person who has been charged with crimes. Evidence that is related to section 137 has not been outwitted (Edmond and Vuille,  2013, p.221).

Lastly, the court had stated that the evidence submitted by Dr. Sutino is fully admissible and can be accepted as evidence by adhering to the terms and the details under section 79 of the Evidence act 1995 in New South Wales Territory.

Yes, there were dissenting judgments. Judgments were given by more than one judge and there were many juries. Spigelman has analyzed the provisions and clauses under section 137 of the Evidence Act. From this section, he has explained the word probative.

According to him, probative means the extent to which the evidence has an effect on the probability of fact that is present. Moreover, the chief justice has also stated that before the evidence act the proper direction in order to exclude certain evidence as per as the common Forensic law that can fully replace section 137. Such sections do not have any reliability consideration of the observance as seen by the chief justice.

In addition to this, the chief justice has observed that the body which is also known as the body of authority has the favor of an approach that is restrictive in nature. The Chief Justice has also stated that there are places where certain issues like creditability cannot be determined for a court and such places is also not open for the Forensic law court.

Other justice had also seen that the section 137 stating the evidence can call for making an exercise.

Yes, there were certain legal principles which were approached. An analysis was done by Heydon that contained different types of references in various authorities that are related to the principles of the Forensic law that is common in nature.

An expert has the responsibility to place proper information in front of the judge with criteria’s that are scientific in nature.

2. Analysis of the decision

Yes, the decision that was taken by the court was appropriate. The decision that the court has taken abides with the existing Forensic law. The reasoning that was given by the court was based on the admissibility opinion of the evidence. As the trial proceeded in the court there were several pieces of evidence that were submitted from both sides. After examination of the evidence the court came to the judgment that there are no extraordinary items present in the conflict. This could clearly state if the judgment can be done carefully by adhering with the Forensic laws and the relevant evidence it is no possible to take decision in a proper way if the king has explained beyond reasonable doubt that all the evidence which goes for the crown has to be chosen with the evidence that has been submitted by the opposition. From such evidence, the court has given certain reasons and finally given its judgment or decision

The judge decided that he does not accept the item as a real risk consisting of foul superstitions that is relevant to the words of the council who stood as senior counsel for the accused (Edmond et al. 2016, p.389). He stated that there is a chance that there can be reliance which is said to be undue by the jury that stands on the foundation of the evidence belonging to Dr. Sustino. A difficulty may arise while the evidence of Dr. Sutino would be comprehended from different angles, distances, and inspecting of different photos.

The court has also stated that the value of the proofs that have been submitted by Dr. Sutino has a chance that it would not go away by the adverse effects of dangerous superstitious and beliefs to the person who has been charged with crimes. Evidence that is related to section 137 has not been outwitted.

Lastly, the court had stated that the evidence submitted by Dr. Sutino is fully admissible and can be accepted as evidence by adhering to the terms and the details under section 79 of the Evidence act 1995 in New South Wales Territory.

Yes, there were dissenting judgments. Judgments were given by more than one judge and there were many juries. Spigelman has analyzed the provisions and clauses under section 137 of the Evidence Act. From this section, he has explained the word probative

According to him, probative means the extent to which the evidence has an effect on the probability of fact that is present. Moreover, the chief justice has also stated that before the evidence act the proper direction in order to exclude certain evidence as per as the common Forensic law that can fully replace section 137 (Martire and Edmond, 2016). Such sections do not have any reliability consideration of the observance as seen by the chief justice.

The main principle is the opinion that is given by the expert and such opinion is based on the facts and the circumstances. It is necessary for the expert to prove by way of evidence that is admissible in nature and such evidence must be based on the facts and the figures.

Matters that are assumed must be further restated by the evidence that is admissible in nature. The facts and circumstances that are present must be able to properly correlate with the evidence which is presumed (San Roque and Edmond, 2015). The opinion that has been concluded can be restated and carried out in front of all the order to provide the necessary services.

There were some other previous cases in which the Forensic law was adequately established and properly defined. Lastly, the court had stated that the evidence submitted by Dr. Sutino is fully admissible and can be accepted as evidence by adhering to the terms and the details under section 79 of the Evidence act 1995 in New South Wales Territory. 

Yes, there were dissenting judgments. Judgments were given by more than one judge and there were many juries. Spigelman has analyzed the provisions and clauses under section 137 of the Evidence Act. From this section, he has explained the word probative

According to him, probative means the extent to which the evidence has an effect on the probability of fact that is present. Moreover, the chief justice has also stated that before the evidence act the proper direction in order to exclude certain evidence as per as the common Forensic law that can fully replace section 137 (Seckiner et al. 2018). Such sections do not have any reliability consideration of the observance as seen by the chief justice.

The main principle is the opinion that is given by the expert and such opinion is based on the facts and the circumstances. It is necessary for the expert to prove by way of evidence that is admissible in nature and such evidence must be based on the facts and the figures.

The policy implications of the decisions are based on the facts and the circumstances of the case. The case in HG versus the queen (1999) examined and restated the provisions of section 79 and the provisions under section 76 (Edmond, 2010, p.40). As the trial proceeded in the court there were several pieces of evidence that were submitted from both sides. After examination of the evidence the court came to the judgment that there are no extraordinary items present in the conflict. 

Customer Testimonials