Defences courts

After reviewing similar cases in other states, the court ruled that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly is in conflict with the Constitution, and void. . . ... 

The best evidence that bear arms was primarily used to refer to military situations comes from Aymette v. State, 2 Humph., Tenn. 154 (1840), a prosecution for carrying a concealed bowie knife. The Supreme Court of Tennessee, in construing section 26 of its declaration of rights, providing that the free white men of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence, stated ... 

Unlike the Tennessee constitution at issue in Aymette, the Second Amendment has no for their common defence language and the United States Constitution contains no provision comparable to section 28 of the Tennessee constitution on which the Aymette court relied. 

If allowed by the court an appeals procedure is often pursued and yet again there must be sufficient grounds for such an appeal. This whole process can swallow up time and expense to an enormous degree - even to the point where the litigation overshadows the business of the company. Some companies have become notorious in business development circles for their rapid and ready resort to law to solve their problems or disrupt the business of competitors. It would be nice to think that these practices will not proliferate further but in view of the litigious hostilities between research-based companies and generic manufacturers this is not possible. The battlefront is entrenched and the law is the primary means of attack and defence. 

Remer attached a comprehensive five-page article on the October 1992 trial, in which Remer himself had been sentenced to a 22 months prison term for denying the Holocaust and other things. This article was written by a close friend of Remer who had attended Remer s trial. It basically summarizes the major events of this trials, like a description of various pieces of evidence presented by the two defense lawyers, their rejection by the court, and the final pleadings of the public prosecutor and Remer s defence attorneys. The Rudolf Report had... 

Ironically Spinoza himself became the victim of such a general condemnation. And this is exactly what might have annoyed Boerhaave, who read Spinoza s work thoroughly, so much so that he risked his future career on the canalboat. Boerhaave, who always stimulated his students to think for themselves, did not so much speak up in defence of Spinoza, but much more as a protest against an uncritical adoption of ideas. For Boerhaave the freedom of thinking was so important that on numerous occasions he refused to become court physician of King William iii. The offer of attractive conditions and even more attractive promises could not convince Boerhaave to give up his... 

But if doctors use a drug for an indication that is not formally included in the Product Licence ( off-labeT use) they would be wise to think carefully and to keep particularly good records for, if a patient is dissatisfied, prescribers may find themselves having to justify the use in a court of law. (Written records made at the time of a decision carry substantial weight, but records made later, when trouble is already brewing, lose much of their power to convince, and records that have been altered later are quite fatal to any defence.)... 

Imagine that you are working with one of the forensic science analytical testing companies and have just undertaken a piece of work at the request of the crown prosecution service. You have analysed a brown powder and found it to contain 70% of the controlled drug diamorphine (heroin). The counsel for the defence has requested that the sample be analysed by an independent laboratory of its choosing. The sample is reanalysed and there is a dispute in relation to the result because the defence analyst finds only 10% of the controlled drug diamorphine. You attend court and are asked to justify your results. Your lab has a rigorous quality assurance system that includes method validation, system suitability, and instrument qualification the defence lab does not. Your result is accepted as the correct value. 

If a fine is imposed, it is usual for the defence to ask for time to pay -otherwise the fine must be paid before they leave the court. 

Joseph V. Ministry of Defence Court of Appeal Judgement 29th February 1980-The Times... 

Although this duty of care appears, from the company s point of view, to be frighteningly absolute, it is modified by the defences available under section 53. This section states that an employer is not guilty of an offence if it was not reasonably practicable to comply. Thus, for a company to be found guilty, the court must be satisfied that it was reasonably practicable for the company to have ensured a worker s safety and that, despite this, it failed to do so. Similar provisions apply in other jurisdictions. One can begin to see, then, that for a prosecution to succeed some degree of company culpability is involved. Let us spell this out a little further. 

Codes of practice are rrsed in some cormtries. They are not legislation, but may be given some legal status in relation to defences in court. They are developed to provide... 

The civil court is concerned with liability and the extent of that liability rather than guilt or non-guilt. Therefore, the level of proof required is based on the balance of probability , which is a lower level of certainty than that of beyond reasonable doubt required by the criminal court. If a defendant is found to be liable, the court would normally order him to pay compensation and possibly costs to the plaintiff. However, the lower the balance of probability, the lower the level of compensation awarded. In extreme cases, where the balance of probability is just over 50%, the plaintiff may win his case but lose financially because costs may not be awarded and the level of compensation low. The level of compensation may also be reduced through the defence of contributory negligence, which is discussed later under Common Torts and Duties . 

Usually a criminal case is decided before a related civil hearing comes on. The Civil Evidence Act 1968 (1971 for N. Ireland) allows a conviction to be used in subsequent civil proceedings. The conviction and the intention to rely on it must be set out in the formal civil claim. If this happened with Hazards then it would be for the company to file a defence and to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that e conviction is irrelevant or was erroneous. Dispute resolution is encouraged. In civil personal injury claims, settlement rather than court trial is a likely outcome, under the guidance of insurers. 

---