| 翻訳と辞書 |
Duke v R
''Duke v R'' () S.C.R. 917 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the Canadian Bill of Rights, concerning the right of an accused to make full answer and defence to a criminal charge.
==Background==
The accused in the case was charged with drunk driving contrary to the Criminal Code after having been taken to a police station and given a breathalyzer. While the breathalyzer test results were given to the accused's lawyer, the breath sample itself was not. This raised the concern as to whether the accused would be able to have a full defence, as is expected under common law rules of natural justice. According to the Supreme Court, the legislative history of the Criminal Code indicated that it was intended that the accused need not be given breath samples.
The case thus involved section 2(e) of the Bill of Rights, which states that everyone has "the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations." In ''Duke'', the Court considered the meaning of the term "fundamental justice." This phrase had an ambiguous meaning, whereas the term natural justice was understood to provide certain procedural legal protections.〔Hogg, Peter W. ''Constitutional Law of Canada''. 2003 Student Ed. (Scarborough, Ontario: Thomson Canada Limited, 2003), page 985.〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Duke v R」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|