High Court Headlines: An Analysis of Case Characteristics Associated with Media Attention to Supreme Court Rulings

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Hall
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
Media Attention ◽  
Supreme Court Rulings ◽  
Case Characteristics

scholarly journals PUTUSAN ULTRA PETITA DALAM KASUS PEMBUNUHAN DI PENGADILAN NEGERI JAKARTA TIMUR

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-66
Author(s):  
Denty Suci Mareta Femylia ◽  
Muchammad Chasani ◽  
Muchammad Chasani
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
District Court ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
High Court ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Rulings ◽  
Case Number

Putusan Pengadilan Nomor 537/Pid/B/2007/PN.Jkt.Tim memutuskan terdakwa telah melakukan kejahatan berat berupa pembunuhan dengan sengaja. Melihat kejahatan yang dilakukannya, maka pantas baginya mendapatkan hukuman yang setimpal yaitu 15 tahun. Masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah apa yang menjadi dasar pertimbangan seorang hakim dalam memutus perkara seperti nomor putusan 537/Pid/B/2007/PN.Jkt.Tim, dan bagaimana penerapan putusannya dalam kasus ini. Metode penelitian hukum yang digunakan adalah yuridis sosiologis. Sasaran dari penelitian adalah norma-norma hukum positif yang mengatur tentang putusan ultra petita khususnya di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Timur. Hasil Penelitian yang diperoleh, bahwa Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Timur memutus ultra petita karena dalam kasus ini, Jaksa menuntut terdakwa dengan menggunakan Pasal 338 KUHP dengan ancaman hukumannya adalah 14 tahun sedangkan hakim dalam vonisnya menggunakan Pasal 340 KUHP dengan menjatuhkan hukuman kepada terdakwa yaitu dengan 15 tahun penjara. Penerapannya adalah terdakwa mengajukan Peninjauan Kembali ke Mahkamah Agung dengan hasil putusannya adalah terdakwa Ferry Surya Prakasa divonis dengan 8 tahun penjara. Simpulan yang diperoleh dari penelitian ini adalah putusan majelis hakim atas Perkara Nomor: 537/Pid/B/2007/PN.Jkt.Tim, bahwa hakim seharusnya dapat memutus perkara tidak dari faktor yuridisnya saja melainkan dapat memutus perkara tersebut dengan memperhatikan dari faktor nonyuridisnya. Terkait dengan penerapannya bahwa terdakwa dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri, Pengadilan Tinggi dan Putusan Mahkamah Agung telah memutus 15 tahun penjara dan dalam peninjauan kembali divonis dengan 8 tahun penjara.Judgment of the Court Number 537 / Pid / B / 2007 / PN.Jkt.Tim decided the defendant had committed a serious crime of intentional murder. Seeing the crime he committed, it was fitting for him to get a 15-year sentence. The problem to be studied in this research are what is the basic consideration of a judge in deciding case such as decision number 537 / Pid / B / 2007 / PN.Jkt.Tim, and how the application of decision in this case. The approach used in the research is socio legal research. The objectives of the research are the poitive legal norms that regulate the Ultra petita Decision especially in the East Jakarta District Court. The result of the research shows that the East Jakarta District Court made decision of ultra petita verdict exceeded the prosecutor's demand, because in this case, the prosecutor demanded the defendant using Article 338 of the Criminal Code with the penalty of 14 years While the judge in his sentence using Article 340 of the Criminal Code by sentencing the defendant to 15 years imprisonment. Its application is the defendant filed a Judicial Review to the Supreme Court with the result of the verdict is defendant Ferry Surya Prakasa with 8 years in prison. The conclusion of this research is the decision of the panel of judges on the Case Number: 537 / Pid / B / 2007 / PN.Jkt.Tim, that the judge should be able to decide the case not from juridical factor but can decide the case by considering from the nonyuridis factor. In relation to its application that the defendant in the District Court, High Court and Supreme Court rulings have terminated 15 years of imprisonment and are under review with a term of 8 years imprisonment.

Supreme Court rulings on sexual harassment disputes

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanan Gwaltney Gibson ◽  
Heather Roberts-Fox
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Rulings

A Note on Mandela v Executors, Estate Nelson Mandela 2018 (4) SA 86 (SCA) and the Conundrum around the Customary Marriage between Nelson and Winnie Mandela

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sipho Stephen Nkosi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Eastern Cape ◽  
High Court ◽  
Nelson Mandela ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The note is about the appeal lodged by the late Mrs Winnie Madikizela-Mandela to the SCA against the decision of the Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha, dismissing her application for review in 2014. In that application, she sought to have reviewed the decision of the Minister of Land Affairs, to transfer the now extended and renovated Qunu property to Mr Mandela and to register it in his name. Because her application was out of time, she also applied for condonation of her delay in making the application. The court a quo dismissed both applications with costs, holding that there had been an undue delay on her part. Mrs Mandela then approached the Supreme Court of Appeal, for special leave to appeal the decision of the court a quo. Two questions fell for decision by the SCA: whether there was an unreasonable and undue delay on Mrs Mandela’s part in instituting review proceedings; and whether the order for costs was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The SCA held that there was indeed an unreasonable delay (of seventeen years). Shongwe AP (with Swain, Mathopo JJA, Mokgothloa and Rodgers AJJA concurring) held that the fact that there had been an undue delay does not necessarily mean that an order for costs should, of necessity, particularly where, as in this case, the other litigant is the state. It is the writer’s view that two other ancillary points needed to be raised by counsel and pronounced on by the Court: (a) the lawfulness and regularity of the transfer of the Qunu property to Mr Mandela; and (b) Mrs Mandela’s status as a customary-law widow—in relation to Mr Mandela.

scholarly journals Mara’abe v. Prime Minister of Israel

2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (4) ◽  
pp. 895-901
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Geoffrey R. Watson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
High Court ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Israeli Government ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court

Mara'Abe v. Prime Minister of Israel. Case No. HCJ 7957/04. At <http://elyonl.court.gov.il/eng/home/index.html> (English translation).Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, September 15, 2005.In Mara ‘abe v. Prime Minister of Israel, the Israeli Supreme Court held that the routing of a portion of Israel's “security fence” in the northern West Bank violated international humanitarian law. The Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, ordered the Israeli government to consider alternative paths for the barrier. The Mara'abe decision expanded on the Court's earlier ruling in Beit Sourik Village Council v. Israel, in which the Court ordered the rerouting of another segment of the obstacle. Mara ’abe also revealed some of the Israeli Court's views on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory— the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) holding that construction of the barrier anywhere in occupied territory violates international law.

Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel. Case No. HCJ 769/02

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 459-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Orna Ben-Naftali ◽  
Keren Michaeli
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Direct Part ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court

Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel. Case No. HCJ 769/02. At <http://elyonl.court.gov.il/files_eng/02/690/007/a34/02007690.a34.pdf>.Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, December 13, 2006.In Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel1 Targeted Killings) the Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, examined the legality of Israel's “preventative targeted killings” of members of militant Palestinian organizations. The Court's unanimous conclusion reads:The result of the examination is not that such strikes are always permissible or that they are always forbidden. The approach of customary international law applying to armed conflicts of an international nature is that civilians are protected from attacks by the army. However, that protection does not exist regarding those civilians “for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities” (§51(3) of [Additional Protocol I]). Harming such civilians, even if the result is death, is permitted, on the condition that there is no less harmful means, and on the condition that innocent civilians are not harmed. Harm to the latter must be proportional. (Para. 60)

A Look Back: Church, state, and Kappan

2021 ◽  
Vol 102 (5) ◽  
pp. 5-7
Author(s):  
Teresa Preston
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
School Policy ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Religious Instruction ◽  
Look Back ◽  
Diverse World ◽  
Supreme Court Rulings ◽  
Role Of Religion

In this monthly column, Kappan managing editor Teresa Preston looks back at how the magazine has covered questions related to the role of religion in public schools. Authors considered how Supreme Court rulings affected school policy and practice, whether religious instruction is necessary for promoting positive values, and how to encourage respect in a religiously diverse world.

Equity and certainty in contract law

Acta Juridica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 141-176
Author(s):  
F Brand
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
Contractual Relationships ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Do So

The role of abstract values such as equity and fairness in our law of contract has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Appeal took the position that these values do not constitute self-standing grounds for interfering with contractual relationships. Despite this being consistently maintained by the SCA in a number of cases, some High Court judges deviated from this position on the basis that they were permitted to do so by some minority judgments and obiter dicta in the Constitutional Court. The uncertainty thus created has fortunately now been removed by the judgment of the Constitutional Court in Beadica v The Trustees for the Time being of the Oregon Trust.

scholarly journals Disclosure in Centre for Child Law v the Governing Body of Hoërskool Fochville

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Michael Tsele
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
High Court ◽  
Governing Body ◽  
Foreign Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Children's Interests ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Do So

When a party refers to evidentiary material in the course of litigation, ordinarily this party is under an obligation to make this evidence available to his opponent, particularly when called upon to do so. However, over the years various principles have developed which make this obligation subject to certain limitations. The Fochville cases dealt with a situation where a party to litigation sought to withhold certain information from its adversary, notwithstanding the fact that the material had been relied upon as a ground for the institution of the litigation. This note critiques the judgments of the High Court and in particular the Supreme Court of Appeal in this dispute. In so doing, it draws on useful foreign law to argue that the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment was an unfortunate one in that the court failed to clarify with reasonable precision the circumstances in which a party to litigation involving children's interests may legitimately resist disclosing evidence to his adversary, in which the party resisting disclosure invokes the principle of public interest immunity. In this regard, the note concludes that the High Court's overall approach to the issue is to be preferred.       

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document