The legal nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on contractual obligations applied in human rights

Purpose Under international human rights law, states can limit the exercise of most human rights if it is necessary to protect the rights of others or collective interests. The hazards of epidemics and diseases have raised many legal, economic and social issues in their link with global health security, which renew the discussion regarding the effects of the COVID-19 on some civil and commercial transactions and financial and tax obligations. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to discuss the effects of COVID-19 on contractual obligations. Design/methodology/approach In this research, we are going to follow the method of the analytical and applied approach at the same time by analyzing the cases in which contractual obligations are affected by the circumstances of the COVID-19 and its legal implications, as well as to apply the theories related to this aspect to different cases. Findings The result of the study funded that the legal adaptation of the COVID-19 pandemic is limited to the theory of emergency circumstances and the theory of the force majeure, and the matter remains in the hands of the trial judge to attribute the incident imposed on him to one of the two cases according to the circumstances of the case. Originality/value The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on contractual obligations should be applied on each contract separately according to the extent of its impact on the contractors because the spread of the virus may have an impact on the obligations of one of the contractors, leading to exhaustion of the debtor, or it may lead to the impossibility of implementing the obligation.

Admissibility of confession evidence: Principles of hearsay and the rule of voluntariness

The common law test of voluntariness has come to be associated with important policy rationales including the privilege against self-incrimination. However, when the test originated more than a century ago, it was a test concerned specifically with the truthfulness of confession evidence; which evidence was at that time adduced in the form of indirect oral testimony, that is, as hearsay. Given that, a century later, confession evidence is now mostly adduced in the form of an audiovisual recording that can be observed directly by the trial judge, rather than as indirect oral testimony, there may be capacity for a different emphasis regarding the question of admissibility. This article considers the law currently operating in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia to see whether or not, in the form of an audiovisual recording, the exercise of judicial discretion as to the question of the admissibility of confession evidence might be supported if the common law test of voluntariness was not a strict test of exclusion.

Two-tier healthcare after Cambie

In 2019, a British Columbia (BC) court decided against a Charter challenge, launched by Cambie Surgical Services (a private clinic). Cambie claimed that various laws in BC suppressing a 2-tier system are contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and should be overturned. The trial judge carefully weighed the evidence for and against a 2-tier system as a “safety valve” for long wait times in public Medicare, finding overall that 2-tier will do more harm than good in the BC context. It is a small victory and a reprieve for public Medicare, which is increasingly under attack from various forms of privatization. But the courts cannot save healthcare on their own nor should they be expected to. The commitment and participation of all levels of government to improving waiting times is crucial.

Judging the Subordinate Judiciary

The subordinate judiciary of a nation plays an important role in the administration and dispensation of justice. A judicial officer in the subordinate courts performs a “pious duty” in the service of justice. A majority of the members of the society come in contact with the trial court judges rather than with the appellate or higher court judges. No law, court, precedent, or custom can provide guidelines for better administration of justice, because there is no fixed formula to find the solution of the problem. In such situations, personal qualities, experience, training, and worth of a trial judge make themselves manifest. Through the image of subordinate judiciary and its functioning, the true picture of judiciary presents itself to the nation. The mind of the judiciary can be known to the millions only through the actions and working of the subordinate or trial court judges. In this chapter, researcher has pointed out some problems faced by subordinate courts and judges due to the backlog, and the daily increase, in legal cases.

Armageddon

Period: 1976–1986. A return to 1976 begins an account of a U.S. broadcast landmark: the demise of a TV network. Fouce’s lawsuit against SIN protracts when judges suspect violations of the foreign ownership rule making SIN an illegal firm. After ten years of proceedings, the FCC revokes SIN’s licenses and banishes Anselmo. The matter reverts to the original trial judge, Mariana Pfaelzer, who ends the lawsuit by persuading remaining SIN defendants to sell the firm. But, presiding over the sale, Pfaelzer affirms that, under the law, she cannot prevent the new owner from converting SIN from Spanish to English. On its pledge to preserve Spanish-language TV, Hallmark Cards becomes the new owner. Immediately, Hallmark is challenged. Needing to continue the network’s Televisa programming, Hallmark must pay Azcárraga’s huge fee. Then, the Reliance Insurance Company announces a rival network called “Telemundo.” Days before competition begins, Hallmark concludes a court-ordered reorganization by dissolving SIN and rechristening the network “Univision.”

Causality in the Crime of Willful Murder by Transmission of Coronavirusin the Jordanian Legislation

Article (326) of the Jordanian Penal Code does not differentiate between methods of willful murder. These methods include transmission of Covid-19, where such type of disease is considered contagious under Article (17) of Jordanian Public Health Law No. (47) of 2008. However, medical science has not certainly proven that the transmission of the virus to a victim is a viable method of infection that definitely causes death. This is since this result (death) might happen a long time after transmission of coronavirus to a victim. It is difficult for the legislator to draft clear provisions that take into account the various circumstances of the willful murder and its sophisticated methods. Therefore, the trial judge is required to verify the existence of the causal relationship in each willful murder case based on its relevant circumstances.

The Seal of the Confessional and the Criminal Law of England and Wales

The seal of the confessional is often described as ‘inviolable’. The idea that what is said or done in furtherance of private confession may be subjected to scrutiny as part of litigation is often considered to be absurd. But what is the legal basis for such forthright rejection? The revised Canons of the Church of England do not address the issue at all; instead the matter falls to be covered by the unrepealed proviso to Canon 113 of the Code of 1603. In England and Wales there is no primary legislation which clearly and coherently deals with the question of the admissibility of matters said in private confession before courts and tribunals. Contrast that with the United States of America, where every single state has enacted statutory provisions which provide safeguards to admissibility, albeit to differing degrees. Recent developments in Australia have, conversely, involved the enactment of legislation making it a crime for a priest to withhold, in certain circumstances, matters said to him or her in the course of private confession. In 1990, Judge Bursell QC reviewed the existing case law on the subject (sparse though it is) and found it to be contradictory, with judgments appearing to be based upon personal opinions as opposed to legal analysis. There have been some interesting ‘post-Bursell’ developments, in terms of both legislation and case law, which are discussed in this article. In Ecclesiastical Law, Mark Hill QC suggests that ‘it is likely that a trial judge would exclude evidence of a confession made to a priest’. This article is essentially an analysis of that conclusion with a view to determining whether it is right to assume that, even if not adequately protected by legislation, things said or done in furtherance of private confession are likely to be excluded from secular criminal proceedings.