R v Oakes: The Creation of the Oakes Test ( Doctrine of Proportionality) My extempore Notes as I read the Case, one of my #50Cases (Cases Post still in draft and research form)

The Defendant skillfully put a Case for his rights to be examined with regard to Reverse Onus of Proof Lawyerly?
He was found NOT to be guilty of drug trafficking by the Judges.
The Law states it falls on the Defendant to make the Case that the Judge has been unjust. Does this presume too high a level of legal skill on of the Defendants?

Case Management on the Case was flawless in its systematic attention to detail.
Cases used include UK Cases.
Canadas Charter is a great Document that acts as the Legal Backdrop to their system.
Canadian Bill of Rights Jurisprudence.page 20 of 43.shall be used as determinative of this Appeal.
J Laskin Rational connection test
Canadian Bill of Rights Jurisprudence deemed not binding on interpretation of the Charter.
Canadian Charter Jurisprudence. Presumption of innocence (11)d Judges Barristers determine which Jurisprudence even if obvious is applicable in this Case.
Canadian Charter Jurisprudence a rich source of answering the questions of the Case described as ‘comprehensive and persuasive’by the Judges.
Section 8 violates Narcotic Control Act via Canadian Charter Jurisprudence, lists no of Cases page 126 of the document.
Unless can be proved by Section 1 of the Canadian Charter. Presumption of innocence cannot be proved. KEY CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DOCTRINES.
Nova Scotia Supreme Court unconstitutional violation of Section (11)d.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF ONUS OF BURDEN OF PROOF
Reasonableness Test concurring in result.
There seems to be a jurisprudential consensus across all Canadas Supreme Courts to back up violations of (11)d in Case Law being repeated across the country to qaulify for it’s title as THE OAKES TEST.

United States Jurisprudence (!!)
How important it is to have the Laws of all relevant countries on your Ipad.
A scrupulous and detailed attention to detail in analysing the respective Jurisprudences of the respective countries that apply: Canada, USA,UK European Convention of Human Rights.
European Court of Human Rights ECHR provides a consideration of the Reverse Onus Provisions**
Article 6.
STATUTORY Reverse Onus Provision
And I presume Case Law based Reverse Onus Provision?
CONCLUSION!!
Exhaustive Analysis of the relevant Jurisprudence by relevant Jurisdiction.
Parliamentary intention..NCA.

Procedural Matters
List of Cases used.
List of Legislation and Statutes used.
List of sources used.

Legal Doctrines used
Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The Legal Defendant has to prove on the balance of Probabilities**
Basic Fact of Drug Possession has to be proved.
Mandatory presumption of the Law that
The Presumption of Innocence.
Evidentary Burden or on accused to prove innocence.
The burden of guilt falls to the Crown to prove and not the Defendant thus not offending the Presumption of Innocence.

Facts of the Case
Points of Law

This Interpretation of the Law backed by THIS AMOUNT OF CASE LAW in terms of applicability.

This entry was posted in Case Reading Journal and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s