Important Notice

Due to internet problems and ongoing personal issues, 'The Lawster' will not be updated until the end of August. I will be back to blog about my preparation for starting my law degree, and to also report on how the Introduction and Welcoming Ceremonies went.
Thanks for your support and understanding,
Natalie M. Wolverson

Read More

Word of the Week - Monday 4th July 2011

Monday 04^th July 2011 – Jurisdiction

This week's Word of the Week is 'Jurisdiction'

“Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "oath" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. The term is also used to denote the geographical area or subject-matter to which such authority applies.

Jurisdiction draws its substance from public international law, conflict of laws, constitutional law and the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government to allocate resources to best serve the needs of its native society.

Political Issue

Supranational organizations provide mechanisms whereby disputes between states may be resolved through arbitration or mediation. When a country is recognized as de jure, it is an acknowledgment by the other de jure nations that the country has sovereignty and the right to exist.

However, it is often at the discretion of each state whether to co-operate or participate. If a state does agree to participate in activities of the supranational bodies and accept decisions, the state is giving up its sovereign authority and thereby allocating power to these bodies.

Insofar as these bodies or nominated individuals may resolve disputes in a judicial or quasi-judicial fashion, or promote treaty obligations in the nature of laws, the power ceded to these bodies cumulatively represents its own jurisdiction. But no matter how powerful each body may appear to be, the extent to which any of the judgments may be enforced, or proposed treaties and conventions may become or remain effective within the territorial boundaries of each nation is a political matter under the sovereign control of the relevant representative government(s) which, in a democratic context, will have electorates to satisfy.”

-          Wikipedia

Read More

Word of the Week - Monday 27th June 2011

Monday 27^th June 2011 – Cross-examination

This week's Word of the Week is 'Cross-examination'

“In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness called by one's opponent. It is preceded by direct examination (in the United Kingdom, Scotland, Australia, Canada, India and Pakistan known as examination-in-chief) and may be followed by a redirect (re-examination in England, Scotland, Australia, Canada, India, Hong Kong, and Pakistan).

Variations by Jurisdiction

In the United States federal courts, a cross-examining attorney is typically not permitted to ask questions which do not pertain to the testimony offered during direct examination, but most state courts do permit a lawyer to cross-examine a witness on matters not raised during direct examination. Similarly, courts in England, Australia, and Canada allow a cross-examiner to exceed the scope of direct examination.

Since a witness called by the opposing party is presumed to be hostile, cross-examination does permit leading questions. A witness called by the direct examiner, on the other hand, may only be treated as hostile by that examiner after being permitted to do so by the judge, at the request of that examiner and as a result of the witness being openly antagonistic and/or prejudiced against the opposing party.^[1]

The main purposes of cross-examination are to elicit favorable facts from the witness, or to impeach the credibility of the testifying witness to lessen the weight of unfavorable testimony. Cross-examination frequently produces critical evidence in trials, especially if a witness contradicts previous testimony. The advocate Edward Marshall-Hall built his career on cross-examination which often involved histrionic outbursts designed to sway jurors. Most experienced and skilled cross-examiners however, refrain from caustic or abrasive cross-examination so as to avoid alienating jurors. John Mortimer, Queen's Counsel, observed that "cross-examination" was not the art of examining crossly. Indeed the good cross-examiner gets a witness to assert to a series of linked propositions culminating in one that undermines that witnesses' evidence rather than pursuing an antagonistic approach.”

-          Wikipedia

Read More