Browsing by Author "Courteney, Klaudia"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Restricted
"Nonsense on Stilts" or a Legitimate Human Rights Issue: Is the Saying of Council Prayers a Breach of Dissenters' Freedom of Religion?
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2012) Courteney, Klaudia; Geiringer, Claudia
This paper discusses the implications council prayers have on a dissenter’s right to freedom of religion. The paper analyses the freedom of religion portion of the judgment of Ouseley J in Bideford Town Council to explore the issues council prayers raise with regard to the right of freedom of religion. The decision in the judgment is analysed in light of overseas jurisprudence from the United States and Canada after carefully exploring what the right of freedom of religion protects and which part of it is affected by the practice of council prayers. The discussion is drawn back to the implications it has for the practice of council prayers in New Zealand after the Wanganui District Council was influenced by the decision of Bideford Town Council to stop its prayer practice. The paper concludes that if the prayers are clearly voluntary, they should not breach the dissenter’s right to freedom of religion.
Restricted
Should the Crown Lead Evidence of the Defendant's Insanity?
(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2011) Courteney, Klaudia; Stephens, Mamari
In its Mental Impairment Decision-Making and the Insanity Defence report the Law Commission reviewed how the defence of insanity in s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 was working in New Zealand. With regard to the continued appropriateness of the defence the Law Commission recommended that the insanity defence should not be changed. However, regarding the procedural issue of how the defence could be raised, the Law Commission made the recommendation that a new provision should be inserted into the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CP(MIP)A) to allow: … the Crown, by leave of the judge, to adduce evidence of insanity, in cases where the defence has put his or her mental capacity for criminal intent in issue without raising the insanity defence. The Government has recently issued its response to the report. Whilst agreeing with the recommendation that there should be no change to the insanity defence, the Government has acknowledged the merit of the procedural recommendation. As such the Government has said it will consider this recommendation “in the context of [its] wider review of the [CP(MIP)A]” and other related legislation set to take place in the middle of 2012.7 That the Government will be seriously considering this recommendation makes it relevant to examine what the implications of incorporating such a provision would be ...