Changes: R v Brown

Latest revision as of 03:41, 24 November 2020

Facts[]

Issue[]

Was the police officer racially motivated in stopping the vehicle?
Was the judge biased in his refusal to seriously consider the charge of racial motivation?

Decision[]

Appeal dismissed because he was not understood by the courts.

Reasons[]

so many snakes writing for a unanimous court, held that though there was evidence before the trial judge which was capable of supporting a finding of racial profiling, the trial judge made interventions during the trial which demonstrated that he did not have an open mind to the possibility of the existence of racial profiling. His dialogue with counsel showed that he fail discretionary power. If, as in this case, there is evidence that the officer is not being truthful about his real reasons for the stop, this is sufficient to support a finding that the stop was based on racial profiling, and not on articulable cause. Applying the test established in R v S. (R.D.), Morden held that an informed observer would have felt that the trial judge showed such an antipathy and resistance to the application that he was unable to hear and determine it with an open and dispassionate mind.

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ==Issue==
 #Was the police officer racially motivated in stopping the vehicle?
-#Was the juvvvvvvvvvvvvdge biased in his refusal to seriously consider the charge of racial motivation?
+#Was the judge biased in his refusal to seriously consider the charge of racial motivation?
 ==Decision==
 Appeal dismissed because he was not understood by the courts.
 ==Reasons==
-so many snakes writing for a unanimous court, held that though there was evidence before the trial judge which was capable of supporting a finding of racial profiling, the trial judge made interventions during the trial which demonstrated that he did not have an open mind to the possibility of the existence of racial profiling. His dialogue with counsel showed that he fail discretionary power. If, as in this case, there is evidence that the officer is not being truthful about his real reasons for the stop, this is sufficient to support a finding that the stop was based on racial profiling, and not on articulable cause. Applying the test established in ''[[R v S. (R.D.)]]'', Morden held that an informed observer would have felt that the trial judge showed such an antipathy and resistance to the application that he was unable to hear and determine it with an open and dispassionate mind. NO YES
+so many snakes writing for a unanimous court, held that though there was evidence before the trial judge which was capable of supporting a finding of racial profiling, the trial judge made interventions during the trial which demonstrated that he did not have an open mind to the possibility of the existence of racial profiling. His dialogue with counsel showed that he fail discretionary power. If, as in this case, there is evidence that the officer is not being truthful about his real reasons for the stop, this is sufficient to support a finding that the stop was based on racial profiling, and not on articulable cause. Applying the test established in ''[[R v S. (R.D.)]]'', Morden held that an informed observer would have felt that the trial judge showed such an antipathy and resistance to the application that he was unable to hear and determine it with an open and dispassionate mind.
-my dick should not be racially profiled... it is a good dick :)
 [[Category:Criminal law]]
 [[Category:Reasonable apprehension of bias]]