An interpretation of the supreme courts 1996 miranda ruling

In each of these cases the defendant while in police custody was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process.

An interpretation of the supreme courts 1996 miranda ruling

These issues concern the alleged inconsistency of certain provisions in section of the Companies Act, No. Section of the Act provides as follows - " Summoning and examination of persons as to affairs of company.

During the course of their examination, the applicants in both the Ferreira and the Vryenhoek cases objected to being compelled, by virtue of the provisions of section 2 bto answer questions put to them which might tend to incriminate them. They applied to the Witwatersrand Local Division of the Supreme Court for a temporary interdict against the respondents, prohibiting the further interrogation of the applicants pending the determination of the constitutionality of section 2 b of the Act.

Whether section 2 b of the Companies Act 68 ofas amended "the Act"is unconstitutional in that it compels a person summoned to an enquiry to testify and produce documents, even though such person seeks to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination. Whether evidence given by a person at an enquiry in terms of section of the Act falls to be excluded in any subsequent criminal proceedings brought against such person where the evidence may be incriminating and was extracted without recognition of such person's privilege against self-incrimination.

Whether a person appearing at an enquiry in terms of section of the Act is entitled to have prior access to: Whether a person is required to give testimony at an inquiry in terms of section which testimony may tend or have the effect of supporting a civil claim against such person.

Whether a person who has given testimony at an enquiry in terms of sectionwhich testimony tends to support a civil claim against such person, may have such testimony excluded in any subsequent civil proceedings.

The third respondent in the Ferreira application the Master lodged a memorandum in the form of an affidavit but did not oppose the relief sought. We are at the beginning stages of utilising the amicus curiae intervention procedures for which provision is made in Constitutional Court rule 9.

We wish to acknowledge the valuable assistance derived by this Court from the argument on behalf of the amici curiae, JSN Fourie and others, as well as from the memoranda filed by the above mentioned professional bodies. The correctness of this agreement or assumption was not questioned at the hearing of the matter before us.

On reflection, the assumption appears to be wrong in law and the correctness of it, inasmuch as it involves a matter of law constitutional law in factmust be considered by this Court. In so doing it is necessary to say something about the meaning and use of section 1 in general.

Section 1 does not confer a general discretion on the Court in question to refer matters to the Constitutional Court. The referral is mandatory "the provincial or local division concerned shall I use the word "issue" in paragraph c above instead of the word "matter", which appears in the text of section 1because this is the construction which Didcott J, writing for the Court in S v.

These conditions are conjunctive and all have to be fulfilled before the Court has the power to refer an issue to the Constitutional Court in terms of section 1. It is true that the fulfilment of conditions a and c depends upon the Court in question reaching particular conclusions on the basis of the criteria there stated, but these conclusions have to be reached and condition b must exist before the Court is empowered and obliged to refer the issue.

In addition to stipulating other conditions precedent for such referral, the sub-section requires the Povincial or Local Division of the Supreme Court to be of the opinion "that there is a reasonable prospect that the relevant law or provision will be held to be invalid.

The State [2]held that "it was implicit therein". It is not always in the interests of justice to make a reference as soon as the relevant issue has been raised".

He explained why it was not always in the interests of justice to make a referral immediately an exposition which I need not repeat here and laid down "as a general principle" that "where it is possible to decide any case, civil or criminal, without reaching a constitutional issue, that is the course which should be followed".

I hasten to add that when Van Schalkwyk J referred the matter to this Court the judgment in Mhlungu had not been delivered and rule 22 2 had not been promulgated. The only matters before Van Schalkwyk J were the applications for interim interdicts against the relevant respondents to prohibit further interrogation of the applicants.

In dismissing both applications for interdicts Van Schalkwyk J in fact disposed of all and the only matters properly before him. At this stage the issue of the validity of section 2 b had become irrelevant. He had decided, on the view he took of the law, that the issue of the validity of section 2 b was not relevant to the matter before him.

He could not, on his view of the law, even consider the validity issue as part of the interdict enquiry.Start studying Important Supreme Court Cases. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.

Miranda v. Arizona () the ruling meant Bush would win the election (Ranquest) Marbury v. Madison (). [Rev. 6/2/ PM] SUPREME COURT RULES. ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA _____ Effective October 15, and Including.

it’s unconstitutional for cps to conduct an investigation and interview a child on private property without exigent circumstances or probable cause. He remained Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh twice.

He headed the Green Bench of the High Court for three years.

Size, membership, and organization

Justice Gupta remained Executive Chairman of the H.P. State Legal Services Authority and the President of the H.P.

An interpretation of the supreme courts 1996 miranda ruling

Judicial Academy, Shimla for . The Court and Constitutional Interpretation Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. 7,, civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts.

The Supreme Court. Hugo Lafayette Black (February 27, – September 25, ) was an American politician and jurist who served in the United States Senate from to , and as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from to A member of the Democratic Party and a devoted New Dealer, Black endorsed Franklin D.

Roosevelt in both the and presidential elections.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States