Sentences with phrase «prejudice fair trial»

Common examples of such contempts are: publications which are intended or likely to prejudice the fair trial or conduct of criminal or civil proceedings; publications which scandalize or otherwise lower the authority of the court; and acts which interfere with or obstruct persons having duties to discharge in a court of justice.»

The issue raises serious questions, she said, including whether online publicity can prejudice the fair trial of an accused.

The Master held that claims of general counterfeit knowledge (not specific to Louis Vuitton) were irrelevant and therefore scandalous, and that including information about the raids would unduly expand the scope and prejudice the fair trial of the action.

The Judge said that it was wrong of the EFCC to have claimed that the defendants were indicted for N36B alleged fraud when such a bogus figure was not contained in the charge adding that such press statement will prejudice fair trial of the defendants.

At common law it is contempt, with intent to impede or prejudice the administration of justice, to publish material calculated to prejudice the fair trial of a pending imminent cause.

Adam Wagner at the UK Human Rights blog commented on the case yesterday and reminded readers of the need for bloggers and tweeters to be particularly careful to avoid prejudicing a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal rejected Hamza's claims, stating: «The fact... that adverse publicity may have risked prejudicing a fair trial is no reason for not proceeding with the trial if the Judge concludes that, with his assistance, it will be possible to have a fair trial.»

Not exact matches

«The allegations against Silver will severely prejudice Lopez, denying him a fair discovery process and a fair trial,» lawyer Lopez's lawyer Lyle Zuckerman wrote Torres on July 2.

But let's forget our prejudices for a moment, and not condemn the Ford Mustang EcoBoost without a fair trial.

In those instances, civil courts have the ability to stay an action pending resolution of the criminal matter in «exceptional or extraordinary circumstances where there is a real risk that the right to a fair criminal trial will be seriously prejudiced by the continuation of the civil case.»

Because JAMS provides alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that operate in accordance with judicial procedures, we may also deny or limit access to personal data in the following contexts: (i) interference with law enforcement or with private causes of action, including the prevention, investigation or detection of offenses or the right to a fair trial, arbitration or mediation; (ii) disclosure where the legitimate rights or important interests of others would be violated; (iii) breaching a legal or other professional privilege or obligation; (iv) prejudicing employee security investigations or grievance proceedings or in connection with employee succession planning and corporate reorganizations; or (v) prejudicing the confidentiality necessary in monitoring, inspection or regulatory functions connected with sound management, or in future or ongoing negotiations involving JAMS.

He appealed, asserting that the trial judge's dismissal of the juror prejudiced his right to a fair trial.

Another court explains that «the applicable remedy analysis for a Brady violation is as follows: (1) a Brady violation requires a remedy of a new trial; (2) such new trial may require striking evidence, a special jury instruction, or other additional curative measures tailored to address persistent prejudice; and (3) if the lingering prejudice of a Brady violation has removed all possibility that the defendant could receive a new trial that is fair, the indictment must be dismissed.

It is also clear that, while a judge in civil proceedings will seek to prevent a manifest risk of injustice, ensuring a fair trial is ultimately a matter for the criminal court, which has extensive powers to remedy any prejudice.

Instead, it confirmed the trial judge's determinations that «the transcript is indicative of only the prosecutorial side of the case,» id., at E-14; that the public's right of access was overborne by the «reasonable likelihood of substantial prejudice» to «the defendant's right to a fair trial,» id., at E-9; and that» [alternatives] to sealing the transcript would not suffice in this [17] case,» id., at E-14.

In TCD each of the three defendants successfully argued that the degree of prejudice it would suffer, if such a stale claim was allowed to proceed, meant there could not be a fair trial.

[105]... If such a witness is so disabled as not to understand «the seriousness of the situation and the importance of being careful and correct», there is no prophylactic effect, and the fair trial interests of the accused are unfairly prejudiced.

(ii) where there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay such as to give rise to a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible or there would be serious prejudice to the respondent (the question arises as to whether or not there can still be fair trial and if there is doubt about that whether the claim should then be prevented from going any further).

The Attorney General for England and Wales has said that he is considering imposing liability on Internet Service Providers to enforce publication bans and to prevent publication of information that could prejudice a person's right to a fair trial.