Читайте также:
|
8. DCU Graduates Win Case Against Former Landlord
Sarahlee Madigan
Six former students, three of whom studied at Dublin City University, have won their court case against their landlord who refused to refund their deposits after they were forced to move out of his property.
The six girls had all rented from Maguire the previous year without any problems. Difficulties arose, however, after they signed a lease to rent 32 Shanless Drive for a second year beginning September 30, 2003.
Sandra Armstrong, who graduated earlier this year, describes Maguire's behaviour as 'odd'. 'He would come every Sunday to empty the bins round the back and go through the garage.'
During the court case, the girls alleged that he made frequent, unannounced entries into the house, one such incident being when one of the girls was in the shower. Mr Maguire was quoted as saying that the statements were attempts at 'character assassination' and emphasized that he only ever entered the house accompanied.
Though unsettled by these visits, the girls made no formal complaints. Legal action was taken, however, after a rat was spotted on two occasions in the kitchen. Both Anne Doyle's boyfriend and Marie Goodwin claimed to have seen the rodent. Sandra Armstrong says Mr Maguire failed to take action, leaving the girls worried about hygiene and food contamination.
A pest control company, who later gave evidence at the trial, was brought in to investigate and even though they confirmed the presence of the rat, Mr Maguire still failed to take action. His excuse being that at the time, he believed the rodent to be a mouse and therefore not a threat to safety.
Ms Coyle told the College View that the national papers incorrectly wrote that Maguire brought in DynoRod drain services to ensure there were no rats in the house. This was in fact, carried out after the girls had left in January 2004.
When the students asked Mr Maguire to return their 600 euro deposits, he refused on the grounds that they were leaving before the lease was up. Following advice from the Students' Union, the girls brought Maguire before Small Claims Court, which ruled that he was to repay them their deposits.
Mr Maguire appealed the ruling and the case was brought before the Circuit Civil Court, which upheld the decision of the Small Claims Court and Mr Maguire was ordered to return their deposit to his former tenants.
Star Sunday journalist and former DCU Journalism student David Cheridan also experienced problems when renting from Mr Maguire. Mr Cheridan and five friends rented another of Mr Maguire's properties in 2000.
He says they had the same problems as the girls and found the landlord difficult to deal with. 'He used to come in whenever he wanted and give out about the state of the place.' Cheridan's roommates made complaints but he says that they received 'no satisfaction'.
Mr Cheridan went on to say that the 600 euro refund the girls received seems insufficient considering Mr Maguire's management of the rat situation. 'A fine of that size is not much of a deterrent '.
I. Please indicate and explain any incorrect statements you may find in the following sentences:
Mr Maguire agreed to the complaints of his tenants.
The girls brought Maguire before court of appeals.
A pest control company did not testify at the trial.
The court compelled Mr Maguire to give back the deposit to his former tenants.
II. Please find sentences in the text of the same meaning with the following
At the court the tenants insisted that the landlord intruded their privacy.
The landlord refused to keep the premise under proper living conditions.
III. Please explain in English the following terms.
character assassination
trial
Small Claims Court
Circuit Civil Court
deterrent
investigate
IV. Express in some sentences your understanding of the nature of the suit against Mr Maguire.
9. THE FOUNDATION OF BRITISH LAW: HABEAS CORPUS ACT
"Let the Body Be Brought…"
In Britain, the United States and many other English-speaking countries, the law of Habeas Corpus guarantees that nobody can be held in prison without trial.
Habeas Corpus became a law because of a wild party held in 1621 at the London home of a notoriously rowdy lady, Alice Robinson. When a constable appeared and asked her and her guests to quiet down, Mrs. Robinsonallegedly swore at him so violently that he arrested her, and a local justice of the peace committed her to jail.
When she was finally brought to trial, Mrs. Robinson's story of her treatment in prison caused an outcry. She had been put on a punishment diet of bread and water, forced to sleep on the bare earth, stripped, and given 50 lashes. Such treatment was barbaric even by the harsh standards of the time; what made it worse was that Mrs. Robinson was pregnant.
Public anger was so great that she was acquitted, the constable who had arrested her without a warrant was himself sent to prison, and the justice of the peace was severely reprimanded. And the case, along with other similar cases, led to the passing of the Habeas Corpus Act in Britain in 1679. The law is still on the British statute books, and a version of it is used in the United States, where the law was regarded as such an important guarantee of liberty that Article 1 of the Constitution declares that "Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion".
Habeas Corpus is part of a Latin phrase — Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum — that means ‘Let the body be brought before the judge' In effect, a writ of Habeas Corpus is an order in the name of the people (or, in Britain, of the sovereign) to produce an imprisoned person in court at once.
I. Please indicate and explain any incorrect statements you may find in the following sentences:
Alice Robinson was not released from prison.
Magistrate was reprimanded.
Habeas Corpus Act is a guarantee of liberty.
II. Please find sentences in the text of the same meaning with the following
Mrs. Robinson outraged a constable.
Habeas corpus Act implies that an imprisoned person must be delivered in court at once.
III. Please explain in English the following terms.
Warrant
Be severely reprimanded
Be suspended
Be acquitted
Trial
Writ
statute
IV. Express in some sentences your understanding of HABEAS CORPUS ACT
10. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: FOR AND AGAINST
Perhaps all criminals should be required to carry cards which read: ‘Fragile: Handle With Care'. It will never do, these days, to go around referring to criminals as violent thugs. You must refer to them politely as 'social misfits'. The professional killer who wouldn't think twice about using his cosh or crowbar to batter some harmless old lady to death in order to rob her of her meagre life-savings must never be given a dose of his own medicine. He is in need of 'hospital treatment'. According to his misguided defenders, society is to blame. A wicked society breeds evil - or so the argument goes- When you listen to this kind of talk, it makes you wonder why we aren't all criminals. We have done away with the absurdly harsh laws of the nineteenth century and this is only right-But surely enough is enough. The most senseless piece of criminal legislation in Britain and a number of other countries has been the suspension of capital punishment.
The violent criminal has become a kind of hero-figure in our time. He is glorified on the screen; he is pursued by the press and paid vast sums of money for his 'memoirs'. Newspapers which specialise in с rime-reporting enjoy enormous circulations and the publishers of trashy cops and robbers stories or 'murder mysteries' have never had it so good. When you read about the achievements of the great train robbers, it makes you wonder whether you are reading about some glorious resistance movement. The hardened criminal is cuddled and cosseted by the sociologists on the one hand and adored as a hero by the masses on the other. It's no wonder he is a privileged person who expects and receives VIP treatment wherever he goes.
Capital punishment used to be a major deterrent. It made the violent robber think twice before pulling the trigger. It gave the cold-blooded poisoner something to ponder about while he was shaking up or serving his arsenic cocktail. It prevented unarmed policemen from being mowed down while pursuing their duty by killers armed with automatic weapons. Above all, it protected the most vulnerable members of society, young children, from brutal sex-maniacs. It is horrifying to think that the criminal can literally get away with murder. We all know that ‘life sentence' does not mean what it says. After ten years or so of 'good conduct', the most desperate villain is free to return to society where he will live very comfortably, thank you, on the proceeds of his crime, or he will go on committing offences until he is caught again. People are always willing to hold liberal views at the expense of others. It's always fashionable to pose as the defender of the under-dog, so long as you, personally, remain unaffected. Did the defenders of crime, one wonders, in their desire for fair-play, consult the victims before they suspended capital punishment? Hardly. You see, they couldn't, because all the victims were dead.
I. Please indicate and explain any incorrect statements you may find in the following sentences:
Violent criminal has become a hero figure in the modern society thanks to the media.
Cuddled by sociologies, adored by masses, the criminal is a privileged person and receives VIP treatment.
Capital punishment protects unarmed policemen and young children.
Capital punishment was never a major deterrent.
II. Please find sentences in the text of the same meaning with the following
People fall into the habit to feel sorry for criminals until they personally clash with their acts.
When you read a story about the robbery in a paper you may think that you read a tale about the feat.
III. Please explain in English the following terms.
Social misfit
Deter criminals
Go on committing offences
Pull the trigger
Breed evil
IV. Express in some sentences your understanding of capital punishment in modern world and your own attitude to it.
11. The Miranda Warning
‘You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can be used against you…’ these are the words of the Miranda warning which was created as a result of 1966 United States Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona.
It began when Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home and taken into custody to the police station, where he was identified by a witness as the man who had kidnapped and raped a woman. Police officers took Mr. Miranda into an interrogation room and two hours later emerged with a written confession signed by Mr. Miranda that also stated that the confession was made voluntarily and with full knowledge of his legal rights. The officers, however, failed to advise Mr. Miranda that he had a right to have an attorney present.
The United States Supreme Court ruled that the confession could not be used as evidence of Mr. Miranda's guilt because he was not fully advised on his legal rights, which included the right to have his attorney present. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. To ensure that other accused criminals are made aware of their constitutional rights, The Supreme Court ruled that a suspect who is taken into custody and interrogated must receive a warning of the following rights; the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law that he has a right of the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. The ‘Miranda warning’ is now applied by law officers throughout the United States as a result of this ruling.
Today an accused cannot insist on his constitutional rights if he is not fully aware of them. The accused must be informed of his rights in any case if he asks, and in serious cases even if he does not ask. Specifically, when a person is in custody on a serious charge he must be told his right to remain silent, of his right to counsel, and of his right to have counsel provided at state expense if she cannot afford it. He/she must be given an explanation of her constitutional rights at each stage in which the accused appears before a judge.
I. Please indicate and explain any incorrect statements you may find in the following sentences:
Ernesto Miranda was arrested for forgery.
Miranda did not make a confession.
The US Constitution proclaims that every person must be protected by law.
II. Please find sentences in the text of the same meaning with the following
Miranda was known as a kidnapper by a witness.
The US Supreme Court did not approve Miranda’s guilt since he was not
informed of his legal rights.
III. Please explain in English the following terms.
confession
iterrogation
evidence of guilt
take into custody
court ruled
Дата добавления: 2015-11-16; просмотров: 58 | Нарушение авторских прав
| <== предыдущая страница | | | следующая страница ==> |
| IV. Express in some sentences your understanding of types of felonies in the USA. | | | IV. Express in some sentences your understanding of the rights of an accused in the USA. |