Show simple item record

dc.creatorFaunce, Thomasen
dc.creatorTownsend, Ruthen
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-09T00:34:06Zen
dc.date.available2016-01-09T00:34:06Zen
dc.date.created2011-06en
dc.date.issued2011-06en
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationJournal of law and medicine 2011 Jun; 18(4): 706-15en
dc.identifier.urihttp://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Justins+v+The+Queen:+assisted+suicide,+juries+and+the+discretion+to+prosecute.&title=Journal+of+law+and+medicine+&volume=18&issue=4&date=2011-06&au=Faunce,+Thomas;+Townsend,+Ruthen
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/1016955en
dc.description.abstractJuries are often a crucial protection for citizens against unjust or highly controversial laws. The decision whether to proceed with a prosecution rests on the discretionary powers of prosecutors. In cases where the community is deeply divided over right and wrong, it appears that there is, at times, a transference from the public of thwarted law reform aspirations which can create difficult tensions and expectations. This case commentary considers an appeal by Shirley Justins following her conviction for manslaughter by gross criminal negligence as a result of her involvement in the mercy killing of her partner, Mr Graeme Wylie. The morally unsettled nature of the charges brought against her, her own initial plea, the directions given to the jury by the trial judge and even the basis of her appeal resulted in a convoluted and complicated legal case. Spigelman CJ and Johnson J ordered a new trial, Spigelman CJ stating that it was open for a new jury to consider (a) if Mr Wylie lacked capacity; and (b) whether there was criminal involvement by one person in another's death. Simpson J found that further prosecution on the count of manslaughter would amount to an abuse of process and that an acquittal should be entered. This case highlights how fundamentally unsettled are the publicly much debated and persistently contentious issues of euthanasia, assisted suicide, the right of a person to die a dignified death and the way their capacity in that respect should be assessed. It perhaps asks us to reconsider the role of juries and the exercise of discretion by Directors of Public Prosecutions in areas of law where the community and law-makers are deeply and intractably divided.en
dc.formatArticleen
dc.languageenen
dc.sourceeweb:339337en
dc.subjectAssisted Suicideen
dc.subjectDeathen
dc.subjectEuthanasiaen
dc.subjectKillingen
dc.subjectLawen
dc.subjectLawsen
dc.subjectNatureen
dc.subjectNegligenceen
dc.subjectSuicideen
dc.subject.classificationSuicide / Assisted Suicideen
dc.subject.classificationProlongation of Life and Euthanasiaen
dc.titleJustins v the Queen: Assisted Suicide, Juries and the Discretion to Prosecuteen
dc.provenanceCitation prepared by the Library and Information Services group of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University for the ETHXWeb database.en
dc.provenanceCitation migrated from OpenText LiveLink Discovery Server database named EWEB hosted by the Bioethics Research Library to the DSpace collection EthxWeb hosted by DigitalGeorgetown.en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Georgetown University Seal
©2009—2022 Bioethics Research Library
Box 571212 Washington DC 20057-1212
202.687.3885