Grounds for Review: Superior Courts Act

Choose a study mode

Play Quiz

Study Flashcards

Spaced Repetition

Chat to Lesson

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

Which of the following is NOT a ground for review under the Superior Courts Act?

Admission of inadmissible evidence
Presence of a strong defense (correct)
Cross irregularity in the proceedings
Absence of jurisdiction of court to hear matter

Bias or malice on the part of a presiding officer constitutes one of the grounds for review.

True (A)

List one ground for review related to the procedure during proceedings.

Cross irregularity in the proceedings

The grounds for review include the admission of ______ evidence.

<p>incompetent</p> Signup and view all the answers

Match the following grounds for review with their explanations:

<p>Absence of jurisdiction = Court lacks authority to hear the case Bias = Prejudgment by the presiding officer Cross irregularity = Procedural mistakes during the trial Admissible evidence = Valid evidence incorrectly excluded</p> Signup and view all the answers

Flashcards

Absence of Jurisdiction

The court lacks the legal authority to handle the case.

Bias or Interest of the Judge

A judge has a personal interest or bias that could affect their impartiality in the case.

Procedural Irregularity

A significant error or mistake during the legal proceedings, potentially affecting the outcome.

Improper Evidence Handling

The court allows evidence that shouldn't be considered or blocks evidence that should be allowed.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Malice or Corruption of the Judge

A judge makes decisions based on personal feelings, malice or bribery, rather than legal principles.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Study Notes

Grounds for Review (Superior Courts Act, s22)

Lack of Court Jurisdiction: A court may be deemed to lack the authority to hear a case, leading to review.
Bias, Malice, or Corruption: Allegations of bias, malicious intent, or corruption involving a presiding officer are grounds for review.
Procedural Irregularity: Significant procedural errors or irregularities in the proceedings are grounds for review.
Evidence Issues: Admission or rejection of evidence (admissible/incompetent, or inadmissible/competent) may be subject to review.