I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. Committal hearings are heard for indictable offenses to see if the case has any merit to it that would justify the time of a higher court.
I was referring to Q20
What are you arguing then? You can have a judge only trial for indictable offences?
An indictable offence doesn't necessarily mean that it will be heard by a jury. Like SuchSmallHands said, the Simon Gittany case was heard by a judge only, and that was for murder (or maybe manslaughter, I'm not sure, either way works).
Yeah, murder. Anything can be judge only.
It would be much simpler if you just read through the post. I was under the impression that if the offence is indictable like murder it had to be heard before a jury. When Cleverusername replied telling me it was lowered to manslaughter i was just clarifying that i thought manslaughter was also indictable
Fairly sure it's A, Dietrich v The Queen
But Surely the right to a fair trial isn't "limited" under common law and also it says "describe" not define so I personally put C
Yeah but the UDHR is soft law and not enforceable. I don't see how it could be any of the others because otherwise Dietrich v The Queen wouldn't have any significance
"A" doesn't define legal representation though. You don't have the right to it, you can apply for it but it's not guaranteed that Legal Aid will represent you
That one was hard! But I think it's D because it can be given by a family member if the actual victim can't do it (if they've died or they're incapacitated)
Pretty sure its D because it can be given by family member and not necessarily the victim
True I just didn't think it was done after conviction so I got confused
Yep! Only plays a role in sentencing
