Sebastian Fortnightly - Case Study Example

Sebastian Fortnightly Case In the contemporary environment and particularly the business environment, many people carry out various illegal activities with the thought that the authorities will not catch up with regard to the matter. One such person is Sebastian as presented in the case study. Sebastian had three major problems and these involved high misconduct in the office. The first case to analyze is that where he gambled his travelling tickets to acquire cheap ones. Another is that where he uses company resources to take several toy bricks to his children rather than purchasing them. There is also the fact that he derailed one of the company computers to head to his house rather than reaching the official destination. It is imperative to go through the various factors surrounding this case and understand the various crimes that Sebastian committed. The first case is that involving the company against Sebastian in court. The plaintiff, The Company, states that the defendant, Sebastian failed to observe the company’s right to privacy when he used resources without consent. In this case, there is the protection of the plaintiff’s privacy by the laws of the land through the fact that the owner has a right over the immediate air space above his land. This makes sure that he has some authority over the activities that take place above that area. This protection of privacy is accorded directly referring to Winfield on Tort (Frank, 2010, 25). Winfield on Tort is one reputable source of enactments provided by the British constitution, it is clear that the plaintiff in this case had protection of privacy as it stated that the activities carried out were an act of trespass. This information is cited from the constitution through which England is run. Chapter 2 in the bill of rights after the fourth amendment in 1996 also provides for this (Steinfield, 2010, 77). It is important to understand that the judge will be fast to dismiss any claims stating that the defendant had committed a criminal activity by disturbing the plaintiff’s peace. This is from the fact that for someone to provide a case stating any form nuisance the individual ought to have carried out the mistake again (Baron, 1978, 484). It is from this that the judge may find it rather excessive to go for the nuisance charges on top of the trespass ones already provided. The judge was also clear to identify the Business Navigation Act 1920, Section 9 replaced by the Civil Act 1949 which states that the claims to both nuisance and trespass are excessive and should not hold up in any legal process (Lemmings, 2011, 167) This was the point where there is the identification that the judge did not have the ability to make a decision based on his views but rather had to refer to the act. Despite this being the law that governed his decision, it is important to note that the judge had the ability to express his views in that he stated that going for the nuisance charge was rather outrageous. This independence was rather clear and concise in that he also had the ability to fully follow the act and go for both charges but after looking at the facts of the case, there was the identification of various issues allowing a much lesser charge (Baron, 1978, 486). The issues identified in the case that had the judge extend his independence as to not follow the act entirely are such as the level at which the crime was committed. The defendant had not gone around the premises enough times for the plaintiff to state that there was disturbance of working conditions. This is from the fact that the plaintiff stated that he had not noticed the illegal acts of the defendant until they received the relevant information (Baron, 1978, 488). In the judgment of this case, the judge with reference to the amended Business navigation Act of 1972 stated that it was important to note that the defendant had not consulted the various authorities. The judge however in the case exercised his duty of reasoning in that he identified the free will that the defendant had by having offered the plaintiff the photographs of the computers prior to the lawsuit. This not only revealed that that the defendant did not have any sinister motive, but also the innocence conscience that the defendant had when taking the photographs and thus one of the factors that led to the lower charge as opposed to having both the trespass and nuisance charges (Baron, 1978, 486). Civil law as witnessed in this case of the court process shows that the rights of the company carry more weight when compared to those of the defendant’s privacy. This is from the fact that the judge, citing his judgment under article 823 of the British Civil Code offers guidelines protecting journalists from all form of mistreatment and allegations provided the means through which the information obtained is clear and precise supported by the civil laws of the country (Ziegert, 2008, 121). The judge in this case does not have the right to allow the injunction to go through as the plaintiff presented clear evidence of the photographs taken and stated that they had all been taken and there was no point at which the defendant came into contact with the land. This criminal law is completely different from common law in that it does not support the idea of privacy brought up by the defendant for the company officials invading his house without permit or rather a warranty. If this case came up elsewhere, the injunction would have had a greater chance of going through provided the defendant in this case would refer to the various privacy acts (Aziz, 2009, 87). This is where he would have stated that the journalist had trespassed by taking photograph and that the publishing of the photographs was an infringement of his right to privacy. However, in the case of England and criminal law, getting the injunction seemed rather difficult. The judge in declaring the ruling in this case does not have much of a personal obligation or rather does not exercise the duty of administering his personal views in the judgment of the case as opposed to the common law system where the judge extended his judgment with reference to common reasoning. In the case of the judgment carried out, the judge’s reasoning came directly from the criminal law act (Eric, 2012, 11). The judge also went through the Plaintiff’s ground for review where he was able to establish that the private sphere was intact and that it was right to take the pictures. However, the issue in question was whether it was legal to publish the photographs. In the second case, principles took the upper hand in the case in that the judge followed the civil laws and stated that there was no precise widespread violation of privacy and that the little amount of privacy violated could not hold up in court. There was the accountability of the rights of the defendant’s in the case and when compared to the little amount of innocent violation carried out, it was strong enough as to have the injunction proved inadmissible (Eric, 2012, 14). This was clear to show that the principles in this case took the bigger role in the judgment as opposed to the facts provided. Moreover, it is important to note that the judge in this case is extensively constrained in his reasoning as complying to the English judicial system to the English trial. It is important to understand that observing both principles and going through facts is vital in the ruling of any case. This is from the notion that principles assist the judge carry out the ruling with accordance to the laws through which there is governing of the land. On the other hand, facts are also necessary in that the judge has the ability to use personal knowledge in the law arena to make decisions in the case while also viewing the issue in question from an ethical perspective. It thus makes it very necessary for both facts and principle to uphold when a judge makes his decision (Fletcher, 2009, 38). In the cases above, facts and principles were administered separately, which was not very appropriate. Given the diverse nature of criminal law, it is important to understand that different theories have been provided with regard to it and thus the need to review them. Legal Formalism is one of the theories involved in contract law. This is defined as the positive approach to philosophical laws with relation to different legal fields. It sees to it that it is the job of the legislature to review certain cases as opposed to giving all the ruling power to a central judge. This is from the fact that the legislature may offer diverse views on a certain concept from widespread knowledge in different fields contrary to one judge. Bibliography Aziz, M. (2009). The Impact of European Rights on National Legal Cultures. New York: McGraw Hill Publishers. Baron Bernstein of Leigh v. Skyviews & General Ltd., [1978]Q.B.479 Fletcher, G. (2009). Basic Concepts of Criminal Law. London: Oxford University Press. Frank, C. (2010). Law Literature and the Transmission of Culture in England. New York: McGraw Hill Publishers. Lemmings, D. (2011). Professors of the Law: Barristers and English Legal Cultures. New York: Cengage Learning. Steinfield, R. (2010). Legal Cultures in the Early Mideval West. London: Oxford University Press. Ziegert, K. (2008). Law and Legal Cultures in Comparative Perspective. Virginia: Press of Case Western Reserve University. Read More