Shubhra Chakraborty  is not only a crime against the body of a woman victimit is a crime against the entire society. One of the issues in system is that the rape laws do not, unfortunately, take care of the social aspect of the matter and are inapt in many respects.
This is the judgment of the court to which all members have substantially contributed.
Laws regarding rape in the United States, specifically Connecticut, are adequate in the sense that they penalize the perpetrator in appropriate measures, thought to be too extreme by some defense advocates. Rape as defined by the Supreme Court in Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Ms. Shubhra Chakraborty is not only a crime against the body of a woman (victim), it is a crime against the entire society. The Apex Court has further observed, “to many feminists and psychiatrists, rape is less a sexual offence than the act of aggression aimed at degrading and humiliating women”. Law and lawyer cartoons, written by a Harvard lawyer.
These are interlocutory appeals. They arise in the context of ancillary relief proceedings between Vivian Imerman and Elizabeth Tchenguiz Imerman. They raise fundamentally important questions in relation to the so-called Hildebrand rules: A preliminary overview will help to identify the key issues which arise.
From that material they printed out eleven files and handed them to their solicitor, Mr Zaiwalla, who arranged for a barrister to sift the documents for those in respect of which it was thought Mr Imerman could claim legal professional privilege, which resulted in seven files of documents.
Withers then sent copies of the seven files to the solicitors acting for Mr Imerman in the divorce proceedings. He also required the defendants to hand over all copies of the documents to Mr Imerman. Mr Imerman sought the return of the seven files, and any copies made of them, and an order enjoining Mrs Imerman and Withers from using any of the information obtained therefrom.
On 9 November Moylan J decided that the seven files should be handed back to Mr Imerman for the Rape law adequacy of enabling him to remove any material for which he claimed privilege, but that Mr Imerman would then have to return the remainder of the seven files to Mrs Imerman for use by her in connection with the matrimonial proceedings.
Mr Imerman appeals against Rape law adequacy decision. The law should, she says, recognise her right to truthful disclosure, even if that can only be achieved by unlawful methods. Feared dishonesty justifies self-help, even where that self-help is unlawful.
Moylan J acknowledged this, Eady J did not. The issues thrown up by these arguments are significant, both as a matter of principle and in practice. They require consideration of the law of confidence, both in general and as between husband and wife; the power of the court to exclude or admit wrongfully obtained documents and information; and the proper attitude which the court, and lawyers advising parties, should adopt in ancillary relief proceedings when one of the parties is, or may be, concealing assets, or when the other party may have unlawfully obtained documents which may reveal such assets.
While these issues involve domestic points of equity, common law, civil procedure, and statutory construction, articles 6, 8, and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in summary terms, the right to a fair trial, the right to respect for privacy, and the right to freedom of speech, respectively are also engaged.
Where we discuss these issues in relation to ancillary relief proceedings, in order to express ourselves clearly and simply, we will do so on the basis that it is the wife who is seeking ancillary relief from the husband.
While that is normally the case, it is not infrequent, and we suspect it will become more frequent, that husbands seek ancillary relief from wives. Sometimes, each may seek ancillary relief from the other. The relevant facts 9. Vivian Imerman and Elizabeth Tchenguiz were married in ; it was a second marriage for each of them.
Shortly before the marriage, Mr Imerman accepted an invitation from his prospective brothers in law, Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz, to share their London office at 18 Upper Grosvenor Street in Mayfair. InVincent Tchenguiz moved his office to 35 Park Lane. Mr Imerman had his own password-protected computer although the efficacy of the protection appears to have been dubious and his own email account, and he, and his employees, used his computer for his personal and business purposes, including in connection with companies in which he had a substantial interest and with his family trusts.
As he knew, his computer was supported by a server including a separate back-up systemto which we shall refer generically as "the server".
Both the Office and the server were owned or leased by Robert Tchenguiz, who therefore in practice had unrestricted access to the server. It appears likely that Vincent Tchenguiz also had unrestricted access to the server, which served his office IT system as well.
Both Robert and Victor Tchenguiz were and are in a substantial way of business, and Mr and Mrs Imerman each appears to have been independently rich.
Mrs Imerman petitioned for divorce on 30 December A vigilante (/ ˌ v ɪ dʒ ɪ ˈ l æ n t i /, / ˌ v ɪ dʒ ɪ ˈ l æ n t eɪ /; Spanish: [bixiˈlante]; Portuguese: [viʒiˈlɐ̃t(ɨ)], [viʒiˈlɐ̃tʃi]) is a civilian or organization acting in a law enforcement capacity (or in the pursuit of self-perceived justice) without legal authority.
 Submission made by the second amicus curiae, record p , para  with reference to their submission made to the South African Law Commission (SALC) – November ; and see Discussion Paper under Project.
—Monica Cappelletti, School of Law and Government, Dublin City University (DCU), Ireland.
In this weekly feature, I-CONnect publishes a curated reading list of developments in public law. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources.
The Zimbabwe Electronic Law Journal Commentary on Contemporary Legal Issues The Editorial Board of this new electronic journal comprises: Dr T. Mutangi, Professor L. Madhuku and Dr.
I. Maja (co-Chief editors) and Professors J. . Lycoming County Court Opinions The database contains over opinions issued by the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas since Browse - All of the opinions are listed below, with the most recently posted opinion at the top.