guidelines unless otherwise stated. With this in mind, we ask you to use your judgement in regards to a

In 2009, Miller found herself at a turning point: She had been offered both a magistrate's position in Sydney and a residency at the National Theatre in London.

Serviceable play about an important topic, and I’m always interested in one-person show-style things. How far can you stretch the form? I received this book in the mail before I went to London to see Jodie Comer’s impeccable performance. I’m glad that I listened to my gut and waited to read this because now, I am reliving that day through the words in print. This book/play I really can’t find the words for but SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE! Coming from one of the one in three, our voices deserve to be heard. Be the voice, not an echo. Under this form of ethics you can't justify an action by showing that it produced good consequences, which is why it's sometimes called 'non-Consequentialist'. This resonates strongly with disapproving comments such as "he's just using her", and it underpins the idea that "the end can never justify the means".

Kant then pondered what this meant for human conduct. He concluded that only an action done for 'a good will' was a right action, regardless of the consequences.if the ethical rule you claim to be following cannot logically be made a universal rule, then it is not a valid moral rule.

Supreme Court of India in Marin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee (1958)pronounced that when determining whether a prima facie case has been established, the relevant consideration is whether it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question based on the evidence presented and whether that was the only conclusion that could be reached based on that evidence. Tune into RN's Big Weekend Of Books at 10am, Saturday June 17, to hear Miller in conversation with Sarah Kanowski. That some fact intensifies a reason provided by some other facts does not in principle prevent the intensifier from also providing a reason to do the same act. I am not aware of a principled reason for supposing that intensifiers cannot also be reasons. So one way of making Phillips' interpretation of Ross consistent with ER would be to suppose that the facts that figure in Ross's special obligations are both intensifiers and reasons. But this is not Phillips' view, and I think it would exaggerate the role that special obligations play. My view is, therefore, that this is a philosophically uncharitable reading of Ross. In 2022, adapted to account for the UK legal system, Prima Facie opened on the West End, in the 800-seat Harold Pinter Theatre; the National Theatre Live recording of that production received a global cinema release. I realised that the floral sofa was my mum's sofa. Even to this day … when that line comes up, I cry," Miller says. The impact of Prima Facie

A prosecution merely needs to present reliable evidence in support of each element of a crime to establish a prima facie case. To achieve a conviction, the prosecution must show the defendant’s guilt on each factor beyond a reasonable doubt. What is the prima facie proof standard? She started devouring plays and took acting classes, realising in the process that she "deeply understood" characters. But having another reason as well as duty doesn't stop an action from being right, so long as duty was the ‘operational reason’ for our action.

recommendations are subjective and should be treated as guidelines unless otherwise stated. With this in mind, we I now move on to my exegetical disagreement, which relates to Phillips' interpretation of the prima facie duties of fidelity, reparation, and gratitude. He argues that these special obligations are best understood as agent-relative intensifiers of the sort of reasons that ideal consequentialists already endorse. To clarify this idea, Phillips focuses on promises, but it is easy to see how it would apply to gratitude and reparation. The idea is that these non-consequentialist considerations are morally relevant, not by providing additional reasons to consequentialist reasons, but by intensifying reasons already recognised by the consequentialist. The mere fact that my act would benefit you in some way gives me a reason to do this act. If I promise that I will give you this benefit, then I have more reason to confer it on you. But this is not because the fact that I promised gives me a further reason. Rather it is because my promise intensifies the single reason I have independently of any promise made. Instead of introducing a fictional journalist to provide the novel’s epilogue, Miller could have pushed her own story toward the realms of journalism in formally interesting ways. Such a book would be a unique text, and perfect as a set text for high school students. The Latin phrase res ipsa loquitur means the object speaks for itself. The primary distinction between prima facie and res ipsa loquitur cases is that prima facie cases require numerous pieces of evidence to be valid and go to trial. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, on the other hand, states that the facts of the case are self-evident and do not require any supporting evidence to make them so. How do you establish a prima facie case? According to sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Code, every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint, and according to sub-section (2) of the same section, facts must be established by affidavit in every plaint. An example of prima facie evidence in a civil case

I really did have a bit of a passion in my belly to change the world. That was the reason I did law," she says. Jodie Comer’s West End stage debut is a baptism of fire by any standards. A one-woman play about a lawyer who specialises in defending men accused of sexual assault, until she is assaulted herself, it demands frenetic, non-stop physical and emotional engagement from its lead.