Giant impact theory Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Giant impact theory - Assignment Example Grains of dust collided and formed bigger objects known as planetesimals. During collisions, many planetesimals break up during collision but the larger ones survive and become protoplanets and later planets. If these planetesimals had remained stationary, the solar system would be made of thousands of small objects such as planetesimals without any planets. Life would have been possible in small objects. Alternatively, planets would have been small. The third scenario is solar system would have formed. Larger planets have more internal heat to lose compared to smaller planets. In addition, there is proportionally smaller surface area to lose the heat from. The larger the planet, the bigger the less the surface are per unit volume. Small worlds or planets cool faster than the big world. When the planets completely cool off, they become geologically dead (Seeds, Michael and Backman 15). Planet earth is yet to cool of completely and this means it is geologically active. Activities taking place at the core of the earth are responsible for volcanism, movement of tectonic plates, cratering and others. Bigger plants are more geologically active. If rotation is faster, geologic activities

Procedure course work Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Procedure course work - Essay Example Subsequently, the court executing an appeal will be able to correct errors, which are made in judicial decisions in trial or those made in magistrates’ courts1. However, the upper court has no authority to amend the decisions reached by the magistrates. The upper court can sent back the case to the lower or magistrates’ courts for reconsideration. At the same time, according to the provisions, the upper court has to give reasons for the decisions made in order to eliminate any possible ground for judicial review2. In accordance with the scenario, the Ministry of Justice should review the process in relation to the right to appeals, which are made in the upper court against a sentence and/or conviction. Accordingly, the proposal made by the Ministry of Justice emphasises on removing the right to appeal to High Court by way of case stated or judicial review. Moreover, the proposal advocates that the right to appeal to Crown Court should be amended accordingly so that the judicial process of a re-hearing can be developed as time-efficient. Appeal from the Magistrates' Court to Crown Court As per rules as well as regulations of the judicial systems of the UK, appeals can be made to the Crown Court on certain grounds and provisions. These provisions are recognised to be governed under the ‘Part 63 Criminal Procedure Rules 2010’ (â€Å"the Rules†). The Crown Court is statutorily obliged to deal with cases, which are appealed from magistrates’ courts on certain specific conditions as mentioned below. Conviction and/or sentences, which are made in magistrates courts (section108 Magistrates Courts Act 1980) Orders linking hospital or guardianship (section 45(1) Mental Health Act 1983) Failure of an individual to conform with supervision order (paragraph 11, schedule 3 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000) Failure in making orders associated with football banning orders (section14A(5A) Football Spectators Act 1989) Sour ce: 3 The Crown Court is also provided with the provision of modifying any sentences as well as any other orders made within a time frame of 56 days from the day on which the decision was made. In certain incidents in case of dismissing an appeal, the Crown Court is required to provide reasons and factors, which are accountable for such an occurrence. It is in this context that the provisions oblige the Crown Court to justify reasons responsible for the rendered decisions. In the case of [R v Harrow Crown Court ex p. Dave [1994] 1 All ER 315, [1994] ! WLR 98] and [R -v- Knightsbridge Crown Court ex p International Sporting Club [1981] 3 All ER 417, [1982] QB 304] it has been identified that it is one of the mandatory duties of the judges to provide appropriate reasons for the decisions as well as the dismissal of appeal of any appellant4. In this context, refusing to provide reasons and information relating to decisions as well as denial of appeal will act as a violation of Article 6 ‘European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR), which may lead to judicial review of the case5. Stating precisely, the right to appeal is offered to parties who make appeal against certain convictions and/or sentences. According to ‘Part 63 Criminal Procedure Rules’, the application must be made within the 21 days of actual hearing conducted by the magistrates’