Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on Why did Scott J suggest that search orders had a draconian and essentially unfair nature Columbia Picture Industries Inc. It needs to be at least 1

Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on Why did Scott J suggest that search orders had a draconian and essentially unfair nature Columbia Picture Industries Inc. It needs to be at least 1500 words.

The order was executed at the same time with the police search warrant. The court rules unanimously that the action was not a to contravention human rights laws. However, Scott argues that search orders represent a “draconian and essentially unfair nature”. The doctrine of Anton Piller is one of the most controversial of laws regarding underlying search and entry. Of particular interests is to understand the premises that inform Scott’s stand. Unraveling the “draconian and essentially unfair nature” of the Search order In labeling the search order as “draconian and essentially unfair nature”, one would not miss the point in inferring that Scott felt the orders were far from being justified. Thus, in seeking the premise in which Scott’s stand rests, the question of how unjustified the order was is imperative. Indeed, such a question leads to various sound arguments against the search orders. In particular, it can be inferred that search orders, in all their forms, are generally draconian owing to their nature of lacking adherence to the laws and statutes that protect human rights. Additionally, the Piller principle and other associated principles, such as ex parte, also go against the laws of equitable remedies....

As such, the court may make utilize injunctions, which creates that allowance for inspection of property and conducting searches. Another term is interim injunction. An interim injunction is an order from the court prohibiting a person in a civil suit from doing or compelling to do something and this is in order to maintain the status quo. Indeed, the premises for the ruling may be considered as those consistent with those in the Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd3, wherein it was upheld that the court has the powers to injunct a person from meddling with what is deemed evidence in order to maintain the status quo prior to the issue going to trial. It cannot be disputed that the goals of the provisions are well set. However, they can barely dispel one crucial question­ --- what is then the place of fundamental human rights? Whereas it could be inferred that the court decision was began as a noble means of ensuring justice through interim injunctions, it mutated to become a tool for the abuse of human rights due to most of the order being issued ex parte4. An order issued ex parte is a breach to the stipulations that underlie the bill of rights. Here, Anton Piller law is deemed to be one of the most Draconian of laws since it creates the allowance to acknowledge that the right to privacy, one of the fundamental rights, was breached. The debate on the human rights aspect of the law is however two fold since its contravention of one seems to promote the observance of the other. Article eight of the human rights convention asserts that everyone has the right to respect to his private and family life5.