Essay on the function of Judicial Review
PUBLIC LAW ASSIGNMENT 2 MICHAEL ROBERTS TUTOR GROUP L ANNELIESE BLACKWOOD 'The primary purpose of judicial review ... is to keep the powers of government within their legal bounds, so as to protect the citizen against their abuse.' Discuss with reference to the common law grounds of review. Judicial review is a process which is widely recognised to incorporate three functions or purposes. Firstly there is the function whereby citizens of the state who have been wronged and caused grievance by a public authority may be redressed. Secondly there is the 'normative and expository' role which encourages good governance through the promotion of fundamental principles. Finally, as the title statement propounds, there is the control of government element which helps to ensure that the power exerted by parliament and public authorities does not go unchecked, although judicial review is only concerned with the procedural correctness and legitimacy of such power and usually administrative or political checks are present to assess the merits of decisions made1. The most effective way to explore these purposes would be to go through the three common law grounds of judicial review as set out by Diplock LJ in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety) plus the effects of the Human Rights Act
IMPOSING LIABILITY ON OMISSIONS
Foundations of Criminal Law Level 2 LLB LAW Student ID: 33165044 Year: 2006/07 Word count: 1486 I certify that this is my own work. The work has not in whole or in part, been presented elsewhere for assessment. Where material has been used from other sources it has been properly acknowledgement. If this statement is untrue I acknowledged that I will have committed an assessment offence. I also certify that I have taken a copy of this assignment, which I will retain until after the Board of Examiners has published results and which I will make available on request. In recent times the criminal law has been concerned with imposing liability for omissions. However, this was not the case in the past as the law was more concerned with the prohibition and punishment of positive acts (Card, 2004). 'An act is the most common basis of the actus reus' (ibid, p57). The actus reus of an offence is its conduct element. It 'describes what the defendant must be proved to have done (or sometimes failed to do), in what circumstances, and with what consequences' (Herring, 2006, p85). Before proceeding further it is necessary to clarify what is meant by an omission. An omission is the failure to act which can sometimes give rise to criminal liability and this failure to act can constitute the actus reus of an offence (Herring, 2006). According to Herring (2006, p88), the criminal law on
This paper will deal with the common law legal system as a legal transplant, focusing on the reception of the common law in South East Asian jurisdictions, before comparing it with that of East Asian India to analyse how the common law functions and evolv
Introduction This paper will deal with the common law legal system as a legal transplant, focusing on the reception of the common law in South East Asian jurisdictions, before comparing it with that of East Asian India to analyse how the common law functions and evolves as a legal transplant. We will start with an analysis of the historical, socio-cultural and political contexts of the respective countries, from which we can assess the extent of reception in each of these and the resultant issues that arise. Finally we will attempt to arrive at an understanding of the common law as a legal transplant, how it is beneficial and why it evolves differently in the respective countries. Legal Systems as Legal Transplants The term "legal transplants" was coined by Alan Watson to refer to "the moving of a rule... from one country to another, or from one people to another". This involves the spread of cultural items between individuals in the "continual mass borrowing... of rules" which Watson asserts is "the most fertile source of legal development". Watson's theory of legal transplants has been met with great criticism, from being "flawed" with "unconvincing" empirical evidence to "not [being] a theory at all"1. Some insist that legal transplants are impossible, as proponents of legal transplants must accept that law is simply a body of rules, and these rules are bare
Consider the view that the royal prerogative is insufficiently controlled by either Parliament or the judiciary.
In historical times the royal prerogative was regarded as the sum total of the rights ascribed to the Monarch as feudal lord paramount over the entire realm. Dicey1defines prerogative in a more contemporary sense as the "discretionary authority of the Executive", explaining that this means everything which the Monarch or her servants can do without the authority of an Act of Parliament. Few prerogatives are exercised directly by the Monarch today. While some governmental powers are conferred or defined by statute the prerogative powers of the Executive exist in virtue of customary common law. Dicey's definition of Rule of Law states, in part, that there should be no arbitrary government power. Parliamentary procedure and judicial review are forms of control which when imposed, by the Legislature and the Courts respectively, upon the Executive enable compliance with this understanding of the Rule of Law. Government is dependent upon the support of Parliament for its existence. Ministers of the Executive must account to Parliament and be responsible for their exercise of the royal prerogative. These obligations of accountability and responsibility are owed both to the Legislature and to the various parliamentary select committees. The Separation of Powers doctrine requires the Legislature to assume the responsibility to influence, constrain, and demand justification for the
Criminal Justice System of Great Britain
The Role of the Trial The role of the judicial system is to protect the innocent, to pass judgement and to serve an appropriate form of punishment on convicted felons. This may include receiving a custodial sentence, serving a specified amount of community service or incurring a disqualification or penalty fine. All criminal cases in the UK initially commence in the same system. However the severity and details of the offence will affect the following: which court the accused may be trialled and sentenced in, the criminal proceedings and the level of punishment received. This essay will examine the differing categories of offence and describe the role of the trial to provide a basic overview of the Crown and Magistrates court systems of Great Britain. The criminal court system has two rankings. The lower is the Magistrates' Court and the higher ranking is the Crown Court. The Youth Court established in 1992 is a separate less formal division of the Magistrates' Court. It was set up for the trial and punishment of minors aged between ten and seventeen years old. Young offenders too young to be trialled as adults (unless they are being tried alongside an adult) and old enough to know right from wrong are forced to face the consequences of their actions. The youth justice system can impose sentences up to 24 months detention in a young offenders unit or a fixed amount of
What is the meaning of the term 'measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction' for the purposes of Article 28 EC?
Samantha Nicholson Seminar Leader - Harm Schepel European Law - LW511 What is the meaning of the term 'measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction' for the purposes of Article 28 EC? Article 28, whilst appearing relatively clear on first reading, has proved problematic and therefore produced a string of case law and discussion, which continues on today. The Article states "Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States.".1 This initially seems very clear in its implication. No Member State can restrict the quantity of imports from other member states. It is in the second part, the measures having equivalent effect (MEQR's) that the problems arise. In order to define the term 'measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction' one needs to trace the problems and decisions arising from this issue. This can be discussed in three different sections. Firstly, the definition of an MEQR as it stood in the cases prior to Keck2, and Directive 70/50. Secondly the changes created by the decision in Keck and other cases which followed this judgement. Finally, there are the decisions post Keck, and the fact that they have largely regressed to the decisions taken before this case. MEQR's can essentially be split into two categories; those that directly or indirectly discriminate against imported goods, and
EVALUATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY EFFECTIVE PROTECTION AGAINST THE EXCESSES OF EXECUTIVE POWER
EVALUATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY EFFECTIVE PROTECTION AGAINST THE EXCESSES OF EXECUTIVE POWER Firstly, in order to provide an adequate evaluation, 'constitutional conventions' and the 'executive' must be defined. The 'executive' can de described as the section of the state that creates policy and is responsible for the operation of those policies (Barnett, 2002). Therefore in formal terms the sovereign is the head of the executive although in practice this position lies primarily with the Prime Minister, his cabinet, and other ministers, followed by those in the Police and the armed forces. Whilst most countries have a written constitution to define the rules, regulations and practices of an executive, Britain (along with Israel and New Zealand) has no such document. It thus follows that formal protections against the exercise of power which exist in those countries with a written constitution do not exist in Britain (Bradley and Ewing, 2003). Instead, the British constitution has three sources of rules: Acts of Parliament; judicial precedent; and non legal rules known as constitutional conventions, (Allen and Thompson, 2002). A.V. Dicey (1965) defines constitutional conventions as: "...understandings, habits or practices which, though they may regulate the conduct of the several members of the sovereign power, of the
The distinctions between void and voidable marriages serve no purpose in modern family law and should be abolished.
Family Law 22114 2002-13295 Written Work 2003-2004 Semester1 The distinctions between void and voidable marriages serve no purpose in modern family law and should be abolished. Discuss To discuss the distinctions between void and voidable marriages, we must first establish that they are not the sole types of marriage. Firstly, there is a valid marriage; one where the ceremony follows the correct formalities and there are no defects at all. The fourth, and often ignored category is that of non-marriage; a ceremony that is so far removed from a valid marriage, it is not a marriage at all, e.g. in the case of Ghandi v Patel1. In answering the question, it is inevitable that we discuss the grounds for void and voidable marriages and the differences between them. The law tells us in the Marriage Act 1949, what is a valid marriage, and in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the law tells us how a marriage is void or voidable. A void marriage is a marriage that never existed (void ab initio - void from the beginning), whereas a voidable marriage is valid until it is annulled. Marriage is a status relationship. Formality is extremely important, if not essential to a valid marriage. Heterosexual sex is a central feature of marriage also. Many grounds for a voidable marriage and grounds for divorce relate to sex. Although formalities exist for marriage ceremonies,
Why Do The Vast Majority Of Defendants Plead Guilty In Court?
The Criminal Justice Process Why Do The Vast Majority Of Defendants Plead Guilty In Court? This essay will discuss with reference to research evidence, why the majority of defendants plead guilty in court. Over 90% of defendants plead guilty in a magistrates' court and approximately 70% plead guilty in a Crown Court. (Ashworth, 1994). However over 10% of people who plead guilty in the Crown Court declare that they are actually innocent. (Cited in Sanders, 1997). In Zander and Henderson's (1993) study they discovered that 11% of defendants who pleaded guilty claimed they were innocent. (Ashworth, 1994). Differences have been found across geographical areas for several years, for example in the late 1980's, 80% of defendants pleaded guilty in the Northern circuit compared to 50% in the South-East and 40% in London. The reason for these differences has not been found. (Ashworth,1994). Sanders (1997) stated that in the United Kingdom 'police and prosecution pre-trial practices are geared in large part to securing guilty pleas.' (Cited in Sanders, 1997:1078). Securing guilty pleas are vital to the criminal courts because they save valuable time and money. For example, in a contested trail at the Crown Court the hearing usually takes about 10 hours, whereas it only takes approximately one hour if the plea is guilty. Research from the Home Office has shown that the
criminal law assignment
Criminal Law Law 113 Alan Reed Assignment 2 ~ Criminal Problem Gemma Bolt ~ 053047962 Table of Cases * Abdul-Husain and Others [1999] Crim.L.R 570 * Allan [1965] 1 Q.B. 130: [1963] 3 W.L.R. 677 * Bainbridge [1960] 1 Q.B. 129: [1959] 3 W.L.R. 656 * Brown [1985] Crim.L.R 367 * Clarkson [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1402: [1971] 3 ALL E.R. 344 * Cole [1994] Crim.L.R. 582 * Doughty (1986) 83 Cr.App.R. 319: [1986] Crim.L.R. 625 * DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975] A.C. 653: [1975] 2 W.L.R. 641 * DPP for Northern Ireland v. Maxwell: sub nom. DPP v. Maxwell [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1350 * DPP v. Camplin [1978] A.C. 705: [1978] 2 W.L.R. 67 * Duffy [1949] 1 ALL E.R. 932 * Hudson and Taylor [1971] 2 Q.B. 202: [1971] 2 W.L.R. 1047 * Lomas 1913 * Olugboja [1982] Q.B. 320: [1981] 3 W.L.R. 585 * Ryan (1996) 160 J.P. 610: Crim.L.R. 320 * Smith Morgan [2000] 3 W.L.R. 654: [2000] 4 ALL E.R. 289 * White [1910] 2 K.B. 124 * Woolin [1999] 1 A.C. 82: [1998] 3 W.L.R. 382 Table of Statutes * Criminal Attempts Act 1981 Elizabeth II HMSO * Sexual Offences Act 2003 Elizabeth II HMSO ss 1 & 63 * Theft Act 1968 Elizabeth II HMSO s9(1)a The question at hand is to discover the criminal liability of Alan, Titus, Celestine, Shay and Shola. Firstly Alan is part of a joint enterprise which is where two or more people are committed to carrying out a common offence1. Here the joint enterprise is
