Graham Murray Observation

This was our first time visiting the court. The historical coach wood and jarrah timber within the structure of the courtroom represented authority and tradition. The high ceilings and the overall architecture instilled a sense of power and security. This was what we expected. We were excited to be in the midst of the rights, privileges and responsibilities of the Australian Judicial System.

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

Case 1 is an appeal to the conviction rendered by District Court Judge Bradley on

Judge Tracey had regard to Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority, in relation to issues with the construction of statutes. The case proposed that in order to define the purpose of a legislation, the extent and aim of the whole statute and the language of the relevant provision should be taken into consideration. Similarly, in “The Engineers Case” the court stated that the language of a statute should be examined in its ordinary and natural sense in order to understand the intent of Parliament behind making it.

The Australian Constitution is a rich amalgam of various classical political principles. The concepts of the Rule of Law and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers evident in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws are both salient examples of political theses that are central to Australian Constitutional Law. The structure of the Constitution itself and decisions of the High Court of Australia unequivocally validate the entrenchment of the doctrine separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution . In particular, the High Court has applied this with relative rigour with respect to the separation of judicial power. The separation of the judicial power is fundamentally critical to upholding the rule of law. The High Court in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs noted that “the separation of the judicial function…advances two constitutional objectives: the guarantee of liberty and, to that end, the independence of Chapter III judges” . Kitto J in R v Davidson also identified that the judiciary should be subject to no other authority but the law itself . This is a critical aspect ensuring the concept of legal equality is upheld. Therefore, its role clearly extends to providing checks and balances on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive arms of government . This ensures the liberty of the law and limits the abuse of the judicial system. Judicial Power is defined as “the power which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide between its subjects

The adversarial nature of Australia’s court system deal with facts and legal implications. Here lies the establishment of such principles that make the law

Having made visits to the Supreme, District and the Local Courts, I was able to obtain a better understanding of the Australian adversarial system. This report will attempt to analyze the distinctions between the different types of courts through primary observations. The report will also assess the models of justice in operation, the triviality of the lower courts compared to the higher courts and assess court procedure in each court.

Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.

The complaint Ms. Payne filed on July 13, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern

This correspondence shall confirm that the undersigned appeared at applicant’s attorney’s office in Stockton, California on April 18, 2017, to complete the applicant’s deposition. The handling attorney, Mr. Rod McClelland, was unable to attend the applicant’s deposition due to an unavoidable calendar conflict. This file will be returned to Mr. McClellan for further defense handling.

It is widely recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of significant reform, if the nation’s present and future need for fair justice is to be met.

Since the early 1990s, Australian judicial system has experienced a great flux revolving around the notion of good faith in the performance the enforcement of contracts. The leading case Renard Construction (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (Renard) along with Preistly JA’s judgment commenced the controversial introduction of universal obligation of good faith in all contracts. Such introduction was also confronted by the opposing force of the more conservative judgments, such as those of Meagher JA in Renard and Gummow J in Service Station Association v Berg Bennett & Associates Pty Ltd . In order to correctly assess the extent to which the High Court of Australia should recognize that in all contracts, parties

In Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Amsden (“the decision”), the Tribunal made findings of professional misconduct against Ms Amsden. Subsequently, they determined that the appropriate disciplinary consequence of was a public reprimand, an order to pay a fine of $5,000, and an order to pay the full costs of the Committee. This paper will outline the legislative and theoretical foundations of legal practitioners’ professional ethics in Western Australia in conjunction with an exploration of the justifications for disciplining legal practitioners. Subsequently, there will be analysis of the Tribunal’s reasons for their findings of professional misconduct against Ms Amsden and the effectiveness of the penalties imposed in achieving the underlying purposes of the system of legal ethics in WA. Particular emphasis will be placed upon Ms Amsden’s conduct in relation to ‘bringing the legal profession into disrepute’; this will necessitate an examination of the concept of law as a profession and its wider role in society.

The courts of the United Kingdom are institutions there are aim justice to all and deliver fair and equal trails. Although ‘fair and equal’ are not always true to some cases along with ‘justice to all’. Never the less either convicting someone for unlawful activity or resolving a civil dispute, the British legal system employs a variety of courts in its application of the law. It much reminds me of my home country the United States the different level of courts I mean. Magistrates courts have the jurisdiction to try minor offences then for more serious offences are referred to the Crown courts. There are also appellate courts, which include the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; formally known as the House of Lords. To

This court case took place in United States District Court in the Northern District of Indiana. This is court case number 82A04-8876-CB285, White vs. Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. The lawyers in this case are Benjamin Walton, xxxxx Van Meter who represent the defendants Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern and Jackson Welch, Amanda Babot who represent the plaintiff Debbie White. The defendants Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern are seeking a summary judgment which is a procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously resolve a