Jaga vs. D

Legislation is a law or act which has been enacted by a governing body. Legislation can have many purposes: to regulate, authorize, provide (funds), declare or to restrict. Legislations are important throughout any work environment and society as without them we are not protected from

There are a multitude of other factors that affect the passing of legislation, and the exploration of these factors is the subject of future scholarly research in the

The proposition by Austin to reduce various types of law into a single form, as command of the Sovereign backed with sanctions had invited much criticism. One of the flaws in his proposition is that not every law is coercive in the way that it is backed with sanction. To view law as command backed by threats of sanction is to overlook a significant part of the legal system.

Statutory interpretation is the legal process whereby a judge applies a statute to a case and must give meaning to the words in the statute in order to decide what they mean and how it should be applied to a particular case. When interpreting statutes, the judges’ role is to put into effect the Parliaments wishes. Conflicts may arise when deciding if the intention of Parliament can be found in the words of the statute itself or whether judges should acquire into the purpose of the Act then interpret the words themselves. In order to interpret these

Although Callinan J in the Workchoices’ Case does not give full merit to these justifications, a textual approach to the interpretation of the constitution expressed in Engineers’ Case it not without its reasons. There are numerous considerations that need to be weighed when determining the appropriate methodology for constitutional interpretation. A major determining factor is the practicability of its legal application, and its ability to appropriately and fairly resolve issues entrenched in the text of the constitution. The following arguments provide a support for textualism, and a criticism of other methodologies.

“Their present decision is equivalent to a repeal of law and the making of law. This is not adjudication, it is mere usurpation. It is the substitution of mere arbitrary will in the place of the solemn and responsible functions of an impartial judicature.”[1]

One of the fundamental principles of the Criminal Law System is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (McSherry, 2003). By enacting punitive legislation such as the examples given above, it has been said that it is removing this Common law right from the individual (Greig, 1995). It has also been said that it creates an exception to the general principle of law that no person shall be imprisoned unless a court comprised of Judge/Jury is convinced, beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed a very serious offence. Thereby effectively allowing people to be detained without the burden of proving guilt (Keon-Cohen, 1992).

Manifesto sees the decision of the supreme court as “clear abuse of judicial power” (1).

They appealed on penalty, The hearing officer made fundamental errors in both principals and law. She considered disciplinary matters for 1999 and 2000 which clearly postdated 1997 offence, when making the decision of the 12 day suspension she clearly had antecedents in her mind. Clearly they where not antecedents and should not have been considered. After getting a new hearing they decided that

Legislation is essential in order for a civilised society to function effectively and appropriately and to provide standardised

It appears based on the facts presented that Ruth’s arrest was lawful, Amijt was granted the power of arrest by s24A(1)(a) PACE 1984. Furthermore, both of the necessity criteria for an arrest in s24A(3)(a) and s24A(3)(b) PACE 1984 were satisfied. There were sufficient necessity factors as stated in s24A(4) PACE 1984 which applied to the facts. The necessity factors included s24A(4)(c) and s34A(4)(d) PACE 1984.

Some judges in their obiter dicta have declared their inclination to disregard the Parliament’s legislative objectives, and therefore limit parliamentary sovereignty if the rule of law is vulnerable or if the circumstances demand “a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism” . They have also suggested that, while the British Constitution is dominated by parliamentary sovereignty, “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” . This represents a possibility of stretching the dominance of the rule of law in constitutional law so that it becomes more powerful than parliamentary sovereignty in the British Constitution .

In Li CJ’s judgment in A Solicitor v Law Society of Hong Kong [2008] 2 HKC 1, he commented in paragraph 9 that the “rigid and inflexible adherence by this Court to the previous precedents may unduly inhibit the proper development of the law and may cause injustice in individual cases. The great strength of the common law lies in its capacity to develop to meet the changing needs and circumstances of the society in which it functions.” In this essay, this statement would be discussed with reference to the role of the courts and their relationship to the legislature.

Simon Chesterman, ‘The International Court of Justice in Asia: Interpreting the Temple of Preah Vihear Case’, Asian Journal of International Law 5 (2015), 1

Bhagat Singh admitted his crime and made statements in the court against the British as a tool to publicise their cause of freedom struggle. However, the court ordered the case to be carried out without members of the association who were present at the hearing. This order produced a chaos amongst the supporters of Bhagat Singh.