Judicial Conduct Tracing

The Act created the Supreme Court and the lower court system. The check in power for the President on the judiciary is the ability to appoint the judges to their seat, typically the judge shares the views of the president that appointed them.

Judicial independence is a concept of constitutional law that requires the judiciary o be kept away from all other arms of the government. It requires that the judiciary be free from influence from the other arms of the government and any private individuals. It is vital for the doctrine of separation of powers. Judicial accountability is a principle that brings the concept of keeping the judiciary under scrutiny. It requires that the judiciary and judicial officers be held accountable for their actions while in office (Seibert-Fohr & Muller 2012, p.10). This essay is aimed at discussing these two principles and assess whether the change in the Australian judicial appointments process would enhance judicial independence and judicial accountability with a view of making recommendations where changes are necessary.

Critically assess the applicability of this statement as an analysis of the current approach of the judiciary to statutory interpretation in Australia.

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

Another institution that protects our rights is shown by this case, the principle of separation of powers is on display, simply put the principle of the separation of powers refers to the three different branches of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) and how they provide for a system of checks and balances for one another (Donald Carper, 2011) ensuring all parts act within the scope of their powers. This is outlined by the fact that the actions of the executive where investigated by the courts to see if their actions were in compliance with the Australian Constitution and other relevant legislation passed, by ensuring that the government’s actions were in accordance with the rules stated in the constitution it was ensured that the government acted within its scope and there was no abuse of power, because if this system of checks and balances did not exist than there would be no way to stop one of the bodies from overstretching and doing something that is outside of their power, we need to hold institutions accountable in order to ensure people’s rights are protected and governments cannot implement any policy that they wish. Individuals may disagree about the outcomes of particular cases but it is vital to our democracy and our rights that all the outcomes of cases are based on the Constitution and the relevant legislation, by having everything follow a set guideline and by having systems to enforce these guidelines we ensure institutions

The independence of the judiciary from the executive and legislative is said to kept by things like their fixed salaries and sub judice rule. Their salaries ‘are paid from the Consolidated Fund’ and aren’t fixed or changeable by Parliament or the government which keeps the judiciary free from political pressure in terms of finance. The sub judice rule is where the MPs in the House of Commons are unable to comment on current or pending cases. This keeps the judiciary free from political interference and prevents prejudice against judicial decisions. This rule is followed by

To hold hearings upon complaints relating to violations of different areas of this act and guidelines and stipulations incorporated in relation to this act and pursue prosecution of and enjoinder of all said violations.

It is recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of reform, if the

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 clerk otherwise known as the legal adivisor has to be qualified as a barrister or solicitor for at least five years. The clerk’s duty is to guide the magistrates on the question of law, practice and procedure. The clerk can not assist in the decision making and should not normally retire with the magistrates when they make their discisions. Clerks deal with ruotine admistrative matters such as issuing warrents for arrest, extend poilce bail, adhourn criminal procedings and deal with Early Adminisitrative Hearings. As lay magistrates perform an important role by being in charge over the vast majority of criminal cases, they enjoy the same advantage of immunity from suit as the rest of the judiciary as highlighted in Waltham Forest (1986) whereby the Court of Appeal held that

Summary: Profiling isn’t only used to find suspects; it can also be used in civil courts. Families that may want to rule their loved ones’ death as an accident & not suicide can rely on a profiler to prove this in order to receive benefits from their life insurance. There are two paths to admissions of evidence. First path of attorney tries to introduce the original report prepared by the profiler to demonstrate or propose to a jury that the defendant matches or doesn’t match. When defense attorney introduces a profile, it is to convince that the profiler does not match their client. In the second path profilers report the comparison for two or more crimes, case linkage. In trail courts, judge and juries hear and weight evidence and decide

This paper aims to explore the Legal Services Act 2007 and the impact the Act has had on the role of a Costs Lawyer since implementation.

The power to strike down Acts of Parliament is defined as the power to declare legislation invalid because it is unconstitutional. This paper will critically assess sections 3 and 4 of the HRA 1998 by defining them, reviewing case law surrounding their use, and by evaluating the powers that they give to the judiciary. By doing so, it will demonstrate that section 3 gives judges powers that are not significantly different from the power to strike down Acts of Parliament, whereas section 4 does not.

The International Commission of Jurists-- Australian Section was founded in 1958 chaired by the then Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Owen Dixon OM GCMG. Sir Own Dixon became the founding President and has a long line of successors including my supervisor and current President, the Honorable John Down AO QC (International Commission of Jurists - Australian Section). The office I work in is that of the President where it is myself and my supervisor doing work for the International Commission of Jurists. There are no other members present on a daily basis as many of them have other positions besides being members of the ICJ. My supervisor and the President of the ICJ also has many other positions to tend to making the work very diverse in nature. “John Dowd is President, International Commission of Jurists Australia; Deputy President, New South Wales Mental Health Review Tribunal, President, ActionAid Australia (formerly Austcare); Goodwill Ambassador, Cerebral Palsy Alliance; former Chancellor, Southern Cross University” (The Honorable John Dowd AO QC).

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.