Judicial Review Proceedings Essay

The Judicial review of laws passed could prevent a bill being passed if it is thought to be against the legislature of the United Kingdom. For example a trade union taking Government to court over trade union laws.

The next court appeal is the Victorian High Court. This is the next court higher than the supreme court and is the only court that can decide whether the decision is too harsh or not severe enough. Therefore the high court can change decisions made by the supreme court judge.

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

in which this decision is made. In some jurisdictions, the cases may be decided upon

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

first look at the validity of the court and of the entity of authority itself.

Adjudication is the administrative equivalent of a judicial trial. Under adjudication, individual cases are heard by law judges within agencies and a body of rules is developed (Kettl, 2015). Adjudication differs from rulemaking in that it applies only to a specific, limited number of parties involved in an individual case before the agency (Vago, 2015). The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) separates adjudication from rulemaking by stating that adjudication is an agency process for the formulation of an order and an order is a final disposition in a matter other than rulemaking. There is formal and informal adjudication. Formal adjudication involves some kind of hearing, whereas informal adjudication takes place in settings that are non-confrontational and often not even face-to-face and is undertaken by non-hearing deciders (Cane, 2009). Adjudications can take many forms, but generally can be grouped into law enforcement adjudications (such as those conducted by the Federal Trade Commission) benefits adjudications (such as those conducted by the Social Security Administration) and licensing and permit adjudications (such as those conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency) (Forte and Spalding,

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

This essay will explore the changes that Article 263 TFEU has had to the accessibility of judicial review before the CJEU as well as assessing whether the reforms introduced were sufficient enough in improving a private parties ability to bring government decisions under scrutiny. In addition, the judgments of the Court in Inuit and Microban will be considered. This essay will analyse present criticisms of the definition set out in the two cases and the overall effect of the new article.

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.

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 .

They will review the case using their experience and the evidence brought before them (descriptive documents, witness statements) followed by both parties Submissions. Once the Tribunal has come to its decision, it becomes legally binding to both parties and can only be appealed if the Tribunal has made mistake in the application of the law or the judgement was one which no reasonable tribunal could have reached.

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.

This essay will discuss how Irish courts have applied the doctrine of precedent. It will review the advantages and disadvantages of the doctrine of Stare Decisis. Additionally, it will compare and contrast the Supreme Court and the High Court with regards to its position on precedent. It will show that precedent is not a ‘binding unalterable rule’, as stated in Rigoni in Common-Law judicial reasoning and Analogy, by explaining the practice of distinguishing. It build a clear picture of the flexibility of the courts when it comes to precedent. Although precedent is largely unquestioned by Irish Courts, that doesn’t mean that it’s a rigid, fixed rule.

If the judiciary are intentionally straying into matters of governmental policy then they as unelected, impartial adjudicators should only do so when cases arise that call for such action, potentially when governmental action threatens the rule of law – a right afforded to them as a constitutional check on governmental power. While the judiciary can be viewed as in a constant skirmish with the Legislature and the Executive much of the judiciary’s power to interoperate statutes liberally comes from powers delegated to it by parliament .