The Doctrine Of Natural Justice

xiii) Influence of EU ensures that altering UK constitution is hard – cannot be incompatible

One of the tenets of law has always been the ideal that Parliament is wholly sovereign, being the conclusive controlling factor on which the United Kingdom constitution is based. Yet not all ideals are taken and translated into reality. The statement from Lord Hope in R (Jackson) v AG challenges the sovereignty of Parliament, by demonstrating that there may be limits to Parliamentary sovereignty of which can be seen through the proceedings of the R (Jackson) v AG case, Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, and HS2. Whilst conclusively determining that the rule of law is the ultimate controlling fact on which the United Kingdom’s constitution is based. Although counter-arguments can be taken from this statement and the appropriate cases, of which

6. On what basis are Charter fundamental rights and freedoms open to restriction by Parliament or the provincial legislatures? Answer: Fundamental rights and freedoms may be restricted under s. 1 if the restriction can be shown to "be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Rights and freedoms may be "temporarily" overridden by the "notwithstanding" clause (s. 33) as well. 7. Why is the doctrine of stare decisis an important part of the Common Law system? Answer: The doctrine of stare decisis is the theory of precedent. Judges are expected to apply previous decisions to similar cases which come before them in order to maintain a degree of consistency in the law. By following this doctrine, the law is not only consistent, but others can predict how the law may be applied in similar. 8. How does the Common Law differ from the principles of equity? From statute law? Answer: Common Law and equity have different roots. The common law was the product of the common law courts. The principles of equity were originally principles or rules which the King applied in settling disputes which did not fall within the jurisdiction of the common law courts. Later, the King's Court (Chancery) used

“There is no formal requirement for Courts to treat the Strasbourg Court as creating legal precedent for the UK. Such a requirement was introduced in the Human Rights Act, and it is for Parliament to decide whether or not it should continue. Many European countries, including Germany, do not place such a requirement on their national

Within this essay, the Theory of Justice will be broke down. It will lay out some personal information on John Rawls. It will give the principles of the theory and explain what they mean. It will also explain how the principles of these theories differ from traditional utilitarianism. Lastly it will show how justice is defined by modern criminal justice agencies and other entities involved in the criminal justice system and how it differs from security.

Equity has been described as a ‘mysterious creature’ that lies distinctly alongside the common law. In considering the statement, there is an almost linear reversal in which the remedies in equity procure a type of right not necessarily available in the common law. This peculiar jurisdiction has created consistent controversy especially in regards to the fusion of the common law and equity. To understand further, this essay will consider the relationship between equity and the common law. The development of equity alongside the common law through its history and intention, and application in case law will be imperative in the discussion of the statement. In conjunction with an analysis of fusion, it will become apparent that equitable damages were enlivened, separate to, in unfair circumstances where no rights/damages existed within the common law. In trying to tread the murky waters of the distinction yet the procedural fusion of equity and common law, the contention of this essay becomes apparent. Effectively, this essay aims to highlight that the history, intention, application and fusion fallacies regarding equity, all which point to an assertion that rights in equity are indeed the product of its remedies. Whether they are merely ‘two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters’, is yet to be seen.

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.

In today’s society Christian seem to find a way to justify the idea of "restorative justice". We have always found a way to develop some sort of program or the other to deal with the crimes in our neighborhoods by using this concept. Marshall cross examines the new testament text in regards to crime and punishment and uses this to address Christians. He states that “My premise is that the first Christians experienced in Christ and lived out in their faith communities an understanding of justice as a power that heals, restores, and reconciles rather than hurts, punishes, and kills, and that this reality ought to shape and direct a Christian contribution to the criminal justice debate today (p. 33).” Marshall says: “The logic of the cross actually confounds the principle of retributive justice, for salvation is achieved not by the offender compensating for his crimes by suffering, but by the victim, the one offended against, suffering vicariously on behalf of the offended - (pp. 65 & 66).” Finally, he sees Jesus as symbol of God’s justice, and his way to not retaliate.

Under Art. 267, only ‘court or tribunal’ of a member state may initiate preliminary reference to the ECJ, however through succeeding case law this has been expanded by allowing entities whose members may not be judges, ‘provided that those entities have the power to adjudicate disputes’12. This concept of a court or tribunal has been interpreted widely as it is a matter of union law13. The Advocate-General in De Coster14 criticised the court’s approach and criteria to the interpretation as he deemed it confusing. The court in this instance accepted the reference, as ‘it was a permanent body established in law, that it gives legal rulings and that the jurisdiction is compulsory’15. The court in further cases has treated tribunals as not only tax appeal like in the case above but also; customs, social security and immigration.

The issue arising from the Monique’s case is the direct applicability of the Treaty Articles and the direct or indirect effect of Directives, provided by the European Union.

“…No matter how plain a women may be if truth and loyalty are stamped upon her face all will be attracted to her...” Anna Eleanor Roosevelt was born on October 11, 2014 in New York City, New York. She was the only the only daughter of Anna Hall and Elliot Roosevelt; she was the middle child in her trio of siblings. Her brothers were Elliot Roosevelt Jr. and Gracie Hall Roosevelt who were the oldest and youngest siblings respectively. The Roosevelt siblings encountered trauma at a young age. Their mother passed away when Eleanor was only eight years old and their father passed away shortly after, when Eleanor just turned

To counteract terrorism post 9/11, the UK government enacted new anti-terrorism laws. Although these measures were necessary to combat terrorism and preserve national security, arguably they have introduced new challenges to the rule of law (“ROL”) by failing to apply the full normative value of substantive and procedural rights. Yet, Parpworth considers that the judiciary has been willing to uphold the ROL in order to preserve the normative value of individual rights. This essay will evaluate this conception by assessing whether the judiciary has been willing to scrutinise government action. Case law reveals that the clash between executive discretion and the judiciary’s willingness to uphold the ROL has resulted in a “fault line” which runs between the judgments leading to a mixture of approach. While some judgments grant the executive a wide discretion on matters relating to national security, others reflect judicial willingness to interfere with the exercise of executive discretion, illustrating considerable resistance to the executive.

Over the last 50 years there has been immense change in the law of equity. This can be well justified by the maxim, for example, ‘where the equities are same, the first in time happens’, and the impact on happenings, as well as interest which are conflicting in nature and the maxim ‘ equity behave in personam’ its impact on the working of the law outside the judgement. The whole structure has been implemented with the aim of providing maximum benefit. The statement ‘ flexible when law appears to be dominant, discretionary when law appears to be obligatory and humane in its concern for justice rather than rights clearly signifies the development of equity over the past 50 years. As a matter of fact, equity entails discretionary features both in terms of application and even its extent which have a deep impact on the issue related to domestic, as well as international law . By and by equitable principles came out as a support to the Roman, as well as English common law which are done in order to enhance or correct the body of civil law.

My assignment will be a discussion about Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the HRA 1998. I will explore the article and define it in detail. I will explain why this article is particularly important for a Police officer/Investigator dealing with an offender from the beginning of a case until a court appearance. Furthermore I will discuss the possible consequences if the Police officer/Investigator fails to comply with Article 6. Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) has been developed over centuries, originally copied from sources such as the “Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights and the common law.” (Fair Trial, 2014) But is now Article 6. Article 6 derived from the European convention on Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe and was signed in Rome (Italy) on 4 November 1950 by 12 member states of the Council of Europe and entered into force on 3 September 1953. Article 6 was created during the aftermath of World War Two, when motivated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The universal Declaration of Human Rights “proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1948;” (Rights) It was thought to be a wider response of the Allied Powers in distributing a human rights agenda, in the hopes that the violations of human