each change or amendment and then voting for it to see if it should be added to the law. To help make the best decisions they could be professionals in the room with them so that the decision in the end. They would be examining every single line of it before it becomes an act of parliament. The royal accent is where the queen signs the bill so it can become an official law. Once the bill has been completed in every other stage it will be ready to receive the royal assent. The royal accent is where the queen formally agrees to be able to make the bill a law. Once the royal assent has been given to the bill there will be an announcement in both of the houses. This will be done by the lord speaker in the house of lord and the speaker in the …show more content…
A disadvantage to this is that is can create loopholes in the law meaning the people will be free. Another disadvantage is that this follows what the law is saying but it doesn’t actually follow what the law was originally intended for. This rule works well for keeping the parliament the supreme law maker as it is not changed or altered in any way when in the courts, but it is not an effective method use to judge a case as it can crate large loop holes where people are able to walk free. This is not fair as it can stop people being properly justified for their crimes. For example R vs Bentham, the defendant was able to lose the charges of possessing a firearm as The defendant did not actually have one despite giving the impression of having one. A different type of rule that could have been used in the court for this case is the golden rule. The golden rule is where the judge will not take the law that it is refereeing to literally and give it some leeway to avoid an absurd result. In the case of R VS Bentham the golden rule could have been used as it would have changed the outcome from the literal rule. In this rule he could have been found guilty as he may not have carried a gun but he was faking having one which could fall under the Firearms Act 1968. One advantage if this is that if there are any loopholes in the law that people could exploit, they can be closed so people do not get away with some crimes. Another advantage if this is that it
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
When getting the specifics of something, the committee will most likely assign a subcommittee to look at something very specific (5). All the subcommittee is, is a small group of people from the original committee that get very specific information (5). While the committee and subcommittee is getting an experts analysis on the proposed bill, they are also checking so make sure that the bill has a high priority in society (5). To do this the committee hands the bill off to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (5). The people in the GAO check and make sure that the bill is worth the time of the committee by judging how much of an impact that it will have on the government or the lives of everyone in the United States of America (5). Once the GAO has reached their decision, the committee then decides whether they will hold a meeting or not hold a meeting (5).
A Bill has a number of stages that it goes through before it is presented to the Queen to be signed. It starts off as a discussion in the House of Commons, and if decided to be an effective new policy idea then it is sent off
This is seen in R v Holt, R v Bird where even though the defendants withdrew their statements because of fear, the Court upheld their conviction of contempt . Even with section 116 2E of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (provision for hearsay on fear which allows a person to use a statement as their evidence) , women were still prosecuted. This is seen in R v A where A was charged and convicted of perverting the course of justice by withdrawing her statement against her husband . What this shows is that the rules of evidence did not protect the victims of domestic violence as one can argue that the Criminal Justice Act does not address the shame, emotional abuse and the fear of reputation damage the victims of domestic violence face. However, it can be argued that section 116 2E has its advantages as it makes the defendant who instils violence to plead guilty. Yet, can this be said to be advantageous? If the defendant pleads guilty he/she gets a sentencing discount. One can question the message this sends out to defendants. Also, it can be argued that the provision for hearsay contradicts the rights of the defendant under article 6 (3)(d) of the European Convention on Human Rights which states that there should be examination of witnesses . The introduction of statements being used as evidence makes this requirement difficult. Nevertheless, it can be said that the court must balance
This paper examines the exclusionary rule. Explains the reasons for the origin of the exclusionary rule. The paper contends that use of the exclusionary rule has enabled guilty criminals to go free and that its original intention has been so distorted that it no longer fulfills its intended function and is instead a tool for protecting the rights of criminals Not only how it came about but, the true meaning as well as the exceptions. There are also a number of cases mentioned throughout the paper that have played some role in the exclusionary.
Under the Bail Act 2013, police can use their discretion to grant or refuse bail. This helps to keep the offenders right of innocent until proven guilty. This helps in upholding the rights of society. In the R v Gallaher case 2012, the accused was let off on bail as a result of the judge’s discretion even though he had murdered someone, it was thought that he wouldn’t put society at risk. When the Bail Act was reformed it was added that an unacceptable risk test must be passed before anyone can be released. This means that society’s rights are balanced as well as the victims as the accused won’t be released if they could cause any
The Crown Court will encompass cases from the Magistrates’ Courts, which is the lowermost court that deals with the majority of criminal cases (Terrill, 2012, p. 57). As stated above, passing a UK law has a much more detailed process. If the case is appealed then it will move up to the High Court to be heard and then to the Court of Appeal. Here the two Houses of Parliament named House of Lords and House of Commons are filled with people who will customarily oversee the case. The final appeal is heard at the House of Lords, which is remarkably similar to the Senate in the United States. The House of Lords poses as an unelected critic on decisions made by the House of Commons, yet they both must agree to pass a bill into law. The U.S. elects a President as the head of state and consecutively the UK appoints a Queen or King as the official monarch. However, even though the current Queen of England may have the final approval over a decree, the Prime Minister and the two Houses carry the real power. The verdicts made within the courts are decisively binding due to the precedents of the cases. Their doctrine is composed of an oppositional system where a magistrate and the occasional jury listen to the prosecution while defense lawyers (barristers) deliver their arguments. Magistrates hear all kinds of cases, yet they are merely elected members of
The R v Bentham case , which presented the question of imitation firearms, and whether part of your body is covered in the legislation adopted the literal approach and as this directive was employed judges declared the word ‘possession’ did not include someone’s fingers. If words of the act are evident, they should be adhered to, even if they provoke a distinctive absurdity. The legislation specified that imitation firearms could be “anything which has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or missile”. It was held by Lord Bingham that Parliament obviously meant to legislate about imitation firearms and not to develop an offence of dishonesty, claiming to possess a firearm. Accordingly, possession of something needs to be independent from the body and the defendant was found not guilty.
To start the process of a bill becoming law, the bill must be introduced. Any one member of Congress can introduce a bill or any other type of legislation, they are called the sponsors. Also, any member of the same body, either the House or Senate, can add their name the day after a bill has been introduced; in turn they are cosponsors (naeyc). Once a bill has been introduced, it must be referred to a committee with jurisdiction over the primary issue of legislation (naeyc). Bills can be referred to several different committees and subcommittees. Soon after there is a determination on whether there will be a hearing. There are sometimes mark ups where members of the committee meet to offer amendments and changes to the introduced bill (naeyc).
There are committees for different topics of what a bill could be. The bills are sent to the committees by a speaker of the house. Once the bill reaches the Committee, the members decide what to do with it. Now days most bill dies at this stage, meaning that the bill does not pass and becomes a law. Although when it does passed, the committee makes a vote, and it is sent to the next part of the law-making process which is the Rules Committee, who also decide on it through debate, deciding what will good about making the laws, or what could be the negative outcome to it, in this stage the bill could die to. This committee not only can reject or pass the bills, but add amendments, then after their changes are done; they pass the bill to the Senate.
Sub judice rule is designed to avoid unfair prejudice to the parties to prevent trial by news media, and to preserve the judicial authority of the courts. It is this rule which had created the most controversy over whether it is high time that the contempt of court is reformed to fit the ‘Internet Age’ we live in today. The outdated language and concepts only reiterates that the law was developed prior to the ‘Internet Age’ and the enactment of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (s 25).
The fine line between obeying the law and not obeying it. Obeying the law kind of makes the world safer. When you don't obey a law and therefore caught doing the crime; you will be charged and possibly sentenced to a place where you are no longer free to do as you please. When you obey the law you get to do as you please with your life as long as you follow the laws. Laws are put into motion to create a safe environment for everyone to live in. No one should have to be worried about their lives everyday; but there are accidents everyday in which lives are lost.
citizens are under a duty to obey the same laws, and there can be no
Rule of law in simplest terms means law rules, that is, law is supreme. The term “Rule of law‟ is derived from the French phrase “la principle de legalite” (the principle of legality) which means a government on principle of law and not of men. Rule of Law is a viable and dynamic concept and, like many other concepts, is not capable of any exact definition. It is used in contradistinction to rule of man. Sir Edward Coke, the Chief Justice in King James I‟s reign is said to be the originator of this principle. However, concrete shape was given to it by Professor A.V. Dicey, for the first time in his book “Law of the Constitution” (1885) in the form of three principles.
The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.
When the rule of law has been established by societal conventions, it can be changed when the government coerces the enforcement of unfair rules. When the rule of law is established through the government, smuggling will often undermine it because the law is not being applied equally to the smugglers, and they gain an unfair advantage in the market. One can argue that the smugglers are responding to unfair tariffs that prevent the rule of law because they as importers have to a tax that domestic producers do not have to pay. If the rule of law has been established so tariffs are small, and fair, then the argument is flawed. Negative effects on the rule of law caused by the tariff will be smaller than the negative effect on the rule of law when the law does not apply equally to everyone, and smugglers bribe official to successfully import their goods so when the rule of law is well established, smuggling undermines it.