Will Courts Uphold Retrospective Legislation as Created by Parliaments

This paper discusses the Lange test and relevant cases that applied the test. As the test imposed limitations on the Parliament’s power to regulate political communication that may be considered as a public order issue, it analyses the limitations in each case discussed. Based on the analysis, it finally argues that protection of the freedom to political communication has an affect on criminalising offensive conduct or language, and in response to the protection Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act 1931 (Qld) was replaced by Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld) to overcome the limitations.

They believe that those laws should govern the behaviour of all, all the while respecting what is known as the ‘rule of law’ and ‘procedural fairness’ because these processes express one of the core values on which was founded - that of the fundamental equality between persons. (Cannold, 2011) The legal society of Australia, often behaves as such, with reform happening where needed in order to keep up with the changes (both value-based and physical) that occur in society. This law reform process is executed through various formal and informal methods, through both the legislative process, and other means through the public body, such as protest, petition and the ever-present 24 hour media cycle. Law reform, particularly legislative reform, has been touted as a means of facilitating progressive chance. (Armstrong,

Content-neutral restrictions must be narrowly tailored to advance a significant government interest, but the restrictions must also leave open ample alternative channels for communication. Ward, 491 U.S. at 791. Therefore, a restriction may be narrowly tailored to advance a significant government interest, but only if other alternative channels for communication are available. Id.

The multiple publication rule was repealed by the Single publication rule under the 2013 Act. The Act explicitly states that original authors will be liability free for statements subsequently republished by third parties provided the republished materials are substantially similar to the original publication. I believe the objective of this rule is not so much about advocating free speech, instead, it is to avoid excessive liability and drainage on judicial

The majority emphasised the method of communication and the context it was conducted in deciding their position. It was noted that nothing in the law prevented the appellants from using other forums to express their views. There were a number of other actions they could have taken, including handing out flyers or placing a notice in the newspaper. The offensive words would still send the intended message, but it would be directed to the world at large ‘detached from the private experience of reading an abusive letter on the subject of personal grief.’ Further, it was held that any burden the law placed upon political communication was purely incidental as it “ … does not suggest an effect upon the freedom which could be regarded as extensive. It does not prevent communications of a political nature which do not convey such offensive matter”

The validation of past acts was a compromise for Indigenous peoples. These included acts that would have been invalid because of the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), which had

A purposive reading requires undertaking an endeavor to determine the result that the provision in question intended to achieve. The intended result can be figured out by the purpose of the section in question and the factual circumstances in which the provision is applied. Though in some cases explanatory notes may provide some guidance on the purpose, in most cases, purpose is ascertained by the logical assumption based on the wordings of the section (text) and the function of the section in particular scheme within the Act (context).

What is the reasoning behind retrospective laws? Why have they been introduced? At the outset, they seem quite unfair since a company would have designed a particular business strategy keeping the tax structure in mind. The issue that follows is, whether there is some deeper economic or political meaning behind the retrospective laws or not.

Government has a majority of MPs in the House of Commons it can vote out any private members’ bill that do not fit to their political agenda. Furthermore Very little of Parliamentary time is allocated to private members’ bills.

In this written document, I will aim to address the various possibilities/outcomes that may occur in terms of legislation as a source of law within Britain at the hands of BREXIT. But before I dive into that specific area of the subject I will firstly answer the first and most common question relating to this topic. Just what exactly is BREXIT?

Working as Journalists, it is important that we are aware of all the implications made by this law. When publishing and reporting, we are at risk of defaming individuals and groups even if we are just simply repeating something already published by another body.

If one runs through the wordings of Section 66A, one can infer that the section aims at curbing the information which is ‘grossly offensive’ and is of a ‘menacing character.’ Further, it also aims at restricting false statements which can cause any type of unaccepted disturbances. The disturbances at which the section aims are further laid down under sub-section (b) and (c). So, the ultimate aim of the section is to prohibit the nuances which is likely to take place as a result of the messages laid down under the section.

National Parliament plays an immeasurable responsibility to objecting a proposal by scrutinizing draft legislations of the EU on the grounds of subsidiarity before enactment. The second paragraph of Art.5(3) of the Treaty, with Art.6 and Art.7 in the Protocol (No 2) enlightens the yellow-card and orange-card mechanism.

After experiencing a difficult time in New Order era (1966-1998), when the civil rights to freely obtain information had been abused by the government at that time, a glimmer of hope emerged when the government enact a new Act regarding Public Freedom of Information in 2008 (Act number 14). But just as too good to be true, the hope was only short lived. It seemed that the government is

The true meaning and scope of Article 14 have been explained in a number of cases by the supreme court. In view of this the propositions laid down in Damia case still hold good governing a valid classificationandareasfollows.