Judicial remedies

There is a current need for the Sentencing Amendment (Coward 's Punch Manslaughter and Other Matters) Act 2014’ (the Act) due to the rising number of incidents regarding a one punch strike that results in death even after the previous relevant acts. Furthermore, it aims to better define the concepts and situations detailed by the previous relevant acts. However, the likely impact and efficacy of this Act is debatable because although it not only amends the previous acts regarding this issue and

The establishment of a supreme law constitution in New Zealand would enable the judiciary to have a stronger role, and greater power, to check the executive and legislative branches of government. At present our laws do not allow our judiciary the power that the American judiciary enjoys. The creation of a supreme law constitution enforced by the judiciary would enhance the judiciary’s present role and powers and its ability to act as a check on the other branches of government. This can be seen

Submissions to the High Court Regarding Judicial review is an intrinsic necessity to the Australian Government and is a critical aspect in enforcing accountability of both the legislative and executive branches. Essentially, the actions of constituent legislative and executive branches are subject to review, regardless of these governmental counterparts holding authority exceeding that of the judiciary. In fact, a number of provisions for judicial review are upheld by the Australian Constitution

The courts have generally supported NHS decisions about rationing. Critically analyse this statement with reference to the judicial reviews of NHS decisions not to pay for a treatment. "The NHS is the closest thing the English have to a religion". Yet, as with all religions, informed debate is clouded by myths. The first is that the NHS does not have enough money. Spending on the NHS rose sevenfold between 1949 and 2002 (allowing for inflation) and has continued to rise since then. We can never spend

Constitutions have been of great importance to many countries throughout history, they have come to define many states. The United States of America perhaps has the most famous constitution, it is notable for its enduringness and its controversies. For example, the right to bear arms being one of the most contentious issues that modern America has had to face especially with the recent speight of mass murders which have led to calls for the US to reform its constitution. In order to understand the

Charter’s inception, however, Canada’s judiciary has been placed under great criticism and scrutiny due to the fact that the courts were believed to have been given legislative powers that rivaled both the federal and provincial legislatures. Through Judicial Review, the Supreme Court of Canada was given the task to interpret the charter since that wording of the legal document itself was vague enough to warrant interpretation, and hence, gave critics a reason to believe that supreme court justices have

the case that they play a very big part in the public’s policy making. Judicial review is the primary role of the federal courts to discuss back and forth if a law is unconstitutional. Judicial review can also regulate the acts or behaviors that the Executive and Judicial carry out in legislation and the Courts may choose to declare those actions taken by the other branches or not those actions are unconstitutional or not. Judicial review is also the main source of power in the Supreme court 's. It

any scholars have argued that the introduction of the Human Rights Act has fostered a change in the constitutional order, and that parliamentary sovereignty is no longer the main basis of the British Constitution. In order to assess whether the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 fostered a change in the constitutional order and that parliamentary sovereignty is no longer the main basis of the British constitution it is first necessary to understand the British constitution. This essay will

Webster’s second reply to Hayne is the account of Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster’s speech to Congress addressing the proposition given by Senator Robert Hayne for states to have the right to nullify laws passed by Congress. Webster starts the speech off by affirming that what he understood Haynes stance to be concerning States Rights and Constitutionality was indeed correct. From Webster’s perspective he ascertained that Hayne believes that the states had the sovereign right to annul laws passed

In light of the above statement by Lord Reid, it is evident that UK courts do not have the power to strike down an act of parliament as unconstitutional due to a variety of factors. Having a political constitution in the UK the efficiency of the Government overpowers the strict separation of powers and upholds the sovereignty of parliament, leading to the courts being unable to go beyond the power of Parliament and striking down acts that are unconstitutional. Majorly unlike that of the legal constitution