Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Quelle:Wy/Wright 2007

< Quelle:Wy

31.371Seiten in
diesem Wiki
Seite hinzufügen
Diskussion0

Störung durch Adblocker erkannt!


Wikia ist eine gebührenfreie Seite, die sich durch Werbung finanziert. Benutzer, die Adblocker einsetzen, haben eine modifizierte Ansicht der Seite.

Wikia ist nicht verfügbar, wenn du weitere Modifikationen in dem Adblocker-Programm gemacht hast. Wenn du sie entfernst, dann wird die Seite ohne Probleme geladen.

Angaben zur Quelle [Bearbeiten]

Autor     Bernard Wright
Titel    Patterns of change: parliamentary privilege
Herausgeber    Crawford School of Economics and Government, ANU College of Asia & the Pacific,The Australian National University
Ort    Canberra
Datum    Dezember 2007
Nummer    2
Reihe    Parliamentary Studies Papers
Anmerkung    in der Reihe erschienen 2008 (vgl. Copyright-Vermerk), Preprint (?) trägt das Datum "December 2007"
ISSN    (online) 1835-4831
URL    http://www.parliamentarystudies.anu.edu.au/pdf/publications/PSP02_Wright.pdf (aktuell, preprint(?)), http://web.archive.org/web/20080718223406/http://www.parliamentarystudies.anu.edu.au/papers_etc/Wright%20-%20Privileges%20final.pdf (archiviert)

Literaturverz.   

ja
Fußnoten    ja
Fragmente    11


Fragmente der Quelle:
[1.] Wy/Fragment 005 05 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-11 20:31:53 Graf Isolan
Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wright 2007, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 5, Zeilen: 5-20, 101-104
Quelle: Wright 2007
Seite(n): 7, Zeilen: 1, 9-29
2 Two Major Systems of Parliamentary Privilege

2.1 The British Model

The features of the law of privilege applying in the United Kingdom have evolved over a very long time. Actions by each House of the Parliament, monarch governments and courts have created a significant body of law, and a body of law which naturally reflects the political history of the country.

2.1.1 Freedom of Speech

The privilege of freedom of speech is set out most famously in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights (1689)., A privilege of freedom of speech, however, appears to have been enjoyed by the House of Commons since at least the later years of the 15th century.12 Though the immunity is now often thought of in terms of the protection it gives members and other participants in ‘proceedings in Parliament’ from being sued for defamation, its existence grew out of protracted conflict between the Parliament and the Crown,13 and the conflict in which the right of the Crown to cause members to be called to account for their statements in Parliament was disputed and resisted. The provisions of Article 9: That the freedom of speech and [debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament confirmed Parliament’s claims, and had the formal and explicit agreement of the Crown.]


11 Robert Myttenaere, Report of Parliamentary Privilege, adopted at the Moscow Session, September, 1998.

12 May, T.E., Erskine May’s Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 23rd ed., London, 2004, p.79.

13 See, the Section of “Origin of Parliamentary Privilege” in the Paper.

4. Privilege — two models

[...]

The British approach

4.2 The features of the law of privilege applying in the United Kingdom have evolved over a very long time. Actions by each House of the Parliament, monarchs/governments and courts have created a significant body of law, a body of law which naturally reflects the political history of the country.

Freedom of speech

4.3 The privilege of freedom of speech is set out most famously in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights (1689), however a privilege of freedom of speech appears to have been enjoyed by the House of Commons since at least the later years of the 15th century26. Although the immunity is now often thought of in terms of the protection it gives members and other participants in ‘proceedings in Parliament’ from being sued for defamation, its existence grew out of protracted conflict between the Parliament and the Crown,27 conflict in which the right of the Crown to cause members to be called to account for their statements in Parliament was disputed and resisted. The provisions of Article 9:

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament

confirmed Parliament’s claims, and had the formal and explicit agreement of the Crown.


26 May op cit, p 79.

27 May op cit, pp 79-82.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), SleepyHollow02

[2.] Wy/Fragment 006 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-11 20:41:29 Hindemith
Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wright 2007, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 6, Zeilen: 1-19
Quelle: Wright 2007
Seite(n): 7,8,9, Zeilen: 7:25-29 - 8:1-2.16-21 - 9:1-12
[The provisions of Article 9: That the freedom of speech and] debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament confirmed Parliament’s claims, and had the formal and explicit agreement of the Crown. The provision has been characterised as much a political settlement as a statutory rule and as a safeguard in the separation of powers.14

Other immunities of members Freedom from arrest for members of the British Parliament was recognised as long ago as 1340.15 The immunity is limited to civil matters and its reach has been clarified and qualified by legislation.16 This immunity is also part of the law of the land and as such it cannot be waived. Another ‘personal’ privilege enjoyed by British members is the exemption from compulsory attendance as witnesses, whether in civil or criminal proceedings.17 The general immunity of members from jury service was ended by legislation in 2003.18

2.1.2 Ability to Punish Contempt

Each House of the British Parliament has long held the power to try contempt. This power is said to derive from the ‘medieval concept of Parliament as primarily a court of justice. As such it was more readily recognized in respect of the House of Lords, but the House of Common [sic] was recognized as having the power to fine and imprison offenders. Persons punished by the House have [included members and others, including sheriffs, magistrates and judges.19]


14 H.Evans ed., Odgers’Australian Senate Practice, 11th ed., Department of the Senate 2004, p.33.

15 May, 23rd ed., (2004), p.83.

16 May, 23rd ed., (2004), p.83.

17 May, 23rd ed., (2004), p.125.

18 May, 23rd ed., (2004), p.125.

[19 May, 23rd ed., (2004), p.92.]

[Seite 7]

The provisions of Article 9:

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament

confirmed Parliament’s claims, and had the formal and explicit agreement of the Crown. The provision has been characterised as much

[Seite 8]

a political settlement as a statutory rule28 and as a safeguard in the separation of powers29.

[...]

Other immunities of members

4.6 Freedom from arrest for members of the British Parliament was recognised as long ago as 134033. The immunity is limited to civil matters and its reach has been clarified and qualified by legislation34. This immunity is also part of the law of the land and as such it cannot be waived. Another ‘personal’ privilege enjoyed by British members is

[Seite 9]

the exemption from compulsory attendance as witnesses, whether in civil or criminal proceedings35. The general immunity of members from jury service was ended by legislation in 200336 (and see 6.10 below for recommended changes).

Ability to punish contempts

4.7 Each House of the British Parliament has long held the power to try contempts. This power is said to derive from the ‘medieval concept of Parliament as primarily a court of justice’37. As such it was more readily recognised in respect of the House of Lords, but the House of Commons was recognised as having the power to fine and imprison offenders38. Persons punished by the House have included members and others, including sheriffs, magistrates and judges39.


28 McGee, op cit, p 618, 625-. Mr McGee has also commented on the relatively recent prominence given to Article 9, and on the use of ‘parliamentary material’ in courts in The Scope of Parliamentary Privilege, New Zealand Law Journal, March 2004, pp. 84-87. Mr McKay (then) Clerk Assistant in the House of Commons also commented on the emphasis on Art 9 in evidence to the UK joint select committee on parliamentary privilege and the effects this has had - HL 43, HC 214 II, pp 21-2.

29 Odgers, op cit, p 33; relevant also in this regard in the US – evidence of Mr Johnson, Parliamentarian of the House of Representatives, to UK joint select committee – HL 43, HC 214 II, p 234.

33 May op cit, p 83.

34 May op cit, p 83.

35 May op cit, p 125.

36 May op cit, p 125.

37 May op cit p 92.

38 May op cit p 92.

39 May, op cit p 92.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme. Eine Zwischenüberschrift wurde von Wy nicht als solche erkannt und taucht daher unmotiviert im Fließtext auf.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), Hindemith

[3.] Wy/Fragment 007 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-11 20:45:15 Hindemith
BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wright 2007, Wy

Typus
BauernOpfer
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 7, Zeilen: 1-18
Quelle: Wright 2007
Seite(n): 9-10, Zeilen: 9:11-27 - 10:1-5
[Persons punished by the House have] included members and others, including sheriffs, magistrates and judges.19 This capacity was seen as very important to the House’s ability to defend the Parliament. Its significance lies in the breadth of offences which could be punished: there was no list or closed set of actions which could be subject to punishment by the House. This power has been described as a “quintessentially British institution”.20

2.1.3 The British Influence

Principal features of the British model are seen in many parliaments, but primarily in nations which were once British colonies or possessions.21 This group includes nations as diverse as the India, the United States of America, New Zealand, Canada, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa and Malta.22 In some cases the constitutional law itself sets out similar provisions, and in others there are links in constitutional and other laws. In some cases there have been no such explicit provisions or links, and at common law the provisions available were limited to those of ‘reasonable necessity’.23 Considerable adaptation has taken place in many jurisdictions.

The parliament of Scotland and the National Assembly for Wales, two of the most recently established parliaments, are interesting examples of adaptation.


19 May, 23rd ed., (2004), p.92.

20 Marc Van der Hulst, The Parliamentary Mandate, IPU, 2000, p.129.

21 Marc Van der Hulst, The Parliamentary Mandate, IPU, 2000, pp.66, 130.

22 Bernard Wright, Patterns of Change-Parliamentary Privilege, http://www.aph.gov.au/ HOUSE/PUBS/occpub/privileges.pdf.

23 Gareth Griffith, Principles, Personalities, Politics: Parliamentary Privilege Cases in NSW, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ prod/parlment/publications.nsf/ 0/ABD1B841CB387720CA 256ECF000CAADE/$File/bg01-04.pdf.

[Seite 9]

Persons punished by the House have included members and others, including sheriffs, magistrates and judges39. This capacity was seen as very important to the House’s ability to defend the Parliament. For the purposes of this paper, its significance lies in the breadth of offences which could be punished: there was no list or closed set of actions which could be subject to punishment by the House. This power has been described as a ‘quintessentially British institution’40 (and see 6.11-12 below for recommended changes).

The British influence

4.8 Key features of the British model are seen in many parliaments, but primarily in nations which were once British colonies or possessions41. This group includes nations as diverse as the India, the United States of America, New Zealand, Canada, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa and Malta. In some cases the constitutional law itself sets out similar provisions42, in others there are links in constitutional and other laws43. In some cases there have been no such explicit provisions or links, and at common law the provisions available were limited to those of

[Seite 10]

‘reasonable necessity’44. Considerable adaptation has taken place in many jurisdictions (and see 5.3-5.7 below).

4.9 The parliament of Scotland and the National Assembly for Wales, two of the most recently established parliaments, are interesting examples of adaptation.


39 May, op cit p 92.

40 Van der Hulst, op cit, p 129.

41 Van der Hulst, op cit, pp 66, 130.

42 US Constitution, Article 1(6).

43 For example Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, and Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.

44 For example, New South Wales; and see Campbell, op cit, pp 2, 4; and Gareth Griffith Principles, Personalities, Politics; Parliamentary Privilege Cases in NSW.

Anmerkungen

Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), Hindemith

[4.] Wy/Fragment 008 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-10 19:09:45 Hindemith
Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wright 2007, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 8, Zeilen: 1-19, 101-103
Quelle: Wright 2007
Seite(n): 10, 13, Zeilen: 10:5-18; 13:1.12.16-21
[The] laws establishing these bodies do not tie their privileges and immunities to Westminster, but instead of setting out in detail the provisions which apply. In each case, statements made during proceedings in parliament are absolutely privileged for the purposes of defamation: that they cannot form the basis of an action in defamation. But actions such as incitement to racial hatred are not protected. Proceedings are subject to the law of contempt of court (that is, conduct that tends to interfere with the course of justice in certain proceedings), although the usual provision of strict liability for contempt of court does not apply to publications made in the course of proceedings in relation to a bill or subordinate legislation, or to the extent that they consist of a fair and accurate report of proceedings, made in good faith. These legislative bodies have not been given the broad power to punish contempt.24

2.1.4 Parliamentary Privilege in British Model’s Nations

2.1.4.1 The United States

In Article I, Section 6, the United States Constitution (1787) provides that Members of Congress: Shall in all cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.


24 Government of Wales Act 1998, S.77; Scotland Act 1998, S. 41; Scottish Parliament Business Bulletin,38/1999, http://www.scottish.parliament.uk; The ACT Legislative Assembly, another relatively recent parlia-ment, has not been given the power to punish contempts.

[Seite 10]

The laws establishing these bodies do not tie their privileges and immunities to Westminster, but instead set out in detail the provisions which apply. In each case, statements made during proceedings in parliament are absolutely privileged for the purposes of defamation: that is they cannot form the basis of an action in defamation. But actions such as incitement to racial hatred are not protected. Proceedings are subject to the law of contempt of court (that is, conduct that tends to interfere with the course of justice in certain proceedings), although the usual provision of strict liability for contempt of court does not apply to publications made in the course of proceedings in relation to a bill or subordinate legislation, or to the extent that they consist of a fair and accurate report of proceedings, made in good faith. These legislative bodies have not been given the broad power to punish contempts45.

[Seite 13]

5. Adaptation of traditional provisions

[...]

The USA

[...] Article 1(6) provided:

The Senators and Representatives….. shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.


45 Government of Wales Act 1998, s 77; Scotland Act 1998, s 41; Scottish Parliament Business Bulletin, 38/1999 (available at www.scottish.parliament.uk). The ACT Legislative Assembly, another relatively recent parliament, has not been given the power to punish contempts.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), SleepyHollow02

[5.] Wy/Fragment 012 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-11 20:50:33 Hindemith
Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wright 2007, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
SleepyHollow02
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 12, Zeilen: 1-17
Quelle: Wright 2007
Seite(n): 10, 11, Zeilen: 10: 26ff; 11: 1ff
Members of the French Parliament have long been immune from action on account of their statements in Parliament. The relevant term is best translated into English in this context as ‘non-accountability’.39 The Clerk of the French Senate has observed that this immunity was a legacy of a tradition created over past centuries by the British Parliament.40 The effect of the immunity is that members cannot be prosecuted or tried elsewhere on account of their statements or votes in Parliament.41 It has been set out in successive French constitutions, Article 26 of the 1958 Constitution providing: No Member of Parliament may be prosecuted, searched for, detained or be subject to judgment on the basis of opinions of opinions expressed or votes cast by him in the exercise of his duties.42 Courts have been required to determine issues such as whether the repetition outside parliament by members, or by broadcast, of remarks made in Parliament are protected by force of this provision (they have been found not to be protected).43

It is notable that the form of words “…No Member may be prosecuted…” is in contrast to the Bill of Rights with its reference to the activity “proceedings in Parliament”. This may mean that questions such as whether other persons (for example committee witnesses) were covered by the immunity were more open [there.]


39 Mme Ponceau, Privilges and Immunities in Parliament, The Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments (ASGP) meeting 17-19, October, 2005, http://www.asgp.info/ Resources/Data/Documents/ MSUMEOMVPXKTACUJDEWNDNORPOBTYP.pdf.

40 Id.

41 Id.

42 Id.

43 Id.

4.11 Members of the French Parliament have long been immune from action on account of their statements in Parliament. The relevant term is best translated into English in this context as ‘non-accountability’46. The Clerk of the French Senate has observed that this immunity was a

[Seite 11]

legacy of a tradition created over past centuries by the British Parliament47.

The effect of the immunity is that members cannot be prosecuted or tried elsewhere on account of their statements or votes in Parliament48. It has been set out in successive French constitutions, article 26 of the 1958 constitution providing:

No Member of Parliament may be prosecuted, searched for, detained or be subject to judgment on the basis of opinions of opinions expressed or votes cast by him in the exercise of his duties49.

Courts have been required to determine issues such as whether the repetition outside parliament by members, or by broadcast, of remarks made in Parliament are protected by force of this provision (they have been found not to be protected)50.

4.12 It is notable that the form of words …’No Member may be prosecuted…’ is in contrast to the Bill of Rights with its reference to the activity ‘proceedings in Parliament’. This may mean that questions such as whether other persons (for example committee witnesses) were covered by the immunity were more open there.


46 At a conference in 2005 the Secretary-General of the French Senate, Mme Ponceau presented a paper on parliamentary immunities. Unfortunately for a time the translators used the term ‘parliamentary irresponsibility’ to describe this immunity: ASGP meeting 17-19 October 2005, minutes pp 57-70.

47 Ibid, p 64.

48 Ibid, p 64.

49 Ibid, p 59.

50 Ibid, p 65.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf die Quelle.

Sichter
(SleepyHollow02), Hindemith

[6.] Wy/Fragment 013 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-11 21:04:35 Hindemith
Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wright 2007, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
SleepyHollow02
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 13, Zeilen: 1-16
Quelle: Wright 2007
Seite(n): 11, 12, Zeilen: 11: 18ff; 12: 1ff
In the event, however, court decisions have recognised the protection of witnesses.44

2.2.2 Freedom from Arrest

In France the immunity of the member’s person has been recognized since the formation of the National Assembly, on 23 June, 1789 the Assembly declaring “the person of each deputy shall be inviolable”. 45 The justification of such a provision is the protection of deputies from actions by the crown/executive.46 Thinking on the extent and application of the immunity has apparently developed considerably, in the last several years particularly with regard to the interests (and tolerance) of others.47

One constant element has remained: Parliament has had a role in the application of the immunity. In essence, and other than in criminal cases, where a member is captured red-handed or in respect of final sentencing, parliamentary approval is required for the arrest or detention of a member.48 The approval is given by the Bureau (Managing Group) of the House. One advantage of this is that confidentiality may be maintained, at least for a period.49


44 Marc Van der Hulst, The Parliamentary Mandate, IPU, 2000, pp. 67-8.

45 Marc Van der Hulst, The Parliamentary Mandate, IPU, 2000, p.79.

46 Mme Ponceau, Privilges and Immunities in Parliament, The Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments (ASGP) meeting, 17-19 October 2005, http://www.asgp.info /Resources/Data/Documents/ MSUMEOMVPXKTACUJDEWNDNORP OBTYP.pdf.

47 Id.

48 Id.

49 Id

In the event, however, court decisions have recognised the protection of witnesses51.

Inviolability

4.13 In France the immunity of the member’s person has been recognised since the formation of the National Assembly, on 23 June 1789 the Assembly declaring ‘the person of each deputy shall be inviolable’52. The justification of such a provision was the protection of deputies from actions by the crown/executive53. Thinking on the extent and application of the immunity has apparently developed considerably, in the last several years particularly with regard to the interests (and tolerance) of others54.

4.14 One constant element has remained: Parliament has had a role in the application of the immunity. In essence, and other than in criminal cases, where a member is captured red-handed or in respect of final sentencing, parliamentary approval is required for the arrest or detention of a member55. The approval is given by the Bureau (Managing Group) of the House. One advantage of this is that confidentiality may be maintained, at least for a period56.


51 Van der Hulst, op cit, pp 67-8.

52 ASGP, op cit, p 67; Van der Hulst op cit, p 79.

53 ASGP, op cit, pp 67-9. 54 . ASGP op cit, p 67.

54 ASGP op cit, p 67.

55 ASGP op cit, p 69.

56 ASGP op cit, p 70.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf die Quelle.

Sichter
(SleepyHollow02), Hindemith

[7.] Wy/Fragment 014 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-11 21:09:26 Hindemith
Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wright 2007, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
SleepyHollow02
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 14, Zeilen: 01-16
Quelle: Wright 2007
Seite(n): 12, Zeilen: 8ff
An indication of the political and parliamentary sensitivity of these matters is given in the statement of one Senator: “To gnaw at inviolability is to hand over parliamentarians to the vengeance and arbitrary decisions of those who, with complete impunity, profit from the weakness of a state terrorised by excessive media coverage in order to set themselves up as a power independent of the law itself and to launch a concerted attack on the authorities and principles of the Republic. One can even bar parliamentarians from attending sittings on the grounds that they have to answer judges’ summons”.50

2.2.3 Punishment of Offences

Despite their authority in matters such as the immunity of members’ persons, the houses of the French Parliament have never enjoyed the broad capacity to punish offences (contempt) possessed by the House of Commons.51

2.2.4 The French influence

As would be expected, the key provisions of the French model appear to have had their greatest influence in continental Europe and in former French colonies.


[46 Mme Ponceau, Privilges and Immunities in Parliament, The Association of Secretaries General of Parli-aments (ASGP) meeting, 17-19 October 2005, http://www.asgp.info/ Resources/Data/Documents/ MSUMEOMVPXKTACUJDEWNDNORP OBTYP.pdf.]

50 Id.

51 Marc Van der Hulst, The Parliamentary Mandate, IPU, 2000, pp.129-30. The German Constitution, the Basic Law or Grundgesetzes,

4.15 An indication of the political and parliamentary sensitivity of these matters is given in the statement of one Senator:

To gnaw at inviolability is to hand over parliamentarians to the vengeance and arbitrary decisions of those who, with complete impunity, profit from the weakness of a state terrorised by excessive media coverage in order to set themselves up as a power independent of the law itself and to launch a concerted attack on the authorities and principles of the Republic. One can even bar parliamentarians from attending sittings on the grounds that they have to answer judges’ summons57.

Punishment of offences

4.16 Despite their authority in matters such as the immunity of members’ persons, the houses of the French Parliament have never enjoyed the broad capacity to punish offences (contempts) possessed by the House of Commons58.

The French influence

4.17 As would be expected, the key provisions of the French model appear to have had their greatest influence in continental Europe and in former French colonies.


57 ASGP,op cit p 70.

58 Van der Hulst, op cit, p 129-30.

Anmerkungen

Ein Verweis auf die Quelle fehlt.

Sichter
(SleepyHollow02), Hindemith

[8.] Wy/Fragment 152 09 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-11 21:12:56 Hindemith
BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wright 2007, Wy

Typus
BauernOpfer
Bearbeiter
SleepyHollow02
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 152, Zeilen: 9-22
Quelle: Wright 2007
Seite(n): 25, Zeilen: 9ff
12.1 The Changes of Discharging Responsibilities’ Way

The way in which parliaments and parliamentarians discharge their responsibilities is also likely to be relevant to developments in relation to privilege. The issue of misuse of privilege, ether [sic!] by members or by others such as committee witnesses, may continue to receive attention. Modern technology assists greatly in the dissemination of details of parliamentary activities. There are many positive aspects in this:473 The wider community is informed more easily and more quickly of parliament’s work. One negative aspect is however that greater damage can be done because a false or reckless attack or the publication of personal details is also carried quickly and to a much wider audience, and false or unreasonably damaging published electronically can continue to “live” in databases and systems even if it is withdrawn or corrected. An awareness of such risks has already caused House committees to consider carefully the publication of submissions — in some cases, for example, certain details have been omitted, the [committees seeking to balance the interests of openness and accountability with the interests of individuals.]



473 Bernard Wright, Patterns of Change-Parliamentary Privilege, http://www.aph.gov.au/HOUSE/ PUBS/occpub/privileges.pd.

8.4 The way in which parliaments and parliamentarians discharge their responsibilities is also likely to be relevant to developments in relation to privilege. The issue of misuse of privilege, whether by members or by others such as committee witnesses, may continue to receive attention. Modern technology assists greatly in the dissemination of details of parliamentary activities. There are many positive aspects in this: the wider community is informed more easily and more quickly of parliament’s work. One negative aspect is however that greater damage can be done because a false or reckless attack or the publication of personal details is also carried quickly and to a much wider audience, and false or unreasonably damaging published electronically can continue to ‘live’ in databases and systems even if it is withdrawn or corrected. An awareness of such risks has already caused House committees to consider carefully the publication of submissions — in some cases, for example, certain details have been omitted, the committees seeking to balance the interests of openness and accountability with the interests of individuals.
Anmerkungen

Quelle ist in Fn. 473 genannt. Umfang und Wortlautnähe der Übernahme werden nicht ersichtlich.

Sichter
(SleepyHollow02), Hindemith

[9.] Wy/Fragment 153 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-11 21:21:04 Hindemith
BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wright 2007, Wy

Typus
BauernOpfer
Bearbeiter
SleepyHollow02
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 153, Zeilen: 1-23
Quelle: Wright 2007
Seite(n): 23, 25, 26, Zeilen: 23: 19ff; 25: 21ff; 26: 1ff
[An awareness of such risks has already caused House committees to consider carefully the publication of submissions — in some cases, for example, certain details have been omitted, the] committees seeking to balance the interests of openness and accountability with the interests of individuals. Committee procedures, whether established by practice (House committees) or by resolution (Senate committees) allow for the protection of witnesses and for the rights of others. The challenge may be more in the application of the procedures rather than the procedures themselves, and in an awareness of the enhanced potential for damage to be done to individuals by the use of modern technologies, technologies which can be expected to evolve with great speed, and which may impact on the houses themselves and individual parliamentarians as well as on committees.474

Caring for the rights of others will need to be shown by Committees of Privileges, and by the relevant houses, if the community is to be expected to accept that parliament should retain the broad power to punish contempts. It is also possible that parliaments may face new forms of obstruction or difficulties which will cause them to seek changes to the law or to the arrangements concerning privilege.

12.2 Wider Legal Developments

The issue of international legal arrangements is one area.475 In Europe there have been cases where actions of national parliaments have been tested against the requirements of a larger legal framework in the form of the European Court of Human Rights. A finding of contempt by a national parliament has been held by the court to be in contravention of the Convention on Human Rights because two members who had been criticised by the person in question had not only raised the complaint in the House, they had participated in proceedings on the matter.


474 Bernard Wright, Patterns of Change-Parliamentary Privilege, http://www.aph.gov.au/HOUSE /PUBS/occpub/privileges.pd.

475 E.Campbell, Parliamentary Privilege in Australia, pp.204-8.

[Seite 23]

8.2 Wider legal developments could be relevant. The issue of international legal arrangements is one area87. In Europe there have been cases where actions of national parliaments have been tested against the requirements of a larger legal framework in the form of the European Court of Human Rights. A finding of contempt by a national parliament has been held by the court to be in contravention of the Convention on Human Rights because two members who had been criticised by the person in question had not only raised the complaint in the House, they had participated in proceedings on the matter.

[Seite 25]

An awareness of such risks has already caused House committees to consider carefully the publication of submissions — in some cases, for example, certain details have been omitted, the committees seeking to balance the interests of openness and accountability with the interests of individuals. Committee procedures, whether established by practice (House committees) or by resolution (Senate committees) allow for the protection of witnesses and for the rights of others. The challenge may be more in the application of the procedures rather than the procedures themselves, and in an awareness of the enhanced potential for damage to be done to individuals by the use of modern technologies, technologies which can be expected to evolve with great speed, and which may impact on the houses themselves and individual parliamentarians as well as on committees.

8.5 Care for the rights of others will need to be shown by Committees of Privileges, and by the relevant houses, if the community is to be

[Seite 26]

expected to accept that parliament should retain the broad power to punish contempts97. It is also possible that parliaments may face new forms of obstruction or difficulties which will cause them to seek changes to the law or to the arrangements concerning privilege.


87 Campbell , op cit, pp 204-8.

97 Earlier this year a case for the substantial transfer of the penal jurisdiction to the courts on the grounds that determination of such matters by houses of parliament was not consistent with the principles of procedural fairness was set out in advice provided to the House Committee of Privileges- Professors Lindell and Carney, op cit.

Anmerkungen

Der Quellenverweis macht nicht deutlich, dass die gesamte Seite wörtlich übernommen wurde.

Sichter
(SleepyHollow02), Hindemith

[10.] Wy/Fragment 154 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-15 21:47:02 WiseWoman
Fragment, Gesichtet, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wright 2007, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
SleepyHollow02, Singulus
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 154, Zeilen: 1 ff. (komplett)
Quelle: Wright 2007
Seite(n): 9, Zeilen: l. Sp Z. 17ff
[The] court held that this had denied the person’s rights to a fair and impartial hearing476.

In 2002, a British citizen took actions in the court on the ground that she had been subject to discrimination as a result of criticism of her family by a member of the House of Commons. She argued that her right to the determination of her civil rights and obligations by a fair and impartial hearing had been violated by the use of the parliamentary privilege. Presumably because of the wider significance of this case, several European nations were permitted to make submissions. The action failed in the court ruling that parliamentary privilege did not impose a disproportionate restriction on the right of access to a court.477 In 2003 the Court held that immunity did not apply to the repetition out of parliament by a member of Italy’s parliament of a defamatory statement made during proceedings.478 Human rights legislation at a national or state/territory level may also be important to a Parliament.479 The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 sets out rights and freedoms that the House must observe in exercising its privileges, although the Act does not abrogate any of the House’s privileges. 480 Internal parliamentary processes, such as practices for the protection of witnesses before [the Privileges Committee, take account of these requirements.481]


476 Demicoli v. Malta (1992) 14 EHRR 47; May, 23rd ed., p.155.

477 May, 23rd ed., p.199; Mme Ponceau, Privileges andImmunities [sic] in Parliament, The Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments (ASGP) meeting 17-19 October 2005, [1].

478 Mme Ponceau, Privileges and Immunities in Parliament, The Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments (ASGP) meeting 17-19 October 2005, [2].

479 See, For example Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid (2005) SCC 30 (Supreme Court of Canada), 20 May, 2005.

480 David McGee, Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, 2nd ed, Wellington: GP Publications, 1994, p.611.

The court held that this had denied the person’s rights to a fair and impartial hearing88. In 2002 a British citizen took action in the court on the ground that she had been subject to discrimination as a result of criticism of her family by a member of the House of Commons. She argued that her right to the determination of her civil rights and obligations by a fair and impartial hearing had been violated by the use of parliamentary privilege. Presumably because of the wider significance of this case, several European nations were permitted to make submissions. The action failed, the court ruling that parliamentary privilege did not impose a disproportionate restriction on the right of access to a court89. In 2003 the Court held that immunity did not apply to the repetition out of parliament by a member of Italy’s parliament of a defamatory statement made during proceedings90.

8.3 Human rights legislation at a national or state/territory level may also be important to a Parliament91. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 sets out rights and freedoms that the House must observe in exercising its privileges, although the Act does not abrogate any of the House’s privileges92. Internal parliamentary processes, such as practices for the protection of witnesses before the Privileges Committee, take account of these requirements93.


87 Campbell, op cit, pp 204-8.

88 Demicoli v. Malta (1992) 14 EHRR 47; May, op cit, p 155.

89 May, op cit, p 199; M Jack A. v the UK ‘The Table’ (2003), pp 35-40; ASGP, op cit, p 66.

90 ASGP, op cit, p 66.

91 See, for example Canada (House of Commons) v Vaid (2005) SCC 30 (Supreme Court of Canada, 20 May 2005).

92 McGee op cit, p 611.

93 Ibid, pp 611, 667.

Anmerkungen

Ganzseitige Übernahme ohne Angabe der Quelle.

Sichter
(SleepyHollow02, Singulus) Schumann

[11.] Wy/Fragment 155 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-12 19:17:21 WiseWoman
BauernOpfer, Fragment, Gesichtet, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wright 2007, Wy

Typus
BauernOpfer
Bearbeiter
SleepyHollow02
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 155, Zeilen: 01-03, 05 ff.
Quelle: Wright 2007
Seite(n): 24 bzw. 9, Zeilen: Rz. 8.3
[Internal parliamentary processes, such as practices for the protection of witnesses before] the Privileges Committee, take account of these requirements.481 Such issues have been given considerable attention in Canada since enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. The result has been that parliamentary privilege has been like other areas of the law in being subject to the provisions of the charter. 482 A point of broader significance, noted by Professor Lindell in respect of the Vaid case, is the tendency of the court to define the content of parliamentary privilege by reference to the degree of autonomy necessary for the performance of the functions entrusted to the Canadian Parliament as finally determined by the court and not just the Parliament. A scholarly discussion of the position in Canada, and one which takes account of international developments, has been published in The Table for 2007. In Australia to date only the ACT and Victoria have enacted human rights laws. Technically legislation in this area may or may not be drafted with reference to parliamentary activities. It would seem however that, as a minimum, a parliament which enacted such a law would feel some obligation to ensure that its own operations were at least consistent with any general standards that it established for the wider community.483

The development of the law in respect of the implied constitutional guarantee of freedom of political communication will be of interest, for example, in Australia including in respect of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Subsection 16(3),484 it has been argued, is in conflict with this freedom in so far as [it prevents the analysis of the conduct of elected politicians in the courts or impedes the discussion of the same matters by non-parliamentarians given the legal consequences that may result in defamation.485]


481 Id., pp.611, 667.

482 Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pp.112 -13; See, Joseph Maingot, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, 2nd ed, 1997, ch 14.

483 Bernard Wright, Patterns of Change-Parliamentary Privilege, http://www.aph.gov.au/HOUSE/ PUBS/occpub/privileges.pd. [sic]

484 Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, Section16(3), [sic] In proceedings in any court or tribunal, it is not lawful for evidence to be tendered or received, questions asked or statements, submissions or comments made, concerning proceedings in Parliament, by way of, or for the purpose of: (a) questioning or relying on the truth, motive, intention or good faith of anything forming part of those proceedings in Parliament; (b) otherwise questioning or establishing the credibility, motive, intention or good faith of any person; or (c) drawing, or inviting the drawing of, inferences or conclusions wholly or partly from anything forming part of those proceedings in Parliament.

Internal parliamentary processes, such as practices for the protection of witnesses before the Privileges Committee, take account of these requirements93. Such issues have been given considerable attention in Canada since enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. The result has been that parliamentary privilege has been like other areas of the law in being subject to the provisions of the charter.94. A point of broader significance, noted by Professor Lindell in respect of the Vaid case, is the tendency of the court to define the content of parliamentary privilege by reference to the degree of autonomy necessary for the performance of the functions entrusted to the Canadian Parliament as finally determined by the court and not just the Parliament. A scholarly discussion of the position in Canada, and one which takes account of international developments, has been published in The Table for 200795. In Australia to date only the ACT and Victoria have enacted human rights laws. Technically legislation in this area may or may not be drafted with reference to parliamentary activities. It would seem however that, as a minimum, a parliament which enacted such a law would feel some obligation to ensure that its own operations were at least consistent with any general standards that it established for the wider community. The development of the law in respect of the implied constitutional guarantee of freedom of political communication will be of interest, including in respect of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Subsection 16(3), it has been argued, is in conflict with this freedom in so far as it prevents the analysis of the conduct of elected politicians in the courts or impedes the discussion of the same matters by non-parliamentarians given the legal consequences that may result in defamation96.

89 May, op cit, p 199; M Jack A. v the UK ‘The Table’ (2003), pp 35-40; ASGP, op cit, p 66.

90 ASGP, op cit, p 66.

91 See, for example Canada (House of Commons) v Vaid (2005) SCC 30 (Supreme Court of Canada, 20 May 2005).

92 McGee op cit, p 611.

93 Ibid, pp 611, 667.

94 Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pp 112 -13; Joseph Maingot, QC, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada (2nd ed), ch 14; and see Robert and Macneil, op cit.

95 Robert and Macneil, op cit. And see forthcoming paper by Nicholas MacDonald ‘Parliamentarians and National Security’, Canadian Parliamentary Review, Fall 2011. Mr MacDonald has made helpful comments on this paper.

96 Enid Campbell ‘Contempt of Parliament and the Implied Freedom of Political Communication’ (1999) 10 Public Law Review 196 and Parliamentary Privilege (2003), at 7, 64-5, and evidence by Professor Lindell to the UK Joint Committee HL 43 III, HC 214— 111 (1998-99) at 168-9 paras 21(ii) and 19.

Anmerkungen

Ein Satz wurde eingefügt, sonst praktisch wörtlich übernommen. Die Quelle ist, etwas misslungen angegeben, unter 483 genannt. Es gibt zwei Versionen von Wright online, bei der zweiten (Hochglanzbroschure) fehlen 95 und 96, aber der Fließtext enthält einen Satz mehr, der sich auch in der Dissertation findet. Daher ist dies wohl die vom Autor verwendete Quelle.

Sichter
(SleepyHollow02), (Hindemith), WiseWoman

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki