Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Wy/105

< Wy

31.384Seiten in
diesem Wiki
Seite hinzufügen
Diskussion0 Teilen

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.

Research on Parliamentary Privilege Concurrently Discuss Chinese National People's Congressional Privilege

von Weizhong Yi

vorherige Seite | zur Übersichtsseite | folgende Seite
Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende
[1.] Wy/Fragment 105 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-14 15:44:49 Graf Isolan
Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 2007, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 105, Zeilen: 1ff (komplett)
Quelle: Griffith 2007
Seite(n): 61, Zeilen: 2ff
[The Queensland Supreme Court agreed with the Speaker on the first] “procedural” argument, thereby confirming that the report was a parliamentary proceeding. However, it did not accept the ‘substantive’ argument, concluding that the Court had jurisdiction to restrain unlawful disclosure of a confidential CJC report in circumstances where the CJC had a statutory right under s 26(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 (Qld)320 to protect against disclosure of such reports.

In Corrigan v PCJC321 the issue was whether a decision of a statutory parliamentary committee – the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee (PCJC) – was reviewable by the courts. A person had complained to the PCJC about the Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) and requested that the PCJC refer the matter to the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Commissioner (the Parliamentary Commissioner) for investigation. It was the PCJC’s decision not to refer the matter for investigation that the Supreme Court was asked to review. While recognising a distinction between ‘parliamentary’ and ‘executive’ functions of the committee, Dutney J ruled that the ‘act’ in question was of a parliamentary nature. He could ‘see no reason to distinguish the PCJC from any other committee of the Legislative Assembly merely because it is set up under statute, at least in areas of internal decision making where there is no allegation of breach of any statutory duty or prohibition’.

In Criminal Justice Commission v Parliamentary Criminal Justice Commissioner 322 the question was whether a report of the Parliamentary Commissioner constituted a ‘proceeding in Parliament’.


320 The Criminal Justice Act 1989 (Qld), Article 26, Section 6, No person shall publish, furnish or deliver a report of the commission, otherwise than is prescribed by this section, unless the report has been printed by order of the Legislative Assembly or is deemed to have been so printed.

321 [2001] 2 Qd R 23.

322 [2002] 2 Qd R 8.

The Queensland Supreme Court agreed with the Speaker on the first ‘procedural’ argument, thereby confirming that the report was a parliamentary proceeding. However, it did not accept the ‘substantive’ argument, concluding that the Court had jurisdiction to restrain unlawful disclosure of a confidential CJC report in circumstances where the CJC had a statutory right under s 26(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 (Qld) to protect against disclosure of such reports.

• In Corrigan v PCJC219 the issue was whether a decision of a statutory parliamentary committee – the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee (PCJC) – was reviewable by the courts. A person had complained to the PCJC about the Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) and requested that the PCJC refer the matter to the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Commissioner (the Parliamentary Commissioner) for investigation. It was the PCJC’s decision not to refer the matter for investigation that the Supreme Court was asked to review. While recognising a distinction between ‘parliamentary’ and ‘executive’ functions of the committee,220 Dutney J ruled that the ‘act’ in question was of a parliamentary nature. He could ‘see no reason to distinguish the PCJC from any other committee of the Legislative Assembly merely because it is set up under statute, at least in areas of internal decision making where there is no allegation of breach of any statutory duty or prohibition’.221

• In Criminal Justice Commission v Parliamentary Criminal Justice Commissioner222 the question was whether a report of the Parliamentary Commissioner constituted a ‘proceeding in Parliament’.


219 [2001] 2 Qd R 23.

220 [2001] 2 Qd R 23 at 24. This followed the comments on Pincus JA in Criminal Justice Commission v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (at 457). Dutney J suggested that the committee’s ‘executive’ functions might include ‘participating the in the constitution of the CJC and, possibly, the role of issuing guidelines and directions to the CJC as provided under the Act’’.

221 [2001] 2 Qd R 23 at 25.

222 [2002] 2 Qd R 8.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme. Auf die Quelle wird vor dieser Seite zuletzt auf Seite 103 und danach erst auf Seite 107 hingewiesen.

Sichter
(Graf Isolan) Agrippina1


vorherige Seite | zur Übersichtsseite | folgende Seite
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Graf Isolan, Zeitstempel: 20130914154513

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki