Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Wy/110

< Wy

31.377Seiten 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 110 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-14 20:11:55 WiseWoman
Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 2007, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Singulus
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 110, Zeilen: 1ff (komplett)
Quelle: Griffith 2007
Seite(n): 64, Zeilen: 2ff
[For his first cause of action based on these defamatory remarks the plaintiff could not succeed without relying] on the naming of him in the House. This was held, rightly in the opinion of the Board, to be impermissible.332 The Privy Council continued:

For the purposes of the action it must be assumed that the defendant’s conduct was proper: if it was not, it was a matter for the House, not the court; and privilege is conferred for the benefit of Parliament as an institution, and of the nation as a whole, not for the benefit of any individual member. Thus the defendant had to be free to name the plaintiff in Parliament if he judged it right to do so, without fear of adverse civil consequences.333

On the other hand, the speech in Parliament was admissible to support the second cause of action in Peters v. Cushing. This arose from the effective repetition of the defamatory statement in a subsequent television interview on 10 October 1993. In this context it was ruled that Hansard could be relied on, not to support the cause of action or as a foundation for it, but to prove what occurred in Parliament as an historical fact.334

The third case, Buchanan v Jennings, was one of the affirmation or “effective repetition” outside Parliament of what was said inside Parliament. As formulated by the Privy Council, the principle in issue was:

Whether a Member of Parliament may be liable in defamation if the member makes a defamatory statement in the House of Representatives – a statement which is protected by absolute privilege under article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688– [and later affirms the statement (but without repeating it) on an occasion which is not protected by privilege.]335


332 Buchanan v. Jennings [2005] 1 AC 115.

333 [2005] 1 AC 115.

334 [1999] NZAR 241.

[335 [2005] 1 AC 115.]

:For his first cause of action based on these defamatory remarks the plaintiff could not succeed without relying on the naming of him in the House. This was held, rightly in the opinion of the Board, to be impermissible.232

The Privy Council continued:

For the purposes of the action it must be assumed that the defendant’s conduct was proper: if it was not, it was a matter for the House, not the court; and privilege is conferred for the benefit of Parliament as an institution, and of the nation as a whole, not for the benefit of any individual member. Thus the defendant had to be free to name the plaintiff in Parliament if he judged it right to do so, without fear of adverse civil consequences.233

On the other hand, the speech in Parliament was admissible to support the second cause of action in Peters v Cushing. This arose from the effective repetition of the defamatory statement in a subsequent television interview on 10 October 1993. In this context it was ruled that Hansard could be relied on, not to support the cause of action or as a foundation for it, but to prove what occurred in Parliament as an historical fact.234

The third case, Buchanan v Jennings, was one of the affirmation or ‘effective repetition’ outside Parliament of what was said inside Parliament. As formulated by the Privy Council, the principle in issue was:

whether a Member of Parliament may be liable in defamation if the member makes a defamatory statement in the House of Representatives – a statement which is protected by absolute privilege under article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 – and later affirms the statement (but without repeating it) on an occasion which is not protected by privilege.235

232 Buchanan v Jennings [2005] 1 AC 115 at para 19.

233 [2005] 1 AC 115 at para 19.

234 [1999] NZAR 241 at 249 (Ellis J) and 255 (Grieg J).

235 [2005] 1 AC 115 at para 1.

Anmerkungen

Ganzseitige Übernahme.

Sichter
(Singulus), WiseWoman


vorherige Seite | zur Übersichtsseite | folgende Seite
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:WiseWoman, Zeitstempel: 20130914201240

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki