von Weizhong Yi
Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende
| [1.] Wy/Fragment 157 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-13 22:34:02 Hindemith | Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 1997, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 157, Zeilen: 1ff (komplett) |
Quelle: Griffith 1997 Seite(n): 45, Zeilen: 45:2-10, 22-30 |
|---|---|
| [Various examples of the alleged abuse] of privilege can be cited in this context but the general point to make is that the privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament can and does come into conflict with the principle that “every person is entitled to access to the Courts...to obtain redress for alleged wrongs”.488 Thus, a citizen defamed by an MP may be denied a remedy by the absolute privilege afforded to what is said in Parliament under Article 9. The reports of Parliamentary Committees are protected by the same absolute privilege and the point is made that potential exists for such Committees
“to engage in activities which are oppressive or which may do irreparable harm to individuals”.489 12.3.3 Contrary to Democratic Values According to the ‘WA Inc’ Royal Commission, the present construction of what is meant by freedom of speech in Parliament under Article 9 is “fundamentally inconsistent with the right of all citizens to subject their parliamentary representatives to scrutiny and to be governed in an open and accountable manner”.490 12.3.4 Inflated and Unhistorical Interpretation of Parliamentary Privilege The present Construction of Article 9 (Bill of rights, 1689) makes inflated claims for parliamentary privilege which owes little or nothing to its original purpose and intent. Again, this was the view of Hunt J in Murphy’s case where his Honour proposed a “narrower interpretation” consistent with “both the mischief which the Bill of Rights was enacted to remedy and the history of what led to the [enactment of Art. 9.”] 488 R.Best, Freedom of Speech in Parliament: Constitutional Safeguard or Sword of Oppression?, VUWLR, Vol. 24, 1994. 489 Explanatory Note, Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1994 (NZ), p.28. 490 Western Australia, Report of the Royal commission into Commercial Activities of Government and other matters, 1992, Part II, para. 5,8,7. |
[Seite 45]
Various examples of the alleged abuse of privilege can be cited in this context but the general point to make is that the privilege of freedom of speech in Parliament can and does come into conflict with the principle that ‘every person is entitled to access to the Courts...to obtain redress for alleged wrongs’.177 Thus, a citizen defamed by an MP may be denied a remedy by the absolute privilege afforded to what is said in Parliament under Article 9. The reports of Parliamentary Committees are protected by the same absolute privilege and the point is made that potential exists for such Committees ‘to engage in activities which are oppressive or which may do irreparable harm to individuals’.178 [...] (iii) contrary to democratic values: according to the ‘WA Inc’ Royal Commission, the present construction of what is meant by freedom of speech in Parliament under Article 9 is ‘fundamentally inconsistent with the right of all citizens to subject their parliamentary representatives to scrutiny, and to be governed in an open and accountable manner’.181 (iv) inflated and unhistorical interpretation of Article 9: the present construction of Article 9 makes inflated claims for parliamentary privilege which owe little or nothing to its original purpose and intent. Again, this was the view of Hunt J in Murphy’s case where his Honour proposed a ‘narrower interpretation’ consistent [with ‘both the mischief which the Bill of Rights was enacted to remedy and the history of what led to the enactment of art. 9'.]
177 R Best, ‘Freedom of speech in Parliament: constitutional safeguard or sword of oppression?’ (1994) 24 VUWLR 91 at 95. Cited is a comment from McKay J in TVNZ v Prebble [1993] 3 NZLR 513. 178 Explanatory Note, Parliamentary Privileges Bill 1994 (NZ), p 28. 181 Western Australia, Report of the Royal commission into Commercial Activities of Government and other matters, 1992, Part II, para 5.8.7. |
Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme außer der Fußnote 486 auf der Vorseite, die sich möglicherweise auch auf diesen Text hier beziehen könnte. |
|
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Hindemith, Zeitstempel: 20130913223430