Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Wy/158

< Wy

31.381Seiten 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 158 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-13 22:37:15 Hindemith
Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 1997, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 158, Zeilen: 1ff (komplett)
Quelle: Griffith 1997
Seite(n): 46, Zeilen: 2ff
He observed: “Freedom of speech in parliament is not now, nor was it in 1901 or even in 1688 so sensitive a flower that, although the accuracy and the honesty of what is said by members of parliament (or witnesses before parliamentary committees) can be severely challenged in the media or in public, it cannot be challenged in the same way in the courts of law”.491 As noted, for Hunt J only when legal consequences are to be visited on Members or witnesses should parliamentary privilege and be used to prevent a court questioning what they said or did in Parliament. In support of this approach and contrary to the decision in Prebble, Geoffrey Marshall said the “formula in the Murphy case reflects a more rational attitude to parliamentary privilege as well as to the interests of justice and free speech”.492 He went on to observe: “The freedom of debate is sufficiently protected if members enjoy absolute privilege from criminal and civil actions directed at what they say in the course of debate or proceedings in the House. There is no need to inflate claims of privilege beyond that”.493

12.3.5 Facilitating a Regard for Truth

Witnesses to a parliamentary committee and MPs are more likely to tell the truth if they know there is a prospect that what they say may be challenged elsewhere, than if they know they are protected from such challenge. The ‘WA Inc’ Royal Commission commented in this regard: “Statements made in parliament should not be treated, for purposes associated with court and like proceedings, as if they were never uttered. To provide such immunity is likely to encourage, or at least facilitate, a disregard for the truth by those to whom the protection is given.


491 (1986) 5 NSWLR 18, p.34.

492 G.Marshall, Impugning parliamentary privilege, Public Law, Winter, 1994.

493 Id.

He observed: ‘Freedom of speech in parliament is not now, nor was it in 1901 or even in 1688 so sensitive a flower that, although the accuracy and the honesty of what is said by members of parliament (or witnesses before parliamentary committees) can be severely challenged in the media or in public, it cannot be challenged in the same way in the courts of law’.182 As noted, for Hunt J only when legal consequences are to be visited on Members or witnesses should parliamentary privilege be used to prevent a court questioning what they said or did in Parliament. In support of this approach and contrary to the decision in Prebble, Geoffrey Marshall said the ‘formula in the Murphy case reflects a more rational attitude to parliamentary privilege as well as to the interests of justice and free speech’.183 He went on to observe: ‘The freedom of debate is sufficiently protected if members enjoy absolute privilege from criminal and civil actions directed at what they say in the course of debate or proceedings in the House. There is no need to inflate claims of privilege beyond that’.184

(v) facilitating a regard for truth: witnesses to a parliamentary committee and MPs are more likely to tell the truth if they know there is a prospect that what they say may be challenged elsewhere, than if they know they are protected from such challenge. The ‘WA Inc’ Royal Commission commented in this regard: ‘Statements made in parliament should not be treated, for purposes associated with court and like proceedings, as if they were never uttered. To provide such immunity is likely to encourage, or at least facilitate, a disregard for the truth by those to whom the protection is given.


182 (1986) 5 NSWLR 18 at 34.

183 G Marshall, ‘Impugning parliamentary privilege’ (Winter 1994) Public Law 509 at 512.

184 Ibid at 513.

Anmerkungen

Kein Hinweis auf eine Übernahme (abgesehen vielleicht von FN 486 auf Seite 156).

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), Hindemith


vorherige Seite | zur Übersichtsseite | folgende Seite
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Hindemith, Zeitstempel: 20130913223734

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki