Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Wy/159

< Wy

31.354Seiten in
diesem Wiki
Seite hinzufügen
Diskussion0 Share

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 159 01 - Diskussion
Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-13 22:40:42 Hindemith
Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 1997, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy

Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
Graf Isolan
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 159, Zeilen: 1ff (komplett)
Quelle: Griffith 1997
Seite(n): 46, Zeilen: 46:24ff - 47:1-8
We have no doubt that if it is understood by members of Parliament or persons appearing before a parliamentary committee that they may be called to account for their parliamentary statements at a later time, they are more likely than not to speak honestly, although no less freely. To suggest otherwise is to equate the right to speak freely in Parliament with the right to be disingenuous. Such a proposition is fundamentally inconsistent with the right of all citizens to be governed in an open and accountable manner”.494

12.3.6 Procedural Fairness

There is no mechanism for ensuring that witnesses before parliamentary committees generally will be protected by the requirements of procedural fairness. In 1991 the NSW Attorney General’s Discussion Paper commented that this had not proved to be a controversial matter in this jurisdiction. But at the same time it said that “Procedural questions such as whether evidence should be heard in-camera, the degree to which counsel should be involved, and the admissibility of questions are currently left to the Committees themselves to determine”. The Discussion Paper went on to say that it is “essential that persons summoned to give evidence before a Committee be accorded procedural fairness”.495 Likewise, in a New Zealand context Sir Geoffrey Palmer argued for a legislative provision “explicitly requiring select committees of Parliament to follow the rules of natural justice”.496


494 Western Australia, Report of the Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and other matters, 1992, Part II, para. 5, 8, 6.

495 NSW Attorney General’s Department, Discussion Paper-Parliamentary Privilege in NSW, 1991, p.34.

496 G. Palmer, Parliament and privilege: Whose Justice?, New Zealand law Journal, September, 1994.

[Seite 46]

We have no doubt that if it is understood by members of Parliament or persons appearing before a parliamentary committee that they may be called to account for their parliamentary statements at a later time, they are more likely than not to speak honestly, although no less freely. To suggest otherwise is to equate the right to speak freely in Parliament with the right to be disingenuous. Such a proposition is fundamentally inconsistent with the right of all citizens to be governed in an open and accountable manner’.185

(vi) procedural fairness: there is no mechanism for ensuring that witnesses before parliamentary committees generally will be protected by the requirements of procedural fairness. In 1991 the NSW Attorney General’s Discussion Paper commented that this had not proved to be a controversial matter in this

[Seite 47]

jurisdiction. But at the same time it said that ‘Procedural questions such as whether evidence should be heard in-camera, the degree to which counsel should be involved, and the admissibility of questions are currently left to the Committees themselves to determine’. The Discussion Paper went on to say that it is ‘essential that persons summoned to give evidence before a Committee be accorded procedural fairness’.186 Likewise, in a New Zealand context Sir Geoffrey Palmer argued for a legislative provision ‘explicitly requiring select committees of Parliament to follow the rules of natural justice’.187


185 Western Australia, Report of the Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and other matters, 1992, Part II, para 5.8.6.

186 NSW Attorney General’s Department, Discussion Paper - Parliamentary Privilege in NSW, 1991, p 34.

187 G Palmer, op cit, p 329.

Anmerkungen

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

Sichter
(Graf Isolan), Hindemith


vorherige Seite | zur Übersichtsseite | folgende Seite
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Hindemith, Zeitstempel: 20130913224000

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki