von Weizhong Yi
Statistik und Sichtungsnachweis dieser Seite findet sich am Artikelende
| [1.] Wy/Fragment 167 01 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2013-09-16 12:14:15 WiseWoman | Fragment, Gesichtet, Griffith 2007, KomplettPlagiat, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel sysop, Wy |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 167, Zeilen: 1ff (komplett) |
Quelle: Griffith 2007 Seite(n): 56-57, Zeilen: 56:27ff - 57:1-13 |
|---|---|
| Lord Browne-Wilkinson made it clear that he had only dealt with this question in order to avoid confusion in the law of parliamentary privilege.511 As he said at the outset, ‘section 13 affects all the issues in this case’.512 In effect, since Hamilton had chosen to rely on s 13, the trial of the action could proceed, notwithstanding the infringement of parliamentary privilege that would result.
In its First Report of 1999, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that s 13 be repealed, arguing that it had “created indefensible anomalies of its own which should not be allowed to continue”. The cure s 13 which ought to achieve what was to rectify the situation where an individual MP (or a witness before a parliamentary committee) is precluded by parliamentary privilege from taking action to clear their name when it is alleged that what they have said in a parliamentary context is untrue. For the Joint Committee, the cure was worse than the disease: A fundamental flaw is that it undermines the basis of privileges: Freedom of speech is the privilege of the House as a whole and not of the individual member in his own right, although an individual member can assert and rely on it. Application of the new provision could also be impracticable in complicated cases; for example, where two members, or a member and a non-member, are closely involved in the same action and one waives privilege and the other does not. Section 13 is also anomalous: it is available only in defamation proceedings. No similar waiver is available for any criminal action, or any other form of civil action.513 511 [2001] 1 AC 395, p.407. 512 [2001] 1 AC 395, p.398. 513 UK Parliament, Reports of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt199899/jtselect/jtpriv/43/4302.htm. |
[Seite 56]
Lord Browne-Wilkinson made it clear that he had only dealt with this question in order to avoid confusion in the law of parliamentary privilege.203 As he said at the outset, ‘section 13 affects all the issues in this case’.204 In effect, since Hamilton had chosen to rely on s 13, the trial of the action could proceed, notwithstanding the infringement of parliamentary privilege that would result. In its First Report of 1999, the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege recommended that s 13 be repealed, arguing that it had ‘created indefensible anomalies of its own which [Seite 57] should not be allowed to continue’. The cure s 13 sought to achieve was to rectify the situation where an individual MP (or a witness before a parliamentary committee) is precluded by parliamentary privilege from taking action to clear their name when it is alleged that what they have said in a parliamentary context is untrue. For the Joint Committee, the cure was worse than the disease: A fundamental flaw is that it undermines the basis of privilege: freedom of speech is the privilege of the House as a whole and not of the individual member in his own right, although an individual member can assert and rely on it. Application of the new provision could also be impracticable in complicated cases; for example, where two members, or a member and a non-member, are closely involved in the same action and one waives privilege and the other does not. Section 13 is also anomalous: it is available only in defamation proceedings. No similar waiver is available for any criminal action, or any other form of civil action.205 203 [2001] 1 AC 395 at 407. 204 [2001] 1 AC 395 at 398. 205 Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, n 2, pp 24-25. |
Identisch ohne Hinweis auf eine Übernahme. Für das Zitat, das den letzten Absatz ausmacht ("A fundamental ... action") gibt Wy zwar korrekt die (bei ihm: Internet-) Vorlage an, es findet sich aber genau in diesem Umfang und vor allem in demselben, wortwörtlichen Kontext schon in der Quelle Griffith. Wy/Fragment_167_14b zeigt aber auch, dass Griffith den Text evtl. auch aus einer anderen Quelle übernommen hat. |
|
Letzte Bearbeitung dieser Seite: durch Benutzer:Graf Isolan, Zeitstempel: 20130914205452