|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 7, Zeilen: 1-18 |
Quelle: Wright 2007 Seite(n): 9-10, Zeilen: 9:11-27 - 10:1-5 |
|---|---|
| [Persons punished by the House have] included members and others, including sheriffs, magistrates and judges.19 This capacity was seen as very important to the House’s ability to defend the Parliament. Its significance lies in the breadth of offences which could be punished: there was no list or closed set of actions which could be subject to punishment by the House. This power has been described as a “quintessentially British institution”.20
2.1.3 The British Influence Principal features of the British model are seen in many parliaments, but primarily in nations which were once British colonies or possessions.21 This group includes nations as diverse as the India, the United States of America, New Zealand, Canada, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa and Malta.22 In some cases the constitutional law itself sets out similar provisions, and in others there are links in constitutional and other laws. In some cases there have been no such explicit provisions or links, and at common law the provisions available were limited to those of ‘reasonable necessity’.23 Considerable adaptation has taken place in many jurisdictions. The parliament of Scotland and the National Assembly for Wales, two of the most recently established parliaments, are interesting examples of adaptation. 19 May, 23rd ed., (2004), p.92. 20 Marc Van der Hulst, The Parliamentary Mandate, IPU, 2000, p.129. 21 Marc Van der Hulst, The Parliamentary Mandate, IPU, 2000, pp.66, 130. 22 Bernard Wright, Patterns of Change-Parliamentary Privilege, http://www.aph.gov.au/ HOUSE/PUBS/occpub/privileges.pdf. 23 Gareth Griffith, Principles, Personalities, Politics: Parliamentary Privilege Cases in NSW, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ prod/parlment/publications.nsf/ 0/ABD1B841CB387720CA 256ECF000CAADE/$File/bg01-04.pdf. |
[Seite 9]
Persons punished by the House have included members and others, including sheriffs, magistrates and judges39. This capacity was seen as very important to the House’s ability to defend the Parliament. For the purposes of this paper, its significance lies in the breadth of offences which could be punished: there was no list or closed set of actions which could be subject to punishment by the House. This power has been described as a ‘quintessentially British institution’40 (and see 6.11-12 below for recommended changes). The British influence 4.8 Key features of the British model are seen in many parliaments, but primarily in nations which were once British colonies or possessions41. This group includes nations as diverse as the India, the United States of America, New Zealand, Canada, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa and Malta. In some cases the constitutional law itself sets out similar provisions42, in others there are links in constitutional and other laws43. In some cases there have been no such explicit provisions or links, and at common law the provisions available were limited to those of [Seite 10] ‘reasonable necessity’44. Considerable adaptation has taken place in many jurisdictions (and see 5.3-5.7 below). 4.9 The parliament of Scotland and the National Assembly for Wales, two of the most recently established parliaments, are interesting examples of adaptation. 39 May, op cit p 92. 40 Van der Hulst, op cit, p 129. 41 Van der Hulst, op cit, pp 66, 130. 42 US Constitution, Article 1(6). 43 For example Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, and Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. 44 For example, New South Wales; and see Campbell, op cit, pp 2, 4; and Gareth Griffith Principles, Personalities, Politics; Parliamentary Privilege Cases in NSW. |
Art und Umfang der Übernahme bleiben ungekennzeichnet. |
|