Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Wy/Fragment 121 01

< 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.


Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
WiseWoman
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 121, Zeilen: 1-20
Quelle: Griffith 2007
Seite(n): 67;68;69, Zeilen: 18-26;1, 33-36;1-7
[These include considerations arising from the separation of powers that require a policy of non-] intervention, added to considerations arising from Article 9 that preclude judicial questioning of parliamentary proceedings. Added to this, in Criminal Justice Commission v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd, 362 Davies JA observed that the reluctance of the courts to intervene in the legislative process stems from “the mutual respect which each branch of government should accord the performance of its functions by the other”. Likewise, British Railway Board v Pickin is authority for the proposition that a court is barred by the principle of comity from investigating the manner in which Parliament exercises its legislative function.363

But there are some cases where the courts have intervened in the parliamentary process. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Marquet v. A-G (WA) undertook review of this area of the law. A manner and form provision was at issue in that case and declarations had been sought from the Clerk of the Parliaments whether it would be lawful for him to present two Bills for the Governor’s assent that had not complied with the absolute majority requirements.364 On the question of jurisdiction, Steytler and Parker JJ concluded (the other members of the Court agreeing):

In the case of legislation…which provides that presentation of a Bill [for the royal assent] ‘shall not be lawful’ unless particular circumstances have been satisfied, the Court has jurisdiction to intervene in order to make a declaration of the kind sought, after the deliberative process in the Houses of Parliament has [been completed, but before the Bill is presented to the Governor for Royal Assent.365]


362 [1996] 2 QdR 444, p.460.

363 [1974] AC 765.

364 See, E.Campbell, Parliamentary Privilege in Australia, pp. 116-118; P. Johnston, Method or Madness: Constitutional Perturbations and Marquet’s case, Constitutional Law and Policy Review, August, 2004.

[365 [2002] 26 WAR 201, p.160.]

These include considerations arising from the separation of powers that require a policy of non-intervention, added to considerations arising from Article 9 that preclude judicial questioning of parliamentary proceedings. Added to this, in Criminal Justice Commission v Nationwide News Pty Ltd 248 Davies JA observed that the reluctance of the courts to intervene in the legislative process stems from ‘the mutual respect which each branch of government should accord the performance of its functions by the other’. Likewise, British Railway Board v Pickin249 is authority for the proposition that a court is barred by the principle of comity from investigating the manner in which Parliament exercises its legislative function. [...]

[S. 68]

where the courts have intervened in the parliamentary process [...]

In 2002 review of this area of the law was undertaken by the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Marquet v A-G (WA). A manner and form provision was at issue in that case and declarations had been sought from the Clerk of the Parliaments whether it would be lawful for him to present two Bills for the Governor’s assent that had not complied with the

[S. 69]

absolute majority requirements. 254 On the question of jurisdiction, Steytler and Parker JJ concluded (the other members of the Court agreeing):

In the case of legislation...which provides that presentation of a Bill [for the royal assent] ‘shall not be lawful’ unless particular circumstances have been satisfied, the Court has jurisdiction to intervene in order to make a declaration of the kind sought, after the deliberative process in the Houses of Parliament has been completed, but before the Bill is presented to the Governor for Royal Assent.255


248 [1996] 2 QdR 444 at 460.

254 For a detailed background to and commentary on the case see – Campbell, Parliamentary Privilege, n 147, pp 116-118; P Johnston, ‘Method or madness: constitutional perturbations and Marquet’s case’ (August 2004) 7(2)Constitutional Law and Policy Review 25.

255 [2002] 26 WAR 201 at 160.

Anmerkungen

Die ganzseitige Übernahme begann auf S. 120 und setzt sich mit kleinsten Veränderungen fort.

Sichter
(WiseWoman) Singulus

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki