Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Wy/Fragment 122 01

< Wy

31.371Seiten 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: 122, Zeilen: 1-19
Quelle: Griffith_2007
Seite(n): 69, Zeilen: 6-22
[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

It was further held that the Court should, as a matter of discretion, exercise its jurisdiction. On appealing to the High Court the question of justiciability was not considered. Rather, it was the validity of the manner and form provision that was the point at issue.366

This area of the law was again reviewed by the UK Court of Appeal367 and subsequently, if less extensively, by the House of Lords in R (Jackson) v. Attorney General368 in which supporters of fox hunting argued that the Hunting Act 2004 was not a valid Act, on the ground that the 1949 amendments to the Parliament Act 1911 were invalid and the procedures used to pass the Hunting Act were also invalid. The 2004 legislation banning fox hunting was passed without the consent of the House of Lords, pursuant to s 2 of the Parliament Act 1911, as amended in 1949 when the period before the Lords’ consent could be dispensed with was reduced by a year. As amended, the procedure only required the passage and rejection of a Bill in two successive sessions (instead of three) over a period of one year (instead of two).369 As explained by Michael Plaxton:

The nub of the Appellants’ claim is that s 2(1) of the 1911 Act could not be amended without the formal consent of the House of Lords; that the bypassing [procedure could not be used to amend itself.]


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

366 Attorney General (WA) v. Marquet (2003) 217 CLR 545.

367 Regina (Jackson and others) v. Attorney General [2005] QB 579.

368 [2005] 3 WLR 733.

369 A Twomey, Implied Limitations on Legislative Power in the United Kingdom, Australian Law Journal, Vol. 80, 2006.

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

It was further held that the Court should, as a matter of discretion, exercise its jurisdiction. On appeal to the High Court the question of justiciability was not considered. Rather, it was the validity of the manner and form provision that was the point at issue.256

This area of the law was again reviewed by the UK Court of Appeal257 and subsequently, if less extensively, by the House of Lords in R (Jackson) v Attorney General258 in which supporters of fox hunting argued that the Hunting Act 2004 was not a valid Act, on the ground that the 1949 amendments to the Parliament Act 1911 were invalid and the procedures used to pass the Hunting Act were also invalid. The 2004 legislation banning fox hunting was passed without the consent of the House of Lords, pursuant to s 2 of the Parliament Act 1911, as amended in 1949 when the period before the Lords’ consent could be dispensed with was reduced by a year. As amended, the procedure only required the passage and rejection of a Bill in two successive sessions (instead of three) over a period of one year (instead of two).259

As explained by Michael Plaxton:

The nub of the Appellants’ claim is that s 2(1) of the 1911 Act could not be amended without the formal consent of the House of Lords; that the bypassing [procedure could not be used to amend itself.]


255 [2002] 26 WAR 201 at 160.

256 Attorney General (WA) v Marquet (2003) 217 CLR 545.

257 Regina (Jackson and others) v Attorney General [2005] QB 579.

258 [2005] 3 WLR 733.

259 A Twomey, ‘Implied limitations on legislative power in the United Kingdom’ (2006) 80 Australian Law Journal 40.

Anmerkungen

Identisch.

Sichter
(WiseWoman) Singulus

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki