Fandom

VroniPlag Wiki

Wy/Fragment 123 01

< 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.


Typus
KomplettPlagiat
Bearbeiter
WiseWoman
Gesichtet
Yes.png
Untersuchte Arbeit:
Seite: 123, Zeilen: 1-21
Quelle: Griffith_2007
Seite(n): 69;70, Zeilen: 23-27;1-15
[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. The Appellants chiefly rested their argument on the claim that the 1911 Act merely delegated power to the House of Commons that would ordinarily be shared by both Houses. If that were the case, they argued, the House of Commons would be unable to use the powers granted by the 1911 Act to expand them, unless such authority was explicitly granted.370

In the event, both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords ruled that the 1949 amending Act and therefore the Hunting Act 2004 were valid. In arriving at this decision the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous judgment delivered by Lord Woolf, held that the case turned on more than statutory interpretation and that regard should be had to the parliamentary debates to ascertain the meaning of s 2(1) of the Parliament Act 1911 and ‘subsequent understanding of Parliament as to the nature of the constitutional change effected’ by the Act.371 As to the threshold question of justiciability, the Court of Appeal held that this was a rare occasion when it was appropriate for the courts to rule on the validity of legislation that had received the Royal Assent, on grounds that the courts were ‘seeking to assist Parliament and the public by clarifying the legal position when such clarification is obviously necessary’. Further explaining the Court’s modus operandi, Lord Woolf stated:

While we refer [sic] what has happened in debates in Parliament concerning the issue before us, we will not be adjudicating upon the propriety of what occurred in Parliament.372


370 M Plaxton, The Concept of Legislation: Jackson v Her Majesty’s Attorney General, Modern Law Review, Vol. 69, 2006.

371 [2005] QB 579 at para. 77.

372 [2005] QB 579 at para. 13.

[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. The Appellants chiefly rested their argument on the claim that the 1911 Act merely delegated power to the House of Commons that would ordinarily be shared by both Houses. If that were the case, they argued, the House of Commons would be unable to use the powers granted by the 1911 Act to expand them, unless such authority was explicitly granted. 260

In the event, both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords ruled that the 1949 amending Act and therefore the Hunting Act 2004 were valid. In arriving at this decision the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous judgment delivered by Lord Woolf, held that the case turned on more than statutory interpretation and that regard should be had to the parliamentary debates to ascertain the meaning of s 2(1) of the Parliament Act 1911 and ‘subsequent understanding of Parliament as to the nature of the constitutional change effected’ by the Act.261 As to the threshold question of justiciability, the Court of Appeal held that this was a rare occasion when it was appropriate for the courts to rule on the validity of legislation that had received the Royal Assent, on grounds that the courts were ‘seeking to assist Parliament and the public by clarifying the legal position when such clarification is obviously necessary’. Further explaining the Court’s modus operandi, Lord Woolf stated: [...]

While we will refer to what has happened in debates in Parliament concerning the issue before us, we will not be adjudicating upon the propriety of what occurred in Parliament.262

260 M Plaxton, ‘The concept of legislation: Jackson v Her Majesty’s Attorney General’ (2006) 69(2) Modern Law Review 249 at 250.

261 [2005] QB 579 at para 77.

262 [2005] QB 579 at para 13.

Anmerkungen

Die Kopie setzt sich fort.

Sichter
(WiseWoman) Singulus

Auch bei Fandom

Zufälliges Wiki