代写范文

留学资讯

写作技巧

论文代写专题

服务承诺

资金托管
原创保证
实力保障
24小时客服
使命必达

51Due提供Essay,Paper,Report,Assignment等学科作业的代写与辅导,同时涵盖Personal Statement,转学申请等留学文书代写。

51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标

私人订制你的未来职场 世界名企,高端行业岗位等 在新的起点上实现更高水平的发展

积累工作经验
多元化文化交流
专业实操技能
建立人际资源圈

British parliament's oversight of the courts

2018-10-10 来源: 51due教员组 类别: Paper范文

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的paper代写范文- British parliament's oversight of the courts,供大家参考学习,这篇论文讨论了英国议会对法院的监督。英国议会对法院的监督方式,就是提请国王对法官免职。议会和议员不能对法院正在处理的未决案件发表任何言论,并且,除非议员提出十分重要的要求众议院投票表决的动议,也不能对法官的行为品头论足。如果议员提出了调查法官行为的动议,则只有在指控该法官的初步证据相当并且一经证实将导致免职时,才能真正进行程序。

British parliament,英国议会对法院的监督,essay代写,paper代写,作业代写

It is well known that the British parliament was once the most powerful in the world, and is commonly known as "anything but the inability of a woman to become a man and a man to become a woman". Now that male-female interchangeability has become a reality, the British parliament is not doing everything. Sometimes, the British parliament criticizes the courts or the judges, although it is also very harsh. But, on the whole, parliament is wary of the courts. In particular, for the specific cases heard by the court, parliament would not sacrifice judicial independence for the sake of its own parliamentary supremacy system.

The way the British parliament supervises the courts is, simply, to refer the king to the removal of a judge. Otherwise, in the words of the English themselves, the independence of the court became a laughingstock, and the law of succession became a pile of waste paper. Therefore, parliament and members are not allowed to say anything about pending cases before the court, and they are not allowed to comment on the conduct of judges unless they make a very important motion requiring the house to vote. If a motion is made by a member to investigate the conduct of a judge, the proceedings can only be carried out when the prima facie evidence against the judge is sufficient and, once confirmed, will lead to removal from office.

This basic principle has been repeatedly emphasized in parliament over the past 300 years. In the case of judge grantham in 1906, for example, the then attorney general vehemently opposed any disciplinary measures other than removal, as the censure of parliament would leave judges in doubt and humiliated in their judicial activities. In 1959, during a parliamentary debate on a motion critical of judge Strasbourg, parliament reiterated that there could be no disciplinary measure other than removal of a judge by way of supervision. In a subsequent addendum, it was noted that, unless a motion for removal of the person concerned was made expressly, the judgment and redress of errors in the judicial proceedings of the judge should be left to the court of appeal.

But since the 1960s, there has been a consensus about parliamentary oversight of the courts: that parliament can investigate judicial misconduct, pass resolutions condemning it, and even be obliged to criticize judges. Parliament criticizes a judge in the following ways: first, a motion is made on a specific matter to criticize a judge or judicial sentence. Passing the critical motion after the debate on the motion; Second, the parliament to question the government on the conduct of judges in general or specific cases, which is also a very effective means; The third is to criticize the individual judge or the whole judicial team during the discussion of the draft law involving judges.

In the case of judge grantham in 1906, Henry Campbell bannerman, then prime minister, insisted that parliament should have the right to criticize judicial ACTS even when it did not use the extreme form of punishment of removal. "The proper duty of a judge is to hear a case," he said. If we believe that such conduct degrades the dignity of the judiciary and even leads to other unfortunate outcomes, we are obligated to express our condemnation of such conduct.

Therefore, although the British parliament in principle forbids criticism of judges, parliament can still express its criticism of judges through these forms, because the general principle is easy to be ignored, and this principle cannot exclude the discussion of judges' behavior in some specific cases. There are two kinds of judge's behavior: judge's trial behavior and judge's private behavior. Parliament cannot touch the trial behavior of judges, but for the latter, there is no prohibition in parliament's rules. So long as the speaker does not interrupt his speech in parliament, members may comment on the judge's private conduct. Even if the speaker interrupts a member by reminding him that his speech is outside the scope of the parliamentary discussion, the speaker merely prevents him from continuing to say what he has to say, and the criticisms he has already made will still be published in the parliamentary communique and may appear in the press. And, even if the speaker does not consider a member's speech to be part of the parliamentary discussion, he can insist that he has the right to express criticism and repeat it.

A motion calling for a resolution critical of a judicial act or judgment may, after debate, be adopted by parliament or may simply be a general censure of the judge in the debate and not lead to further action. In the case of judge graham mentioned earlier in 1906, almost all the members of parliament strongly criticized the judge, including those who opposed further action against him in parliament, but did not take further action against judge graham in the end. Henry Campbell bannerman, then prime minister, said:

After all, we have achieved the goal. That is to say, there has been criticism and condemnation of the language and behavior used by graham, and it has been consistent and public. I believe that after giving him such a lesson, he will not make those careless mistakes again.

Lawmakers in both Chambers sometimes use parliamentary inquiries into the government as a tool to criticize judges. Members of the government also take advantage of answering questions to criticize the judges, although sometimes they refuse to answer questions from parliament on the grounds that they cannot criticize a judge unless there is a major motion.

In the 19th century, this method was often used to force the retirement of judges in their 80s and 90s who could no longer work but were unwilling to retire. At the end of the 19th century, a judge's sentence in a criminal case could also be questioned in parliament. In this case, the government, when notified, typically asks a judge to consider their opinion on a case, and the judge typically writes back. The attorney general typically refers to a letter from a judge in response to questions from parliament about the issue. The question of the difference between a judge's official conduct and his private conduct is raised.

Lower court judges are sometimes the subject of parliamentary inquiries. For example, in 1870, William cook the judge was criticized by several times in parliament, one of them is in the appointed him as a judge, a Congressman has expressed his surprise on the appointed cook when the judge, and pointed out that the cook had practice bribery in an election, which run counter to the law judge qualifications.

In 1935, Lord chief justice Hugh became a subject of parliamentary criticism. Lord huett caused a social uproar by publishing two articles on controversial issues. "It is clear that the king's judges should not publish articles on controversial political issues," the prime minister said in response to questions.

In 1960, members of both Chambers raised questions about procedures for holding contempt proceedings in public, and the media criticized the practice as unfair. The Supreme Court has since amended the procedure.

In general, there are strict limits to parliamentary inquiries into the conduct of judges, and they are better observed. Members shall not criticize or discuss the conduct of judges unless there is a major motion in parliament. Parliament also cannot question the conduct of judges. In 1947, for example, the speaker rejected an inquiry into a judge's conduct.

Parliament sometimes criticizes the court when discussing draft laws or decrees related to judges. In this case, although the names of specific judges are rarely mentioned, it is easy for the public, judges and legal professionals to determine who is being criticized.

In 1965, discussing the judge's remuneration act, senator hale referred to the quality of judges. Though not a word of criticism was mentioned, he quoted a remark made by Lord denning that the judge was in some cases more qualified to legislate than parliament. Another mp took the opportunity to declare that he would not vote for an increase in the pay of a judge who had ruled shamefully in the case of Christopher Williams. The mp went on to say that the man is now retired.

In 1971, discussing the court, mp steinbrook criticised the deterioration of the status of judges in recent years. A very famous judge was recently convicted of violating traffic regulations, but the judge did not resign. This was unthinkable in previous years. In addition, a judge who has resigned has been offered a better-paid position in the city.

Judicial apathy, conservatism, class bias, are often the subject of criticism in parliament. Lawmakers have criticized the judge for being out of touch with the people in many cases and for making too little compensation for personal injuries. One mp even noted wryly that it was hoped that an increase in the judge's salary would help broaden the judge's horizons and make him change his practice when deciding the amount of compensation.

The criticism of parliament, apart from those cases where specific motions were passed that eventually led to the removal of a judge, was merely a form of pressure. It has no real impact on the judge or the court. It does not affect either the judge's continued hearing of the case or the judge's salary and tenure. On the other hand, due to the supremacy of parliament, the criticism is also carried out in public, especially through the media, so the pressure created by such criticism cannot be ignored by the court. Although no specific cases have been intervened, the purpose of supervision has been achieved.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明:原创paper代写范文源自编辑创作,未经官方许可,网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为,未经同意的情况下,51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的paper代写服务,亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多paper代写范文 提供作业代写服务,详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041。

上一篇:The abolition of the death pen 下一篇:Color of architecture