The principles of stare decisis (binding law from higher courts) are the same as for the Federal Court. Appeals from the Family Court are heard by a "Full Court" of the Family Court (three to five judges). Appeals from the Full Court lie to the High Court of Australia, though special leave is required. A single judge of the Family Court may hear appeals in family law matters from the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. Appeals from the Federal Magistrates Court must go to either of these courts (Federal Court or Family Court), dependent on the area of
Britain and Australia share so much history together; it would be disgraceful just to ditch them. If we were to become a republic, what will change? If that was to happen, only our head of state wouldn’t be a monarch but a president and we wouldn’t have a governor general. Now that’s not much, and there would be so many things affected from this. Maybe if we did become a republic, our national flag might change because of the Union Jack on the top-left hand corner.
Scarcity cost: In making managerial decisions, we must first consider that our resources are limited. We therefore have to choose between options; we cannot do them all. Sometimes two different investments look good, but because resources are scarce, we cannot do both. Opportunity cost: Whenever we make one decision, we are giving up the next best option. We need to consider the missed benefits of the option not chosen as part of the decision-making process.
The Australian criminal law has not been viewed as culturally neutral in its treatment of indigenous Australians in the past, and, as is evident through mandatory sentencing laws in Western Australia and the Northern Territory, continues to be racially biased, discriminatory and disproportionately strict in its treatment of Aboriginal Australians. OBJECTIVES OF THE CRIMINAL LAW The ultimate object of criminal law is to protect the community from crime. But there are many other relevant considerations. Community protection is a primary consideration in sentencing , but it will be weighed against the personal characteristics and circumstances of the offence and the offender . The common law does not sanction arbitrary detention.
In Confucianism they believe people will follow their leader. On the contrary, Legalism, believes that people should not be given the choice to do good because if they have that choice it’s very unlikely they will try to do good. The law has to prevent people from doing any bad, and the consequences were very harsh, so that people will do the right thing. As you can see, they both have very different beliefs. But one thing they have in common is that they both want people to do good, and do the right thing.
In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed. (4) The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more … DOUBLE EFFECT, PRINCIPLE OF The Principle of Double Effect is a rule of conduct frequently used in moral theology to determine when a person may lawfully perform an action from which two effects will follow, one bad and the other good.
Although often the two types of secret trusts are dealt with together this creates some difficulties because they are so different even to the extent that they break different convention rules. Lord Viscount Sumner said in Blackwell v Blackwell [1929] that once the trustee agrees to the testator's intentions "the proposed donee encourages him to bequeath the money in the faith that his intentions will be carried out." The two types of secret trusts share some rules such that the secret trustee must accept the trust. This acceptance can be express or implied; Wallgrave v Tebbs [1972]. The secret trustee must be under a legally binding obligation, a purely moral one is inadequate; McCormack v Grogan.
These flaws are usually associated with the fact that they are unable to fulfil the need to gain the answer since they may be biased, however even when these two ways of knowing are put together, they may contradict each other, or do not share the same view on the same exact case, this is what is considered as the conflict. In order to understand and find the answer to the question, the question must be clearly defined, in terms of emotion and reason as well as the idea of the conflict. Emotion is defined as any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat or respiration, and often overt manifestation, as crying or shaking. Simply, emotion is the representation of one's mind when it comes to decision making or confronted with any other serious situation, and it occurs whether the individual consciously or subconsciously aware of it. Such example would be when one feels angered by the fact that the two choices given are not the choices that one desires or when confronted with an insulting joke, one would laugh at the joke, but disgusted or angered by the insult.
Roscoe Pound said that interests are both individual and social and that conflicts are only resolved through considering them on the same level. Individual against individual and society against society and therefore failure to do this is bias towards society. He also believed in consensus view of society believing that interests should be balanced in line with society’s values. There are many theories to whether conflicting interests are balanced but we must look at parliament to see what they do to tackle this problem. Parliament does manage to balance conflicting interests in the process of making an act.
To say that activist judges “always” do that so as to make the outcome they “desire” would not be very accurate and in fact unfair to the judges. Judges are supposed to follow the doctrine of precedent when applicable. Also, under the Human Rights Act 1998, all common law rules and precedents that are incompatible with Convention rights are potentially open to challenge, especially if those precedents relate to the interpretation of statutory provisions. Doctrine of precedent An important and distinctive element of English law is that the reasoning and decisions found in preceding cases are binding on later courts so as to promote certainty, clarity and consistency of legal principles. This is known as the principle of stare decisis, which is translated as ‘let the decision stand’.