However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws. The judiciary cannot make judgments past the jurisdiction of the law even in interests of natural justice. A strong example of this was the Belmarsh Case, where judges believed the system of holding foreigners against the will under the anti-terrorism act contradicted with human rights. This law was subsequently changed. This could pose some doubt as to the judges power, as although they can not officially change laws, they clearly have the power to suggest changes with ease, and some could argue that despite Lord Neuberger’s claims, they do indeed undermine parliamentary sovereignty through their suggestion of changes.
The act was created to protect children and Templeman regarded the arguments on the words ‘is suffering’ as a distraction from the aim. ‘This is an example of judicial practicality and desire to see justice down’ . This case illustrates that the ‘rules’ of statutory interpretation do not have to be followed exactly and are merely guidelines. Lord Templeman states that the rules of interpretation have ‘an aura of scientific authenticity about them when the reality is that interpreting any document is more of an art than a science’ . In other words, the rules can only be guidelines because judges will clearly have different interpretations.
These are based on the simple principle of ‘do as you would be done by’. Men and women should have the right, for example, to free speech because we recognise that being forced to stay silent on matters important to you is intolerable. We know that human nature is not perfect, and susceptible to behaviour which infringes the rights of others. Thus, to prevent these rights ever being infringed by individuals or governments, these need to be enshrined in a legal document. | | Any society always assumes that it’s position on matters is the most sensible, most rational, and, ultimately, best.
An example is when the Miranda Doctrine is not observed upon arresting, the right of self-incrimination may be invoked so as for the evidences against the defense be inadmissible. In order for the Miranda Doctrine to be validly executed, such must be stated in the presence of the counsel for the defense. Such doctrine may be waived, but must be made with utmost knowledge of its consequences (Israel et al, 1993). Although both Fifth and Sixth Amendments embody significant rights for the citizens, it still has differences, one of which is that pertaining to the inquiries pertaining to the case is not allowed in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth amendment protects the accused upon the case against him.
Essay tittle:’Although the Human Right Acts 1998 has impacted on the Judicial understanding of precedent,the underlying features Of the doctrine remain unchanged.’ The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on one the concept that like cases must be treated alike.The doctrine is based on the notion of stare decisis et non quieta movere,meaning to stand by decisions and not disturb that which is settled.In a common law system a huge part of the laws are made up of decided cases ie judge made law or case law.These decisions by the judges carries a great weight therefore necessarily be binding on later judges to ensure certainty and fairness within the system.The precedent of stare decisis safeguards the notion that judges make arbitrary decision.In a common law system precedents is the very essence of what moulds the system and gives it unique character. The Human Rights Act 1998 was intended to protect human rights and civil liberties in domestic law. However, it should not be forgotten that the Act has also affected the general legal system.Perhaps most significantly, the Act creates new rules on the following of precedent, as s.2 of the Act states that the domestic courts must take into account the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights when determining any question involving any Convention right.The inclusion of s.2 in the Act thus begs the question whether the traditional principles of judicial precedent are now abandoned in place of a rule which compels the domestic courts to follow the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.However, as Convention law was never intended to be supreme over member states' domestic law,and the European Court of Human Rights has always offered member
When a law does not seek to understand the circumstances, it is difficult to ascertain if a person is guilty of breaking the law. By flexibility one must not misunderstand that laws enforced will be subject to change depending on who the individual is, rather it will remain same for everyone. But the nature might undergo change subject to the right understanding as to why the law has been over ruled and if the reasoning is a plausible one, to be forgiven. By flexibility, one must not misunderstand that the enforcement of laws will be subject to change depending on who the individual is. The laws will rather remain the same for everyone but the
All these are exceptions of the exclusionary rule do have good points. I do think that these exceptions should be allowed only if they are used correctly. These exceptions are not fully going against the person’s rights, but they are on the boarder of possible doing so. Even though I am for the exclusionary rule and the Fourth Amendment, these exceptions serve as a purpose and I believe they should be allowed. It may be hard for people to understand, but I believe that these exceptions are not abusing the system or the defendant’s
Although careful to avoid making categorical pronouncements on matters still awniting decision by . an appellate court, Devlin J has done enough to indicate the need for more intensive study of the dual problems indicated above.= This need is accentuated by examination of the separate judgments .. . delivered by Lord Goddard C J and Pearson J, t he other members of the court. In t he case before the court two informations had been preferred against the respondent, the first for dangerous driving contrary to the Road Traffic Act, 1980, s. 11 (I), and the second for failing to conform .to n “ H alt y y sign contrnry to section 49 ( b) of the same statute. At the hearing in the magistrates’ court the justices had accepted the respondent’s evidence that he remembered nothing of events leading up to the accident in which he was involved until he was found by the police in a dazed condition.
Best ways to deal with prejudice: Prejudice is a fixed opinion about a certain group without examining the facts fairly and rationally. Prejudices about ethnicity, sexuality, religion, class and gender have occurred since the beginning of civilisation and still occur to this very day. History has shown that prejudice can be a dangerous thing. So what is the best way to deal with it? Legal action and social integration, with is very diplomatic as oppose to negative actions such as forcing change through violence.
The restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws. Which principle conception? Formal or substantive. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law.