The civil courts from time to time infringed upon the jurisdiction of Syariah Courts before Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution was modified by the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1988 (Act A704) which came into force on 10 June 1988. The infringement by the civil court upon the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts caused vast concern among those interested or involved in the management of Islamic Law. A committee lead by Tan Sri Syed Nasir Ismail was established by the government to look into the position of Syariah Courts and urge measures to raise their status. One of the actions taken as a result of the work of that committee was the accumulation of clause (1A) to Article 121.
In Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, there shall be two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and rank where the courts listed in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts. The word courts refer to the two High Courts which are High Court Malaya and High Court Sabah and Sarawak in that article. Clause (1A) is obviously to grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Syariah court to arbitrate on any matter that has been lawfully vested by the law within the jurisdiction of the Syariah court. Thus, it takes away from the two High Courts and inferior courts’ jurisdiction over any subject within jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts. It also avoids the civil courts from evaluating decisions of the Syariah Courts.
The ideal approach to be taken in shaping the jurisdiction of the Syariah court is the ‘subject matter’ approach and not the ‘remedy prayed’ approach. As an example, we have to look into the State enactments to see whether or not the Syariah courts have been specifically confe...
... middle of paper ...
...ed that further referring the issue of validity of the law to the Federal Court under Article 128 of the Federal Constitution, the judgement of the Court of Appeal in Sukma Darmawan may also provide the way out.
The late Justice Harun Hashim through writing seem to accept that a conflict would arise in our legal system in particular reference to abnormal sexual offences and this has been attributed to in one way or another to the introduction of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. He further emphasized that Islamic law affecting Muslims is within the sole legislative power of the States and show that conflict of laws is an interesting and absorbing subject for academic study and research. This is so because according to him it gives distress on the personal life of a person caught in the web of a difference of laws situation which can be very overwhelming.
The principles, which define the work of juridical branch, are relevant nowadays, as they have proved their effectiveness and managed to gain confidence of population. Texas juridical branch is complex and confusing. According to the principles of the Texas Constitution, six types of courts are established, some of which have simultaneous or overlapping jurisdictions. In accordance with the Texas Constitution of 1876, two high courts were established. In addition, in the traditions of Jacksonian Democracy, all the judges in Texas courts should be ready to compete with electoral politics and take their positions according to the results of partisan elections. This democratic principle of fair elections and respect to the votes of citizens is still applied in the juridical branch of Texas
Every religious sect has its own traditions and historical rituals that they abide to. In religions, almost everything has significance to it. And anyone concerned about the future of his/her religion, will continue to ensure that these traditions are followed, to preserve their own way of life. Now, most countries have religious freedom clauses in their constitutions that state that anyone living on their soil has the right to practice the religion of their choice. Now this might seem a minuscule fact for someone of a common religion, but to someone of a minority religion, this is all the protection they have from the legal system. This paper is only a taste of the justices and injustices that Rastafarians have faced in legal systems across the globe. Some instances a loophole for the "misfortunate", others an outcry from the oppressed.
Since the dawn of time for a society to work it needs to have a level of structure that applies to everyone and is understood by everyone. Australian legal system is broad and complex. It is the nature of the encompassing laws and regulations which reflect how people, organisations and governments behave on the many different levels of operation and these are created to make sure that everyone understands their rights and obligations. There are two sources of Law in Australia: Statute Law regulated by Parliament and comprise of legislations and acts; and Judge-made Law or Common Law where decisions made by judges are based on previous cases.
first look at the validity of the court and of the entity of authority itself.
The Australian Legal System has a rich and detailed history dating from 1066. Law is made in Parliament. We have four sources of law and three courts with different jurisdictions that interpret the law when giving out justice. Important doctrines act as the corner-stones of our legal system. There is a procedure in the courts for making appeals. Separation of powers exists between officials in the courts, the parliament and the Executive. Everyone in Australia is treated equally under the Rule of Law, no matter their office or status. The Law is always changing as society changes, but it can never be perfect and cannot please everyone.
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
MICHAELSEN, C., THE RENAISSANCE OF NON-REFOULEMENT? THE OTHMAN (ABU QATADA) DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. .
The judicial statement of Roskill LJ observed in The Albazero [1977] AC774 held plenty of arguments in modern world today. To reach an extent of agree or disagree the judicial statement, it should be critically analysed from a legal perspective:
all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or may they act by representatives, freely and
The separation between law and ethics has become a central pillar of most legal systems. This essay will review three articles that discuss insights relevant to this topic and acknowledge strengths and weaknesses that contribute to my understanding of this issue. First, Sheppard discusses the role of ethics, law and justice in society and how the state’s role becomes important when enshrining these laws. Second, Wendel analyses this issue through the lenses of the torture memos which were used to justify torture by the American government and how laws and morals were involved. Lastly, Campbell demonstrates the importance of why unanimous decisions are needed in judicial systems and how they could possibly collapse without them and how concepts such as legal validity, desirability, the ‘separability thesis’ and rules of recognition would stop this from happening. These articles show comprehensively that for harmonisation of law and ethics to become normal, a clear acceptance of certain standards would have to be articulated before such was to occur, because if such did not happen the disconnect would lead to differences becoming present and disruptive.
Over the years, different jurisdictions had built their specific system of rules of conduct to govern behaviour. These legal systems, influenced by historical and cultural roots, can be distinguished in two families, the Civil law and the Common law legal systems. The distinctions lies in the process in which each decision is make by the judge and on the legal sources that shapes the law. Indeed, by contrast to the Common law system, which is largely based on Precedents, meaning the decisions that have already been made by judges in similar cases, the Civil law system is based on legislator’s decisions and legal codes with which judges have to justify their judgment . Consequently, instead of referencing to concepts and rules
This theory looks at how the sovereign and its officials created the law based on social norms and the institutions (Hart, 1958). However, hard cases such as this makes for bad law, which test the validity of the law at hand based on what the objective of the law was in the first place. The law should not be so easily dismissed just because it does not achieve justice in the most morally sound manner (Hart, 1958). Bentham and Austin understood that there are two errors in the way law is understood, what the law is and what the law should be (Hart, 1958). He knew that if law was to become what humans perceived the law ought to be, the law itself would be lost, but he also recognized that if the opposite was to occur where the law replaced morality, than any man would escape liability and there would be no retribution (Hart, 1958). This theory looks at the point of view of the dissenting judge, Justice Gray, which is that the law is what it is, even if it may conflict with morals. Austin stated that “The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry (Hart, 1958).” This case presents the same conflict that Bentham and Austin addressed, that the law based on the statute of the
It goes without saying that people are not entitled to take the law in their own hands, for it’s the responsibility of the Muslim State and its concerned bodies to maintain peace, security, etc., and to prevent chaos and disorder from creeping into the Muslim society.”
Marriage and divorce are very significant aspects of Islamic law, but criminal law could be considered the most controversial. The Sharia categorizes its offenses by the types of punishment each receives. There are offenses which are paired...
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.