Question: It has been widely acknowledged that ‘accountability’ is the central guiding principle for Administrative Law.
I. Define ‘accountability’ for the purpose of Administrative Law.
The government controls life “from cradle to grave” and therefore it is, and should be held accountable. There is more than one measure used within the government with reference to accountability. For example, the bodies that act on behalf of the public as well as the individual responsibilities from the members of the government, are under constant public scrutiny. Accountability has always been a problem area, with there being a number of levels with more than one meaning, with it being a constant and ongoing challenge for public policy. Duty of care
…show more content…
The main features that are seen today are a direct repercussion of the events in the development of the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee (Kerr Committee) 1971. This including the Ombudsman investigations and ARC oversight. Although there are slight variations of the state administration, they did however have the same starting point. The recommendations of The Kerr Committee produced the framework for judicial review, the Admin Appeals Tribunal, the Ombudsman, and the Admin Review Council. The KC marked the first comprehensive review of Commonwealth Administrative Law. It is the KC’s philosophy that administrative decision would be revisable by more than one body, with that, there is high emphasis place on the protection of citizens against the improper or corrupt use of the decision-making power. The suggestions that have been recommended have not yet been implemented, however, the principles of the KC form its basis. Coherency and cohesiveness should play a key role in administrative law. With that, external independent agencies should undertake reviews, although this is not always the case. A uniform national approach should take action and this does occur in some areas such as immigration, but this is not the case for the majority of cases. The KC did however, assist in the formation of the basic principles of Australian administrative law today correcting defective …show more content…
There are three ways in which this can occur firstly though Privatisation, where the government agency changes to wholly or partly private perhaps through sale. Secondly Commercialisation (GBE’s Government), imposes private business-like structure on government agency including commercial methods and profit goals. Lastly Contracting Out, this involves the delivery of government services to public, funded by government provided by private sector. Public equals state and its relation to individuals. Private equals governed by market principles, self-interested relations between individuals, and limited intervention of private law. Categorising as private or public is important as it determines the expectations and proper functions of the law that applies and draws boundaries on the scope of liberties. It also legitimises administrative law. Industry Commission, Competitive Tendering and Contracting by Public Sector Agencies Contracting Out does not undermine the government’s accountability. It may however, make it easier to identify cause of failure. In relation to GBE’s, Council feels administrative law is not overly concerned with them as they compete in the competitive market and thus are not really making government decisions. If they are however, they are
The milestone judicial decision in Cole v Whitfield pronounced a pivotal moment in Australian jurisprudence in relation to the interpretation of s92 of the Australian constitution. This essay will critically analyse the constitutional interpretation approach utilised in Cole v Whitfield. This method will be compared with the interpretational methods exemplified in Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory. Although within these two cases there appears to be a preference towards a particular interpretational method, each mode has both strengths and weaknesses. Accordingly, the merit of each should be employed in conjunction with one another, where the court deems fit, complementing each other. This may provide a holistic approach to interpreting the constitution.
This is a complex case, involving multiple parties and several variables that need to be examined thoroughly. The parties mentioned include Knarles operator of the facility maintenance company, his son Barkley, their employee, a licensed plumber, and Mr. Chetum. Although in the end Chetum is suing the facilities maintenance firm for a breach of contract, all factors must be examined to determine proper fault.
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
Nearly every aspect of law enforcement has a court decision that governs criteria. Most court rulings are the result of civil lawsuit towards a police officer and agency. However, currently, there is no law that mandates law enforcement driver training. When it comes to firearms, negligence by officers has resulted in a multitude of court rulings. Popow v. City of Margate, 1979, is a particularly interesting case that outlines failed firearms training by an agency. In this case, an officer chasing a suspect during a foot pursuit fired at the suspect, striking and killing an innocent bystander (Justia.com, 2017). The court ruled that the agency was “grossly negligent” of “failure to train” (Justia.com, 2017). As a result, nearly every agency requires annual firearms training and has written policy concerning the same. Officers must show proficiency in firearms use every year to maintain their certification. Many states even impose fines on officers for
The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. - Counsel [24] See footnote 22 – but page 61 [25] GEOFFREY, Marshall, Constitutional Theory, Clarendon Law Series, Oxford 1971 Chapter1 – the Law and the constitution, part 3. Dicey’s doctrine and its critics. [26] REGINA v HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY, Ex parte SMEDLEY, [COURT OF APPEAL], [1985] Q B 657, 19 December 1984, (c)2001 The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales [27] MITCHELL, JDB, Constitutional Law, 2nd edition, Edinburgh, W Green & SON LTD, 1968, Convention, page 31 [28] See footnote 22 but page 64
Instructively, it behooves to set the premise on the background of the industrial relation system in the within the territorial jurisdiction of the Federation of Australia. Pursuant to section 51 under the Australian Constitution, the Federal Government has the powers to legislate with regard to conciliation as well as arbitration with a view to prevent and settle industrial disputes that step out of the confines of any given state (Fleming, 2004). Previously, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of1904 had been the relevant Act in this respect, and it provided for the existence of trade unions and instituted the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act Court (Fleming, 2004). The commonwealth Court lost powers to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in 1956; subsequently, it was renamed to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) which serves to resolve dis...
Australia has taken from English Law in adopting the cab rank rule, encoded in The Victorian Bar Incorporated Practice Rules 2009 (Vic). This essay will discuss the application of the rule, the strengths and weaknesses and will conclude to discuss why the rule should remain an integral part of the Bar despite many calls for its abolition.
The term administrative justice refers to an overall system of specialised bodies that attempt to resolve disputes and complaints made between members of the public and public bodies, such as, the NHS, UK government departments and public organisations like the DVLA, the job centre and the home office. These specialised bodies and systems range from appeal tribunals to parliamentary and health service ombudsman and judicial review, which all work as ways to challenge and seek redress from official decisions made by said public bodies . Though the administrative justice system, particularly the ombudsman service,
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.
Maki, P.L. (2009). Moving beyond a national habit in the call for accountability. Peer Review,
The focus is on the issues of police accountability in modern society, and in particular why their accountability is more important than other professions. This is not surprising considering the amount of power and discretion police officers have, and the level of trust that the public holds with these civil servants. Police officers accountability is the biggest thing in their profession which has been an issue of concern they have to be accountable to the police department who want the officer to be an effective and responsible person, to people in the community who have best expectation from an officer and being accountable to themselves for their acts. An ordinary citizen of a country cannot obtain the powers that police officer’s have.
INTRODUCTION: Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus, the real role of a judge in any legal system continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many.
The rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.
The grounds of judicial review help judges uphold constitutional principles by, ensuring discretionary power of public bodies correspond with inter alia the rule of law. I will discuss the grounds of illegality, irrationality and proportionality in relation to examining what case law reveals about the purpose and effect these grounds.
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.