Public Law
Prime facie, this case would seem to be a simple matter regarding the
Weights and Measures Act 1985[1]. However, the defence brings into
their argument, important issues concerning legislative supremacy.
There is a distinct element of constitutional significance to this
case and this is evident from the fact that Lord Justice Law’s
judgement devotes a substantial amount of direction on the issue of
implied repeal and the entrenchment of community law. It is important
to look at the facts of this case and they are fairly simple. The
defendant Mr. Thoburn was a greengrocer in Sunderland. As part of his
business he used weighing equipment to weigh the product he was
providing to his customer. This weighing equipment gave indication in
imperial demarcations, which was contrary to current legislation and
the defendant was given an official warning along with some 28 days to
rectify the violation. The defendant ignored the warning and continued
to use the weighing machines with imperial demarcations. He was
charged with 2 offences and pleaded not guilty on the grounds that his
actions were not contrary to current legislation.
Firstly, let us examine some of the main points in Laws L.J’s
judgement. His lordship highlights the fact that the centrepiece of
the defence’s argument was the Doctrine of Implied Repeal[2]. The
defence contended that the Weights and Measures Act 1985[3] repealed a
section of the European Communities Act 1972[4] and therefore the
later act took precedence over the earlier Act. The defence relied
upon numerous cases in which implied repeal is substantiated and
confirmed such as Vauxhall Estates Ltd v...
... middle of paper ...
... [4] UK ST 1972 c 68
[5] [1932] 1 KB 733
[6] [1934] 1 KB 590
[7] [1932] 1 KB 733
[8][2000] 2 A.C. 115
[9] Section #62 of Laws L.J. judgement in [2003] Q.B. 151
[10] UK ST 1972 c 68
[11] (No2)(Case C-213/89) [1991] 1 AC 603 658-659
[12] [1974] ECR 1337 Case 41/74
[13] See Laws L.J.’s judgement in (No2)(Case C-213/89) [1991] 1 AC 603
658-659, Section #62
[14] The UK has traditionally had a dualist approach to international
law. This means that in the case of the EU directives and other
non-direct effect legislation, parliament must pass an act in
accordance with the directive in order for it to become valid UK law.
This argument is clarified in A.F.M. Maniruzzaman’s Journal on the
Topic of European Communities. EJIL 2001 12(309)
[15] (No2)(Case C-213/89) [1991] 1 AC 603 658-659
The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).
The English legal system is complex and there are many ways in which it can be influenced, this essay will explore some of the different, more obvious ways the law can be changed and what this shows in relation to the quote above. First the essay will discuss the different ways the law can be created and changed and who enables and controls those changes, with my primary examples being the common law and legislation for the judicracy and Parliament respectively, then the essay will cover to what extent these powers enable the judicracy to change and create law in relation to Parliament and if it could be discribed as "opportunistic and piecemeal".
Access to the law and legal system is the ability to shape it, both in its meaning and
Many people believe laws are in place to protect them from danger and each other. Thus inferring they take some sort of control over people's actions. Laws are in place by our government (authority) to control a group of people living in a area together (community) (merriam-webster). These laws should not be broken or a penalty fitting the crime will be given, and those responsible will be sentenced to pay. Although not all laws that are broken are meant to be an act of defilement some are broken to show one's stand on a issue or as solidarity to others. It may be inferred from the actions that Martin Luther King Jr. took that he fought for the rights and the constant injustice he and others lived. King helped move the segregation issue forward by constant battles and by letting his clear, load voice be heard across the nation. As human beings and members of a country with so much to offer, everyone should have a moral obligation to stand up for what they believe in. Fighting injustice in a peaceful and determined way will result in a greater outcome for all.
Within the Federal Government there are three main branches; “the Legislative, the Judicial, and Executive” (Phaedra Trethan, 2013). They have the same basic shape and the same basic roles were written in the Constitution in 1787.
Chapter thirteen talks about the police being a public institution, that relies on a grant of legitimacy rooted in public trust and confidence. Complaints that become news events can wear away confidence among an even wider audience. This chapter provides the unique opportunity to combine citizen complaint data with actual observations. It examines the behavior of identified problem officers, as well as whose who are not labeled as such.
There is a Centuries long debate as to why our Nation’s Founding Fathers chose for us to be ruled under rule of law instead of rule of man. Our Founding Fathers founded this nation on a promotion “We the People”. They ruled that we should be led under the rule of law rather than the rule of man for multiple reasons. Our government now though is stipulating whether or not the old American government made the right choice, when compared to other foreign countries. At the beginning of our country the Constitution was not meant to be read as a collection a suggestions rather as a way to get men away from their old tendencies. Those were the days where the rights of the average man were the top priority of the government. Today however we need to remember that the rule of the law is supposed to focus on the rights of the citizens and not on who is wearing what in Hollywood. Over the years we have ruined our government, even Woodrow Wilson said, “I have unwillingly ruined my government.” The factors now included in Rule of Law are a little different from they were 250 years ago. To find out why the Founding Fathers Chose Rule of Law we need to look at several reasons why our nations’ officials like or don’t like the rule of law. We must also look at whether the factors are too much at this point for our nations to change and go another way with our leadership and the way we run our country.
I first witnessed the power of the individual to engender change as a high school graduate in the summer of 1990. I was one of 10 American youths, chosen from a nationwide pool of applicants, to join 10 Soviet youths on a river rafting expedition in Siberia with Project RAFT (Russians and Americans for Teamwork). For three weeks we worked side by side, literally dependent on cooperation and mutual trust for survival. In the evenings, while sitting in a circle around glowing cedar campfires, we held structured discussions on subjects ranging from nuclear disarmament to global warming and racism. At first we struggled to communicate across language barriers, but we quickly found common ground and successfully created a microcosm of a society in which mutual respect, affection, and commitment to our ideals drove our actions. This experience was nothing short of an epiphany for me: working one-on-one with The Enemy forced me to look past stereotypes and prejudices and work with them as individuals. I realized that this approach is the most powerful tool ...
Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial or not The term ‘Judicial Precedent’ has at least two meanings, one of which is the process where Judges will follow the decisions of previously decided cases, the other is what is known as an ‘Original Precedent’ that is a case that creates and applies a new rule. Precedents are to be found in Law Reports and are divided up into ‘Binding’ and ‘Persuasive’.
"The business of the law is to make sense of the confusion of what we call human life-to reduce it to order but at the same time to give it possibility, scope, even dignity."
As Craig and De Burca state, 'at the time of the Lisbon Treaty, however, the UK and Poland negotiated a protocol which purports to limit the impact of the Charter in those states.’ . The UK first expressed a desire under protocol 7 which exempts them from being legally bound by the rights outlined in the Charter, they were quickly followed by Poland who also expressed a wish to join protocol 7. The protocol contained two articles which stated that ' The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms ' and ' To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and principles, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principle that it contains are recognized in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom. ' However, many argue that regardless of what is outlined in the two articles there is still the question of whether or not the protocol has anything more than declaratory effect. As Craig and de Burca state, 'Article 1 declares that it 'does not extend ' the ability of the CJEU to review national measures for the compatibility of fundamental rights. ' however, we already know that in many cases the Charter influenced judgments of the CJEU before it was made legally
The English legal system is ostensibly embedded on a foundation of a ‘high degree of certainty with adaptability’ based on a steady ‘mode’ of legal reasoning. This rests on four propositions
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”.
Public order denotes keeping the public safe and keeping things orderly. Public order laws are laws that are created to stop riots, violent behavior and other activities or behaviors that can lead to serious public harm. Individual rights involve protecting an individual's right to do something regardless of its potential impact on public harm. An example of an individual rights law would be the law of free speech. In the United States, citizens are allowed to speak freely because of the first amendment and it does not matter whether or not this free speech adversely affects the government or the people.
While watching “Training Day” I was able to identify three criminal charges from Chapter 940, two charges from Chapter 943, and three charges from 946. I also could determine whether each were a Felony or a Misdemeanor, including the classification and punishment that goes with each. I could also explain if the actors could be charged with “conspiracy” or not. I also explained all the elements of the crime as well.