The Courts and Legal Services Act of 1990
The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 has had a positive impact on
the Legal Profession and Legal Services, it made many changes and has
led to a lot more reforms since.
The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 was the first major change to
give solicitors full rights of audience. Solicitors already had
advocacy rights in the Magistrates' Courts and the County Courts. The
Act allowed solicitors with experience of advocacy in the Magistrates'
Courts and County Courts to apply for a certificate of advocacy.
He/She would have to take a short training course and pass exams on
the rules of evidence before the certificate was granted. It was four
years after the Act before the first certificate was granted. This
change was the start of the continuing merge between the roles of
barristers with the roles of solicitors.
The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 opened up more opportunities
for solicitors to advance up the career ladder. Solicitors with the
advocacy certificate were eligible to be appointed as QC's and higher
judicial positions, this broke the monopoly barristers previously help
on all superior judgeships. The Act focused on qualifications relevant
for the judiciary rather than experience practicing so that Academic
lawyers who had qualified as either a solicitor or barrister but had
never practiced could be appointed as superior judges. This widened
the range of potential candidates and hopefully will make the bench a
wider mix of society.
The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 allows solicitors to form
partnerships with other services such as accountants. Although,
because of the rules set by the Bar Council and The Law Society,
solicitors are prohibited to create a "one stop shop". So under the
Act solicitors can recommend a firm of accountants to a client but can
not set up business together.
The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 extended the rights of
conveyancing so that banks and building societies can now practice.
This was beneficial to the consumer but had a major impact on
Prison litigation is a form of lawsuit process with which prisoners seek relief from prison. The Prison litigation Reform Act clearly outlines an increase in the litigation of prison cases that was enacted in 1996. Through such litigations, inmates are able to fight for their rights and fair treatment in prison. For instance among the prison ligations, we have prospective relieve where one can file a lawsuit to request the prison to change some of their policies to let one for example pray amongst groups. Exhaustion of remedies for administration also allows for one to articulate grievances against the prison official before suing them. Emotional or mental injuries are among other issues of prison litigation addressed in this prison litigation
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
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.
Although the legal profession is a single discourse community, it is made up of many smaller discourse communities. This is so because while all lawyers share the same broad goals of the legal profession and have a general knowledge and expertise in all areas of the law, most lawyers after graduating from law school and passing the bar exam specialize in a particular area of law. This specialization requires the lawyer to go beyond the broad concepts of law as a whole and to become knowledgeable and proficient in the sometimes minute details of a more specific area of law. Even then, some lawyers will go even further to focus on one aspect or another of that particular area of law. This results in most lawyers being members of many even smal...
At the behest of Solicitor General John Les, an inquiry was launched in February o...
The courtroom is a ritualised space, involving costume, language, spatial organisation and so on, and courts, therefore, constitute performative exercises of power. Discuss some of the ways in which courts demonstrate power and/or power relations.
The following assertion intends to provide an in-depth insight into my personal experience observing a trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. This paper will outline a selection of many pressing issues noticed throughout my observation, more specifically those regarding the law and language in legal arenas along with symbolic and architectural traditions that reinforce prejudice towards those from a low socio-economic background and ethnic minority groups. Furthermore, it will argue how symbolism, architecture and practices within a court are in place to create a power dynamic and reinforce the courts British-'western' sovereignty and royal-like wealth which in turn intimidates members of the community especially from ethnically diverse or disadvantaged groups. I intend to demonstrate the power and authority of judges and the courts by drawing comparisons between the judges status in a court room with royalty and religious pastors, through the observation of attire, title and actual positioning in a court room.
According to Corporation Act 2001 s124(1), it illustrates that ‘’A company has the legal capacity and powers of an individual both in and outside the jurisdiction” . As it were, company as a legal individual must be freely with all its capital contribution shall embrace liability for its legal actions and obligations of the company’s shareholders is limited to its investment to the company. This ‘separate legal entity’ principle was established in the case of Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1987] as company was held to have conducted the business as a legal person and separate from its members. It demonstrated that the debt of company is belonged to the company but not to the shareholders. Shareholders have only right to participate in managing but not in sharing the company property. Besides ,the Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd [1925] demonstrates that the distinction between the shareholders and company assets. It means that even Mr Macaura owned almost all the shares in the company, he had no insurable interest in the company’s asset. The other recent case is the Lee v Lee’s Air Farming Ltd [1961] which illustrates that the distinct legal entities between employee ad director allows Mr.Lee function in dual capacities. It resulted that the corporation can contract with the controlling member of the corporation.
It has been generally acknowledged that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel has much in common with common intention constructive trusts, i.e. those that concern the acquisition of an equitable interest in another person’s land. In effect, the general aim is the recognition of real property rights informally created. The similarity between the two doctrines become clear in a variety of cases where the court rely on either of the two doctrines. To show the distinction between the doctrines, this essay will analyse the principles, roots and rationale of both doctrines. With reference to the relevant case law it will be possible to highlight the subtle differences between the doctrines in the cases where there seems to be some overlap. Three key cases where this issue surfaced were the following: Lloyds Bank Plc v. Rosset (1991), Yaxley v. Gotts (1999) and Stack v. Dowden (2007). This essay will describe the relevant judgements in these cases in order to show the differences between the two doctrines.
It is also argued that solicitors are too close to the issues to argue the case well. Some people say that the double manning of cases is also responsible for some inefficiency. It encourages the ‘shrugging off’ of responsibility. Responsibility can be pushed from one to the other and standards will fall. OTHER COUNTRIES
In October 2010, the Equality act became law and it has been updated and consolidated other acts like the Race relations Act 1976 and the Disability and discrimination Act 1995.
The issue is about drinking in a car, which is parked in a public place (as defined in The Summary Offences Act 1966). The simple answer is that Doug is criminally liable for drinking in his car, which is parked in the library car-park. As under The Summary Offences Act drinking in a public place is prohibited, with the definition of public place too be found in section 3 of The Summary Offences Act 1966.
The huge body of the law can be broken down to according to various classifications. Three of the most important distinctions are those between (1) civil law and criminal law, (2) felonies and misdemeanors, and (3) crimes mala in se and mala prohibita (Gaines and Miller, 2013, pg. 69).
After the I & II World War and pursuant to the precedent efforts for the execution of international justice in the shape of establishments such as the Nuremberg Tribunal, the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) , there was a universal necessity to have a more comprehensive and transnational instrument for implementation of justice.
On the 10th and 14th of August, two sentencing hearings were observed. The two hearings were held at the Brisbane Supreme Court and lasted approximately three hours in total. This essay will describe the events that occurred during both trials, while critically discussing the aspects of the hearings and linking elements to the due process and the crime control model. Overall, both trials contained more aspects of the due process model than the crime control model. This can be seen in the manner the trials were conducted in, and the emphasis of upholding the rights of the accused.