Laws and legal system is important to establish a successful and developed country. Judiciary is the primary institution to give maintenance of law and administration of justice. The judiciary is one of the most important organ of government in Malaysia which its main function is to interpret the law which passed by the legislative. It also playing an important role under constitution to ensure the constitutionalism of the land by the conduct of check and balance which uphold the concept of separation of power and rule of law. The judicial branch have power to check on executive on the ground of validity and constitutionality of law by exercise of judicial review. Article 128 clearly provided the power to the court to strike out any law made by the Parliament or by the Legislature as invalid if they are contradict with the Constitution of the land.
In order to ensure the effectiveness of judicial system, the judiciary must be independent from the other two branches of government and the judicial neutrality should be achieved. The independence of judiciary shall be guaranteed by the Constitution of the country and it is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to
…show more content…
With the judicial power, nobody else can play the role of judiciary except the ordinary court of the land, but after the judicial power has been removed, the government may form any specialized court to handle specific cases. For the most notable example will be the established of the Shariah Court in Malaysia which against the concept of rule of law. Under the concept of rule of law, there should be only one set of law which applied universally to everyone in the country and there shall be only one set of court that uphold that set of law. There cannot be a separated legal system in one
... of the judiciary as being one separate from government, in a non-political capacity whose purpose is not to question the acts of government, but rather to be the mediator when dispute arise (McLachlin, 2009). Clearly, McLachlin captures the essence of what the judiciary is. The Supreme Court of Canada is one of the most visible and trusted political institutions, which has shaped the country’s political arena. In practice, the Supreme Court of Canada does have a quasi-legislative effect on public policy.
This characteristic is a good quality of its government, which is divided in three branches: the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. The executive branch is set to make sure that laws are carries out the proper way. The Governor, the Lieutenant General, and the Attorney General are part of this branch. The legislative branch is composed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, which makes it a bicameral branch. Its job is to generate laws and balance the budget. Then, the judicial branch, composed by the supreme court, county and local courts, is in charge of civil and criminal cases. In other words, such system is very much like the check and balancing system of the Federal
In addition to this, the analysis of law was not considered thoroughly during judicial decisions. Therefore, the court uses backward reasoning where it uses the expected results it wants to deduce to make decisions. Such activities in the justice department have a lot of impediments to the impartiality of judicial system. The rights of the criminal in many instances are affected by the use of such methods to deliver justice. According to Marshall, the legal analysis used to determine the outcome of the courts has reduced since the changes in the judicial system. The rights of the individuals have significantly reduced with the changes in the court system because only the nine judges are privy to the outcome of the court proceedings; they are also not liable to the questions that may be raised about the legality of their
In The Federalist No. 78, the conception of judiciary is introduced as a system of checks and balances to protect the civil liberties of the citizens from the other branches of government. At the same time, the judiciary concept is considered to have the least amount of power of the three branches. It is stated by Hamilton in this section of the Federalist Papers, “The Judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will” (The Federalist No. 78). The judicial system serves as a barrier in preventing the other branches of power from making decisions that infringe upon their
The Judiciary Branch offers checks and balances to the other branches of government. To both the Legislative and Executive branches, the Judicial Branch holds the power of judicial review. The Judicial branch can also declare existing laws as unconstitutional.
In this essay, I will be examining how the court system can fail to deliver justice for particular cases and people’s circumstances, as well as looking at alternatives to court, like circle sentencing, restorative sentencing and alternatives for children to the formal court system, as outlined in the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW). Crime is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law. On the other side of this is justice; the quality of being fair and reasonable.
Judges could also be considered more powerful than the prime minister or president because it is the Supreme Court that makes laws for the country. Judges have an essential role in democracy by supporting human rights and setting new precedents in controversial cases. However, judges could also be a possible threat towards democracy. Judges could be threats to democracy due to corruption and biased opinions on cases. To sum it up, judges play a vital role in democracy because without judges democracy will not function without them.
all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or may they act by representatives, freely and
Judicial review is the means by which the high court exercises a supervisory jurisdiction over the decisions and actions of the inferior courts, tribunals or other public bodies. Richard Gordon, ‘Judicial review: Law and procedure’, (3rd Edition). Before Judicial review there was no effective way to supervise the administration and the British people had no way of seeking redress for grievances caused by actions of public authorities. (The Curious Origins of Judicial review’, T.T Arvind, Lindsay Stirton, 2017) The Minister of Justice commented that ‘Judicial review can be characterised as Diceys rule of law in action’.(Judicial review proposals for reform consultation paper sep 2015). If a public body abuses its power by acting outside the boundaries or not adhering to certain procedures it can be subjected to a judicial review claim by a member of the public. Effectively the rule of law is acting as a constraint on governmental power.(The Rule of law and its underlying values, Jefferey Jowell) The main requirements or grounds for judicial review were set out by Lord Diplock in Council of civil service unions v Minister for the civil service. They include legality, requiring officials to act within the scope of their decision making powers. The second ground is procedural impropriety which requires that fairness must be shown to those affected by the decision. Fairness was mentioned by Lord Bingham as one of the features of the Rule of law. The third requirement is irrationality or unreasonableness. .(The Constitution of the United Kingdom, Peter Leyland). In Bromley v Greater London Council a new policy decision by the Greater London Council was declared unlawful by the House of Lords and had to be repealed. This is a key example of a how judicial review reflects the rule of law as government officials as well as civilians
The judicial branch is constituted by different parts in order to interpret the laws through the process of judicial review. Also, each part of the people has their own task and certain power when changing or improving the laws. Judicial restraint and judicial activism are relevant in the United States and are related to the judicial system of a country. They are also a check against the inequitable use of the power of the constitutional body. However, they have the opposite way to deal with this kind of problem.
The subject of judicial selection; election or appointment, has been an important debate through which a century's worth of scholars have debated and analyzed. Due to the nature of judicial independence, the judiciary can be manipulated to prevent the discovery of illegal acts of state officials. Through judicial independence, the courts become mechanisms for defence of constitutionalism and justice. "Full judicial independence can be defined as a condition in which judges are entirely free from negative consequences for their decisions on the bench. The degree of judicial independence is the degree of such freedom."
This exercises the idea of independence within ‘different functions of government’; it is represented by the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Separating the three prevents a dangerous occurrence where power is entirely centralized in one group.... ... middle of paper ... ... Carl F. Stychin and Linda Mulcahy, Legal Methods and Systems, (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2010).
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.
The judiciary should not only be impartial when dealing with cases but independent too. Whenever cases are being assessed, both impartiality and independence should go hand in hand to avoid