DOCSLIB.ORG

Judicial Review and Statutory Appeals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judicial Review and Statutory Appeals ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATUTORY APPEALS LAW COMMISSION LAW COM No 226 The Law Commission (LAW COM.No.226) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATUTORY APPEALS Item 10 of the Fifth Programme of Law Reform: Judicial Review Laid before Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor pursuant to section 3(2> of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 26 October 1994 LONDON: HMSO L18.75 net HC 669 The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the I purpose of promoting the reform of the law. I The Commissioners are: i The Honourable Mr Justice Brooke, Chairman Professor Andrew Burrows Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber QC The Commissioners who signed the report on 9 September 1994 were: The Honourable Mr Justice Brooke, Chairman Professor Jack Beatson Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London, WClN 2BQ. LAW COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATUTORY APPEALS CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1.1 1 PART 11: GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Public Policy 2.1-2.7 7 The European dimension in administrative law reform 2.8-2.11 9 Case-load pressure 2.12-2.14 10 The response on consultation 2.1 5-2.20 11 Developments since the publication of the consultation paper 2.21 13 Delay: the present position 2.22-2.27 14 Principles relevant to case-load issues 2.28 15 A duty to give reasons 2.29 16 Compensation in respect of ultra vires acts 2.32 18 PART 111: PROCEDURAL EXCLUSIVITY Procedural exclusivity and Order 53’s pTovisions for leave, promptness and discretion 3.2-3.7 19 The rise and fall of the exclusivity principle 3.8-3.15 21 A procedure for transfer 3.16 25 Transfer out of Order 53 3.17-3.19 26 Transfer in to Order 53 3.20-3.2 1 27 A reference procedure 3.22 28 Transfer to the Crown Office list or certification of a case as “fit for a nominated judge” 3.23 29 Alternative remedies 3.24-3.26 29 PART IV: THE INITIAL STAGE A new form 86A 4.3-4.7 31 A request for further information 4.8-4.1 1 33 Notification of the decision 4.12 35 ... 111 .-._. Paragraph Page PART V: FILTERING OUT HOPELESS APPLICATIONS: LEAVE OR PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION Written applications 5.9-5.12 38 Criteria for permitting an application to proceed to a substantive hearing 5.13-5.35 40 (i) An arguable case 5.15 41 (ii) Standing 5.16-5.22 41 (iii) Time limits 5.23-5.30 45 (iv) Exhaustion of alternative remedies 5.31-5.35 48 Reasons for not allowing an application to proceed to a substantive hearing 5.36 50 Respondent’s consent to a substantive hearing of the application 5.37 50 Capacity to apply for judicial review 5.38-5.4 1 51 PART VI: INTERIM RELIEF The present position 6.2-6.6 53 Principles on which interim relief is granted 6.7 55 Interim relief against the Crown in domestic cases 6.8-6.14 56 Interim relief prior to the decision to allow an application to proceed to a substantive hearing 6.15-6.17 59 The form of interim relief 6.18-6.24 60 Interim injunctions 6.19-6.20 61 Interim declarations 6.21-6.22 61 Stays 6.23 62 Third parties 6.24 63 Recommendation on the form of interim relief 6.25-6.27 63 Should the principles governing the availability of interim relief be set out in statute or the Rules? 6.28-6.29 64 Where primary or delegated legislation is impugned 6.30-6.31 65 PART VII: INTERLOCUTORY PROCEDURES Introduction 7.1-7.3 66 Discovery and Interrogatories 7.4-7.12 67 PART VIII: REMEDIES Nomenclature 8.1-8.3 72 iv Paragraph Page Title of cases 8.4 73 Claims for Restitution and in Debt, and Interest 8.5-8.8 73 Advisory declarations 8.9-8.14 74 Power to make substitute orders 8.15-8.16 76 Discretionary denial of remedies 8.17-8.2 1 77 Prospective declarations 8.22 78 PART JX: RENEWED APPLICATIONS AND APPEALS Renewed applications 9.1-9.2 80 Appeal against a refusal to allow an application to proceed to a substantive hearing 9.3 80 Setting aside an order permitting an application to proceed 9.4 81 Appeal from refusal to set aside an order permitting an application to proceed 9.5 81 Appeal from refusal of substantive applications for judicial review 9.7-9.9 82 PARTX: COSTS Costs on the leave application 10.2-10.3 84 The substantive hearing 10.4-10.5 86 Costs from central funds 10.6 87 Legal Aid 10.7 87 Types of legal aid 10.8 88 The test for obtaining legal aid 10.9-10.10 88 PART XI: HABEAS CORPUS Functions of habeas corpus 11.1-1 1.2 90 Procedure 11.3 91 The response to Consultation Paper No 126 11.4-1 1.9 91 The scope of review in habeas corpus 1 1.10-1 1.20 93 Habeas corpus and interim relief 11.21-11.24 97 Appeals 11.25-1 1.32 98 PART XII: STATUTORY APPEALS Introduction 12.1 102 Crown Office Rules 12.2 102 Statutory Appeals 12.3 102 Simplification to two procedures 12.4-12.5 103 Case stated 12.6-12.7 103 V Paragraph Page The High Courts’ powers on appeals by way of case stated 12.8-12.10 104 Statutory Review 12.1 1 106 Judicial Review or Statutory Review 12.12-12.13 106 Systematisation of applications to quash 12.14 107 The High Court’s appellate jurisdiction 12.15 108 Standing 12.17-12.18 108 Intervention 12.19 109 Time limits and power to extend time 12.20-12.22 110 Interim suspension and stay of orders pending appeal 12.23 112 Other interlocutory provisions 12.24 112 The orders which can be made on appeal 12.25 113 Should there be a leave requirement? 12.26 113 Allocation of business 12.28-12.29 114 PART XIII: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX A Draft Administration of Justice Bill with exp-matory notes and Draft RSC Order 53 with explanatory notes 125 APPENDIX B: Draft Forms 153 APPENDIX C: Note on case-load management and statistics of case-load as at end of July 1994 163 APPENDIX D: Time limits: EC Law and other jurisdictions 178 APPENDIX E: Model for statutory application to quash 181 APPENDIX F: List of those who responded to Consultation Paper No 126 185 APPENDIX G: List of papers presented at Robinson College and Institute of Advanced Legal Studies seminars and names of those who attended both 189 vi LAW CQMMISSION Item 10 of the Fifth Programme of Law Reform: Judicial Review ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: JUDICIALREVIEW AND STATUTORY APPEALS To the Right Honourable the Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain PART I INTRODUCTION 1.1 In this report we make recommendations for reform of the procedures and forms of relief available in judicial review proceedings. It is the result of our examination Of: “the mechanism of judicial review, and the connected subject of statutory appeals and applications to quash made to the High Court from inferior courts, tribunals and other bodies” under our fifth programme of law reform.’ 1.2 Our 1976 report on Remedies in Administrative Law2paved the way for the modern procedure in Order 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (RSC). The procedural mechanisms put in place in 1977 and revised in 1980’ have had to be applied in the context of wide ranging changes in the scope of judicial review, both in terms of the substantive grounds for review and the numbers of applications for judicial review brought before the courts. There have been a number of calls for further reform in this field including those from the Committee of the JUSTICE-All Souls Review of Administrative Law4 and Lord Wo0lfJ5notably in his Hamlyn lectures in 1989. The development of the requirement that as a general rule claims for injunctions and declarations relating essentially to all public law matters must be brought by an application for judicial review (which we call the principle of “procedural exclusivity”) has led to concern that needless litigation is generated over procedural - issues, rather than the substance of a dispute. ’ (1991) Law Corn No 200. Report on Remedies in Administrative Law (1976) Law Corn No 73. SI 1977 No 1955; SI 1980 No 2000. See also Supreme Court Act 1981, s 31. Administrative Justice: Some Necessary Reforms ( 1988). Rotection of the Public -ANew Challenge (1990) (hereafter “Hamlyn lectures”), and “Judicial Review: A Possible Programme for Reform”, [ 19921 PL 22 1. See also “A Hotchpotch of Appeals - the Need for a Blender” (1988) 7 CJQ 44. 1 1.3 In our programme we chose not to look at the substantive grounds for judicial review, which we believe should continue to be the subject of judicial development. The recommendations in this report are designed to ensure that continuing development of the grounds for judicial review is facilitated by an effective procedural framework. 1.4 In 1993 we published a consultation paper which reviewed the operation of the judicial review procedure and made a number of provisional recommendations.6 Our consideration of the issues was set against the background of three policy interests: (i) the importance of vindicating the rule of law, (ii) the need for speed and certainty in administrative decision-making and (iii) the private interest of individual litigants in obtaining a remedy for their grievances.' It was also set against the need to take account of the requirements of European Community Law and OUT international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    No. 15-___ IN THE SEQUENOM, INC., Petitioner, v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., NATERA, INC., AND DNA DIAGNOSTICS CENTER, INC. Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Michael J. Malecek Thomas C. Goldstein Robert Barnes Counsel of Record KAYE SCHOLER LLP Eric F. Citron Two Palo Alto Square G OLDSTEIN & RUSSELL, P.C. Suite 400 7475 Wisconsin Ave. 3000 El Camino Real Suite 850 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Bethesda, MD 20814 (650) 319-4500 (202) 362-0636 [email protected] QUESTION PRESENTED In 1996, two doctors discovered cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) circulating in maternal plasma. They used that discovery to invent a test for detecting fetal genetic conditions in early pregnancy that avoided dangerous, invasive techniques. Their patent teaches technicians to take a maternal blood sample, keep the non-cellular portion (which was “previously discarded as medical waste”), amplify the genetic material with- in (which they alone knew about), and identify pater- nally inherited sequences as a means of distinguish- ing fetal and maternal DNA. Notably, this method does not preempt other demonstrated uses of cffDNA. The Federal Circuit “agree[d]” that this invention “combined and utilized man-made tools of biotechnol- ogy in a new way that revolutionized prenatal care.” Pet.App. 18a. But it still held that Mayo Collabora- tive Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), makes all such inventions patent-ineligible as a matter of law if their new combination involves only a “natural phenomenon” and techniques that were “routine” or “conventional” on their own.
    [Show full text]
  • Bush V. Superior Court (Rains), 10 Cal.App.4Th 1374 (1992)
    Supreme Court, U.S. FILED ( p NOV 272018 1.1 No. k I \ zy OFFICE OF THE CLERK iiiii ORGNAL SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RASH B. GHOSH and INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BENGAL BASIN, Petitioners, V. CITY OF BERKELEY, ZACH COWAN, LAURA MCKINNEY, JOAN MACQUARRIE, PATRICK EMMONS, GREG HEIDENRICH, CARLOS ROMO, GREG DANIEL, MANAGEWEST, BENJAMIN MCGREW, KORMAN & NG, INC., MICHAEL KORMAN, MIRIAM NG, ROMAN FAN, ROBERT RICHERSON, KRISTEN DIEDRE RICHERSON, ANDREA RICHERSON, DEBRA A. RICHERSON, AND PRISM TRUST, Re s p0 ii den t S. On Petition For a Writ of Certiorari To The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Rash B. Ghosh Pro Se P. 0. Box 11553 Berkeley, CA 94712 (510) 575-5112 THE QUESTION PRESENTED Ghosh owned two adjacent buildings in Berkeley, and the co- plaintiff, International Institute of Bengal Basin (IIBB) occupied one of them. In a pending lawsuit, petitioners filed a third amended complaint, alleging that newly discovered evidence showed that the newly-named defendants conspired with the other defendants to deprive them of their property and arrange for it to be sold at a below-market price to some of the new. defendants. The trial court sustained demurrers by the defendants, and Ghosh and IIBB sought to appeal. Because Petitioner Ghosh had been found to be a vexatious litigant, he had to make application to the presiding justice of the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, and show that the appeal had merit. He made application, and pointed out numerous (and sometimes obvious) errors the trial court had made in sustaining the demurrer.
    [Show full text]
  • ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PAPER CODE- 801 TOPIC- WRITS Constitutional Philosophy of Writs
    CLASS- B.A.LL.B VIIIth SEMESTER SUBJECT- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PAPER CODE- 801 TOPIC- WRITS Constitutional philosophy of Writs: A person whose right is infringed by an arbitrary administrative action may approach the Court for appropriate remedy. The Constitution of India, under Articles 32 and 226 confers writ jurisdiction on Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively for enforcement/protection of fundamental rights of an Individual. Writ is an instrument or order of the Court by which the Court (Supreme Court or High Courts) directs an Individual or official or an authority to do an act or abstain from doing an act. Understanding of Article 32 Article 32 is the right to constitutional remedies enshrined under Part III of the constitution. Right to constitutional remedies was considered as a heart and soul of the constitution by Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar. Article 32 makes the Supreme court as a protector and guarantor of the Fundamental rights. Article 32(1) states that if any fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution is violated by the government then the person has right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of his fundamental rights. Article 32(2) gives power to the Supreme court to issue writs, orders or direction. It states that the Supreme court can issue 5 types of writs habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, for the enforcement of any fundamental rights given under Part III of the constitution. The Power to issue writs is the original jurisdiction of the court. Article 32(3) states that parliament by law can empower any of courts within the local jurisdiction of India to issue writs, order or directions guaranteed under Article 32(2).
    [Show full text]
  • Exhaustion of State Remedies Before Bringing Federal Habeas Corpus: a Reappraisal of U.S. Code Section
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 43 | Issue 1 Article 7 1963 Exhaustion of State Remedies before Bringing Federal Habeas Corpus: A Reappraisal of U.S. Code Section Merritt aJ mes University of Nebraska College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Merritt aJ mes, Exhaustion of State Remedies before Bringing Federal Habeas Corpus: A Reappraisal of U.S. Code Section, 43 Neb. L. Rev. 120 (1964) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol43/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. NEBRASKA LAW REVIEW VOL. 43, NO. 1 EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES BEFORE BRINGING FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS: A REAPPRAISAL OF U.S. CODE SECTION 2254 I. INTRODUCTION There are many instances in which a state's prisoner, after being denied his liberty for years, has subsequently, upon issuance of federal writ of habeas corpus, either been proven innocent or adjudged entitled to a new trial upon grounds that he was denied some constitutional right during the process of his state court trial.' In some of these cases it has been clear from the very beginning that if the allegations of the writ were proven, the de- tention was unconstitutional. Yet the prisoner is still forced to endure years of confinement while exhausting state remedies before 2 federal habeas corpus is available to him.
    [Show full text]
  • 20210716182833230 2021.0716 OABA Petition for Certiorari.Pdf
    NO. _______________ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _______________ OUTDOOR AMUSEMENT BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, INC.; MARYLAND STATE SHOWMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC.; THE SMALL AND SEASONAL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER; LASTING IMPRESSIONS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS, INC.; THREE SEASONS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC.; NEW CASTLE LAWN & LANDSCAPE, INC., Petitioners v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES; DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING ADMINISTRATION; WAGE & HOUR DIVISION, Respondents _______________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court Of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit _______________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI _______________ R. Wayne Pierce, Esq. Leon R. Sequeira, Esq. The Pierce Law Firm, LLC Counsel of Record 133 Defense Hwy, Suite 201 616 South Adams Street Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Arlington, Virginia 22204 410-573-9955 (202) 255-9023 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners QUESTION PRESENTED With exceptions not relevant hereto, Congress has expressly bestowed all "administration and enforcement" functions under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§1101 et seq., including rulemaking and adjudication for the admission of temporary, non-agricultural workers under the H-2B visa program, exclusively on the Secretary of Homeland Security. Id. §§ 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), 1103(a)(1), (3), and 1184(a)(1), (c)(1). The Secretary adjudicates employer H-2B petitions "after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government." Id. § 1184(c)(1). The question presented is: Whether Congress, consistent with the nondelegation doctrine and clear-statement rule, impliedly authorized the Secretary of Labor individually to promulgate legislative rules for the admission of H-2B workers and adjudicate H-2B labor certifications.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (C
    Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 23) 1 SCHEDULE 5 – Minor and Consequential Amendments Document Generated: 2021-08-19 Status: Point in time view as at 01/10/1992. Changes to legislation: Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, Part II is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 19 August 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) SCHEDULES SCHEDULE 5 MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS PART II SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS (1) ACTS OF THE PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 The text of Sch. 5 Pt. II(1) is in the form in which it was originally enacted: it was not wholly reproduced in Statutes in Force and, except as specified, does not reflect any amendments or repeals which may have been made prior to 1.2.1991 . F1 Textual Amendments F1 Entry relating to Crown Debts Act 1801 (c. 90) repealed by Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (c. 27, SIF 45), Sch. 13 Pt. I para. 3, Sch. 14 The M1Writ of Subpoena Act 1805 Marginal Citations M1 1805 c. 92. In sections 3 and 4 references to a writ of subpoena requiring the appearance of a person to give evidence shall be construed as including references to any summons or order issued by the Crown Court in Northern Ireland for the appearance of a person before it. The Tumultuous Risings (Ireland) Act 1831 M2 Marginal Citations M2 1831 c.44 2 Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • Explanatory Memorandum to The
    EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE WELSH LANGUAGE (GAMBLING AND LICENSING FORMS) REGULATIONS 2010 2010 No. 2440 1. This explanatory memorandum has been prepared by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (“the Department”) and is laid before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. 2. Purpose of the instrument 2.1 These Regulations prescribe the Welsh, and in some cases bilingual, versions of the forms which may be accepted by the Welsh licensing authorities in place of the forms prescribed by secondary legislation made under the Gambling Act 2005 (“the 2005 Act”) and Licensing Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”). These Regulations prescribe Welsh or bilingual forms for use under the 2005 Act for the first time. These Regulations also prescribe Welsh or bilingual forms for use under the 2003 Act which were originally prescribed in an earlier instrument (which is revoked by these Regulations) and three forms which have come into existence since relevant licensing forms were prescribed in the Welsh language in that earlier instrument. 2.2 The Department entered into a Welsh language scheme on 8 June 2007 and this includes a commitment to prescribe forms (if required for use by the Welsh public) in Welsh or bilingual format. 3. Matters of special interest to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments 3.1 These Regulations revoke the Licensing Act 2003 (Welsh Language Forms) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/805), and prescribe the Welsh or bilingual forms to which that Order related. The Committee reported the Order for defective drafting in its Nineteenth Report for the 2006/2007 Session, on the basis that this instrument should instead have been made in the form of regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Revision Bill 2007 ————————
    ———————— AN BILLE UM ATHCHO´ IRIU´ AN DLI´ REACHTU´ IL 2007 STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL 2007 ———————— Mar a tionscnaı´odh As initiated ———————— ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Definitions. 2. General statute law revision repeal and saver. 3. Specific repeals. 4. Assignment of short titles. 5. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1896. 6. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1962. 7. Miscellaneous amendments to post-1800 short titles. 8. Evidence of certain early statutes, etc. 9. Savings. 10. Short title and collective citation. SCHEDULE 1 Statutes retained PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 [No. 5 of 2007] SCHEDULE 2 Statutes Specifically Repealed PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 ———————— 2 Acts Referred to Bill of Rights 1688 1 Will. & Mary, Sess. 2. c. 2 Documentary Evidence Act 1868 31 & 32 Vict., c. 37 Documentary Evidence Act 1882 45 & 46 Vict., c. 9 Dower Act, 1297 25 Edw. 1, Magna Carta, c. 7 Drainage and Improvement of Lands Supplemental Act (Ireland) (No. 2) 1867 31 & 32 Vict., c. 3 Dublin Hospitals Regulation Act 1856 19 & 20 Vict., c. 110 Evidence Act 1845 8 & 9 Vict., c. 113 Forfeiture Act 1639 15 Chas., 1. c. 3 General Pier and Harbour Act 1861 Amendment Act 1862 25 & 26 Vict., c.
    [Show full text]
  • Blackbirding Cases
    SLAVING IN AUSTRALIAN COURTS: BLACKBIRDING CASES Home About JSPL Submission Information Current Issue Journal of Search South Pacific Law Volume 4 2000 2008 2007 SLAVING IN AUSTRALIAN COURTS: BLACKBIRDING CASES, 1869-1871 2006 2005 By Reid Mortensen[*] 2004 1. INTRODUCTION 2003 2002 This article examines major prosecutions in New South Wales and 2001 Queensland for blackbirding practices in Melanesian waters, and early regulation under the Imperial Kidnapping Act that was meant to 2000 correct problems those prosecutions raised. It considers how legal 1999 argument and adjudication appropriated the political debate on the question whether the trade in Melanesian labour to Queensland and 1998 Fiji amounted to slaving, and whether references to slaving in 1997 Australian courts only compounded the difficulties of deterring recruiting abuses in Melanesia. It is suggested that, even though the Imperial Government conceived of the Kidnapping Act as a measure to deal with slaving, its success in Australian courts depended on its avoiding any reference to the idea of slavery in the legislation itself. This is developed in three parts. Part 1 provides the social context, introducing the trade in Melanesian labour for work in Queensland. Part 2 explores the prosecutions brought under the slave trade legislation and at common law against labour recruiters, especially those arising from incidents involving the Daphne and the Jason. It attempts to uncover the way that lawyers in these cases used arguments from the broader political debate as to whether the trade amounted to slaving. Part 3 concludes with an account of the relatively more effective regulation brought by the Kidnapping Act, with tentative suggestions as to how the arguments about slaving in Australian courts influenced the form that regulation under the Act had to take.
    [Show full text]
  • Concordat Between the Department for Education and The
    POLICY AND STRATEGY Concordat between the Department for Education and the Welsh Government This concordat sets out a framework for co-operation between the Department for Education and the Welsh Government. First published: 16 January 2013 Last updated: 16 January 2013 This document was downloaded from GOV.WALES and may not be the latest version. Go to https://gov.wales/concordat-between-department-education-and-welsh-government-html for the latest version. Get information on copyright. Contents Introduction Specific functions Co-operation Exchange of information Impact assessments Cross border bodies Appointments Finance Access to services Welsh Language Scheme Correspondence Other documents Disputes Review Confidentiality This document was downloaded from GOV.WALES and may not be the latest version. Go to https://gov.wales/concordat-between-department-education-and-welsh-government-html for the latest version. Get information on copyright. Agreement Annex A Annex B Introduction 1. This concordat establishes an agreed framework for co-operation between the parties, the Welsh Government (“WG”) and the UK government’s Department for Education (“DfE”). This includes all matters arising from DfE’s responsibilities which impact directly or indirectly on the functions of the Welsh Ministers and vice versa. Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 confers upon the National Assembly for Wales a broad range of primary law making powers in relation to subjects that are listed under 20 headings and set out in Schedule 7 to that 2006 Act. The National Assembly can legislate by passing Acts of the Assembly in relation to those subjects. The subject areas are areas in which the Welsh Government has executive functions.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Status of BSL and ISL Is Urgently Needed
    charter4BSL_frontcover_201.pdf 1 15/10/2012 23:12 BDABRITISH DEAF ASSOCIATION Legal Status for BSL and ISL Discussion Paper © British Deaf Association Association Deaf British © British Deaf Association Legal Status for BSL and ISL Report prepared by Dr S.C.E Batterbury Magill, BDA Consultant Association “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.” Nelson Mandela Deaf British © First Edition © BDA March 2014 Legal Status for BSL and ISL 3 Contents Foreword 6 Acknowledgements 7 Dedication 7 Executive Summary 8 1. Introduction: BSL as a language, Deaf culture and Deaf heritage 14 1.1 Developments in the BDA’s campaign for legal status of BSL 14 1.2 BSL is a Language 16 1.3 Deaf Culture and Deaf Gain 17 1.3.1 Deaf Culture 17 1.3.2 Deaf Gain 18 1.3.3 Deaf Heritage 19 1.3.4 Protecting Cultural Diversity and Expression 20 1.4 Population size: BSL in the UK 21 2. Status of Deaf people in the UK 22 2.1 Social Exclusion – cost of the status quo Association 22 2.2 Case Studies – critical incidents 25 2.2.1 Access to Heath Care 25 2.2.2 Education and Training 30 2.2.3 Civil Rights, Justice and Discrimination 33 2.2.4 Employment 35 2.2.5 Public and Private Sector Providers 38 2.3 Actions Required Deaf 39 3. International Legal Instruments that support minority languages 40 3.1 Human Rights 40 3.1.1 The European Convention on Human Rights 40 3.1.2 Bill of Rights 40 3.2 International Legal instruments not promoting Sign Languages 41 3.3 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 43 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Revision 17Th Report (SLC 193; LC 285)
    [Coat of Arms] The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM No 285) (SCOT LAW COM No 193) STATUTE LAW REVISION: SEVENTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Report on a Reference under Section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord High Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers December 2003 Cm 6070 SE/2003/313 £xx.xx The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale QC Mr Stuart Bridge Professor Martin Partington CBE Judge Alan Wilkie QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The Scottish Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Eassie, Chairman Professor Gerard Maher QC Professor Kenneth G C Reid Professor Joseph M Thomson Mr Colin J Tyre QC The Secretary of the Scottish Law Commission is Miss Jane L McLeod and its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. The terms of this report were agreed on 17 November 2003. The text of this report is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk ii LAW COMMISSION SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION STATUTE LAW REVISION: SEVENTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL CONTENTS Paragraph Page REPORT 1 APPENDIX 1: DRAFT
    [Show full text]