DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Statutes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Statutes Table of Statutes Commonwealth Constitution: 297 s 9: 296 Ch III: 5, 14, 15, 234, 363, 370, 372, 391, s 10: 296 397, 398, 404-406, 410 s 11: 296 s 1: 391, 422, 436 s 12: 17 s 7: 417, 422, 423, 425, 428, 429, 432, s 13: 296 436, 441 s 14: 296 s 8: 436 s 15: 17, 18, 296 s 15: 180, 193 s 15(1): 6 s 16: 436 Australia (Request and Consent) Act s 24: 416, 417, 422-425, 428, 429, 432, 1985: 296 436, 441 Australian Capital Territory (Self-Gov- s 29: 422 ernment) 1988 s 30: 422, 436 s 22: 66 s 49: 317 Broadcasting Act 1942 s 51: 65 Pt IIID: 426 s 51(xxix): 233 Builders Labourers Federation (Cancel- s 51(xxxi): 380 lation of Registration) Act 1986: 367, s 51(xxxv): 426 370 s 51(xxxvii): 3 Builders Labourers Federation (Cancel- s 51(xxxviii): 3, 281, 285, 287, 288 lation of Registration – Conse- s 53: 191 quential Provisions) Act 1986: 367 s 57: 185, 192 s 7: 368 s 61: 391 Builders Labourers Federation Legis- s 71: 14, 384, 391, 396, 397, 399 lation Amendment Act 1990: 389 s 73: 384 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902: 422 s 74: 273 Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904: s 77(iii): 14, 384, 396, 399, 405 367 s 80: 380 Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Act s 90: 66, 67 1929: 142 s 92: 380 Customs Act 1901: 66 s 105A: 142, 144, 148 Financial Agreements (Commonwealth s 105A(3): 144 Liability) Act 1932: 143 s 105A(5): 144 Financial Agreements Enforcement Act s 106: 78, 79, 234, 352, 371, 432, 440 1932: 143, 146, 152, 157 s 107: 356, 357 Pt II: 144 s 116: 380 Financial Agreements (State Legislation) s 117: 380 Act 1932: 148 s 128: 18, 115-117, 429, 434 Industrial Relations Act 198: 426 Judiciary Act 1903: 234, 392 Commonwealth s 40: 408 Australia Act 1986: 17, 22, 125, 232, 284- s 40A: 273 297, 319, 378 Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987: 317 s 1: 17, 296 s 8: 240 s 2: 296 s 16(2): 346 s 2(2): 354 Privy Council (Appeals from the High s 3: 296 Court) Act 1975: 273 s 4: 296 Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) s 5: 296 Act 1968: 273 s 6: 4, 5, 6, 125, 296, 355 New South Wales s 7: 296 Appropriation (Parliament) Act 1996: s 7(5): 18 165 s 8: 296 Audit Act 1902: 149, 150, 157 xviii TABLE OF STATUTES Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985: 296 Constitution Amendment (Legislative Bills Annulment Act 1935: 148, 167 Council) Act 1932: 195 Builders Labourers Federation (Special Constitution and Parliamentary Electo- Provisions) Act 1986: 363, 364, 367 rates and Elections (Amendment) s 3(1): 367, 370 Act 1978: 186 s 3(2): 370 Constitutional Powers (New South s 3(3): 370 Wales) Act 1978: 281 s 3(4): 367, 370 Crimes Act 1900: 394 s 4: 368 Customs Duties Act 1871: 59 s 5: 368 Customs Regulation Act 1879 Community Protection Act 1994: 15, 384, s 32: 60 386, 393-395 s 131: 61 s 3: 393, 395 s 133: 59, 60 s 3(1): 384 Defamation Act 1847: 64 s 3(2): 384 Defamation Act 2005: 252 s 4: 394 Equity Act 1902 s 5: 393, 395 s 6: 176, 249 s 5(1): 384 Imperial Acts Application Act 1969: 252 s 8: 394 s 6: 314, 346 s 9(1): 394 Sch 2, Pt 1: 346 s 15: 384, 394 Industrial Arbitration Act 1940: 366 s 17: 384, 394 Industrial Arbitration (Special Provi- s 17(1)(a): 394 sions) Act 1984: 366 s 17(1)(b): 394 Parliamentary Evidence Act 1901: 252, s 17(1)(c): 395 323 s 17(3): 394 s 4: 317 s 24: 394 s 5: 317, 323 s 25: 394 Sentencing Act 1989: 404 Constitution Act 1853: 77, 179 Sentencing Legislation Further Amend- ss 38-40: 77 ment Act 1997: 404 Constitution Act 1855: 62, 63, 161 Special Commissions of Inquiry Act s 1: 60, 62, 179, 190 1983 s 45: 60 Pt 4A: 346 Constitution Act 1902: 250, 362, 371, 373- s 22: 349 374 s 23: 349 Pt 2: 351 s 24: 349 Pt 9: 5, 372 s 33A: 346 s 5: 169, 319, 371, 377, 378, 395 s 33B(1): 346 s 33B(4): 347 s 5A: 164, 167, 191, 319 s 33D(1): 346 s 5B: 162, 165-167, 171, 172, 175, 177- 183, 319 s 33D(3): 346 s 33F(1): 346 s 5B(1): 195 s 33G: 346 s 5B(4): 172, 180, 181 s 33H: 346 s 7A: 11-12, 101-128, 162, 164, 167, 169, Special Commissions of Inquiry Amend- 179, 332, 351, 355, 356-358 ment Act 1997: 331, 346-347 s 7A(1): 101, 108, 351, 356 Supreme Court Act 1970 s 7A(2): 101, 108, 351 s 37: 414, 415 s 7A(3): 114 Supreme Court and Circuit Courts s 7A(6): 101, 102, 108-111, 116 (Amendment) Act 1965: 249 s 7B(1): 372 s 7B(1)(a): 5 Queensland s 13A(3): 241 Appeals and Special Reference Act 1973: s 15: 253 276 s 15(1)(a): 317 s 3: 277 s 19: 241 s 4: 277 s 22D: 193 Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985: 296 s 22D(1): 264 Constitution Act 1867: 1, 6, 8, 69, 70, 77- s 46: 169 88 Constitution Amendment Act 2000: 241 s 1: 80 xix TABLE OF STATUTES Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) (cont) s 13: 193 s 2: 80, 190 s 28A: 192 s 9: 194 s 38: 317 ss 15-17: 77 s 41(1): 192 s 15: 81 Constitution Act Amendment Act 1973: s 16: 81 186 Constitution Act Amendment Act 1908: Constitution Act Further Amendment 194 Act 1881 Constitution Act Amendment Act 1934 s 16: 191 s 3: 124 Constitution and Electoral Acts Amend- Constitution Act Amendment Act 1977: ment Act 1973: 186 281 Constitution Further Amendment Act Constitution of Queensland 2001: 2, 97 1913: 201 Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act ss 21-26: 191 2002: 400-402 Convict Prevention Act 1857: 37 s 4(1): 400 Customs Act 1854: 32 s 4(2): 400 Electoral Act 1855: 32, 37 s 30: 400, 401 Equity Act 1866: 45 s 31: 401 Local Courts Act 1861: 42 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Real Property Act 1858: 29-32, 39 Act 2003: 407 s 13: 30 s 3: 407 Real Property Act 1860: 36, 37, 39, 40 s 8: 407, 408 Real Property Act 1861: 31 s 13: 407, 408 s 41: 40 Industrial Arbitration Act 1916: 69, 72- Registration of Deeds Act 1841: 39 73, 75, 79, 81, 92 Registration of Deeds Act 1862: 43 s 6(1)-(3): 72 Supreme Court Act 1853 s 6(6): 72, 81, 83, 84 s 182: 27 s 7(1): 72, 73 s 9(3): 73 Tasmania s 19: 72 Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985: 296 Local Government (Morayfield Shop- Constitution Act 1855: 203 ping Centre Zoning) Act 1996: 404 s 33: 190 Parliament of Queensland Act 2001: 2 Constitution Act 1934 s 9: 317 ss 42-43: 191 s 34: 329 Constitution Act 1968: 186 s 35: 329 Constitutional Powers (Tasmania) Act Parliamentary Bills Referendum Act 1979: 281 1908: 80, 194 Land and Income Taxation Act (No 2) Repealing Act of 1867 1924: 203 s 3: 78 Parliamentary Privileges Act 1858 Supreme Court Act 1867 s 1: 317 s 9: 77 s 10: 77 Victoria Supreme Court Acts Amendment Act 21 Vict no 33 (1857) 1903 s 2: 205 s 3: 79 s 3: 205 Workers Compensation Act 1905: 71 s 12: 205 Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985: 296 South Australia Builders Labourers Federation (De- Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985: 296 recognition) Act 1985: 367 Chief Justice’s Pension Act 1861: 36 Charter of Human Rights and Responsi- Constitution Act 1855: 26, 31, 32, 37-43 bilities Act 2006: 3 s 33: 38 Community Protection Act 1990: 393 s 34: 39 Constitution Act 1855: 185 Sch A: 26 s 56: 190 Constitution Act 1856 Constitution Act 1903 s 1: 190 s 31: 193 Constitution Act 1934 Constitution Act 1975: 1, 2, 6 s 10A: 124 Pt III: 5 xx TABLE OF STATUTES Pt IIIAA: 5 s 6: 418, 432 s 16: 378 s 9: 418, 432 s 18: 5 s 12: 211, 212, 215-219, 223-229 s 19: 317 s 13: 212, 214, 447 ss 62-65: 191 Electoral Distribution Repeal Act 2001: s 65: 206 237 ss 65B-65C: 195 Electoral Districts (Cancellation of Pro- Constitution (Parliamentary Reform) clamation) Act (No 1) 1959: 212, 224 Act 2003: 2, 186 Interpretation Act 1984: 217 Constitution (Reform) Act 1937 Justices Act 1902 s 2(1): 193, 194 s 102: 403 s 3: 206 One Vote One Value Act 2005: 212, 213 Constitutional Powers (Request) Act Parliamentary Privileges Act 1891 1980: 281 s 4: 317 Industrial Relations Act 1979: 367 Legislative Council Reform Act 1950: Australian Capital Territory 186 Human Rights Act 2004: 3 Tobacco Act 1987 s 21(1)(f): 193 Northern Territory Legislative Assembly (Powers and Pri- Western Australia vileges) Act 1992: 240 Acts Amendment (Constitution) Act Magistrates Act: 405 1978: 281 s 6: 422 India Acts Amendment (Electoral Reform) Act Act XXII of 1869: 53 1987: 186, 214 s 2: 53, 55 s 89: 418, 432 s 9: 53, 54, 55 s 92: 418, 432 United Kingdom/Imperial s 94: 418, 432 Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985: 296 26 & 27 Vict, c 76: 39 Constitution Act 1889: 1, 213, 432 Act of Settlement 1701: 77 s 6: 188 Australia Act 1986: 17, 22, 125, 232, 319 s 37: 213 s 1: 17, 296 s 66: 190 s 2: 296 s 73: 214, 227, 234, 235 s 2(2): 354 s 73(2)(c): 237, 416, 422, 430, 432, 434, s 3: 296 438-441 s 4: 296 s 73(6): 227 s 5: 296 Sch A: 213 s 6: 5, 6, 125, 296, 355 Constitution Act 1899: 1 s 7: 296 Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899: s 7(5): 18 212 s 8: 296 s 46: 191 s 9: 296 Constitution Acts Amendment Act (No s 10: 296 2) 1963: 186 s 11: 296 Constitution and Electoral Amendment s 12: 17 Act 2005: 212 s 13: 296 Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act s 14: 296 1988: 405 s 15: 17, 296 Criminal Code s 15(1): 6 653: 235 Australian States Constitution Act 1907: Electoral Act 1907: 212, 214 268 Electoral Amendment and Repeal Act Bill of Rights 1689: 9 2005: 2, 14, 186, 447 Art 9: 252, 314, 332, 346, 348, 349, 353, Div 2: 447 354, 359 Electoral Distribution Act 1947 (formerly British North America Act 1867: 56, 58, Electoral Districts Act): 212, 214- 59 231, 237, 418, 423, 434 s 92: 58 British North America Act 1871: 65 s 2A(2): 418, 432 xxi TABLE OF STATUTES Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (Imp): Limitation Act 1623 7, 21, 42, 56-57, 67, 78, 82, 87, 267- s 6: 64 269, 271-272, 286, 296 Magna Carta: 9 s 1: 56 Merchant Shipping Act 1894: 268, 271 s 2: 7, 63, 78, 79, 81-83, 271-272 ss 735-736: 296 s 5: 4, 11, 63, 78-83, 88, 89, 109-122, New South Wales Act 1823: 64 126, 179, 180, 355 New South Wales Constitution Act 1855 s 7: 42 (18 and 19 Vict c 54): 60, 77, 320 Colonial Leave of Absence Act 1782
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Defamation Act 2013 Is up to Date with All Changes Known to Be in Force on Or Before 05 September 2021
    Changes to legislation: Defamation Act 2013 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 05 September 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) View outstanding changes Defamation Act 2013 2013 CHAPTER 26 An Act to amend the law of defamation. [25th April 2013] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— Requirement of serious harm 1 Serious harm (1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. (2) For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss. Commencement Information I1 S. 1 in force at 1.1.2014 by S.I. 2013/3027, art. 2 Defences 2 Truth (1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true. (2) Subsection (3) applies in an action for defamation if the statement complained of conveys two or more distinct imputations. 2 Defamation Act 2013 (c. 26) Document Generated: 2021-09-05 Changes to legislation: Defamation Act 2013 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 05 September 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Devolution, Debate and Change: Changing the UK’S Constitutional Settlements Carol Howells and Edwin Parks
    Chapter 2 Devolution, debate and change: Changing the UK’s constitutional settlements Carol Howells and Edwin Parks Abstract Devolution has been ‘a process not an event’ resulting in new constitutional settlements . This chapter covers the processes of devolution, processes which mirror the first 50 years of the Open University and the first 22 years of the OU Law School. The chapter explores the devolution of powers to parliaments in Scotland and Wales. It begins with the referendums of the early 1970s and traces events leading up to both the initial transfer of powers and those resulting in subsequent transfer of powers. The process has not been without its critics and the use of differing models helped create complexity re-enforcing historical legacies. Devolution created new legal orders and challenged accepted traditional constitutional theory. The story is not yet over. 1. Introduction The establishment of The Open University (OU) in 1969 changed the landscape of higher education in the United Kingdom (UK). Its mission of being ‘Open to people, places, methods and ideas’1 and its promotion of social justice through high quality education2 has challenged thinking around educational practices. In the 50 years since it was established it has transformed the lives of many through its work and partnerships. It has students in over 90% of UK postcodes3 and continues to hold a unique position within the UK’s Higher Education sector working across, and receiving funding from, all four UK nations. In celebrating its 50th anniversary its Vice Chancellor expressed pride in being the UK’s only four nations university.4 During the OU’s 50-year history there have been significant changes and challenges within the higher education landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Sullivan: New Approaches in Australia, New Zealand and England
    The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2002 Rethinking Sullivan: New Approaches in Australia, New Zealand and England Susanna Frederick Fischer The Catholic University, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Susanna Frederick Fischer, Rethinking Sullivan: New Approaches in Australia, New Zealand and England, 34 GEO. WASH. INT’L L. REV. 101 (2002). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RETHINKING SULLIVAN: NEW APPROACHES IN AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, AND ENGLAND SUSANNA FREDERICK FISCHER* "This is a difficult problem. No answer is perfect." - Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in Reynolds v. Times Newspapers1 SUMMARY This Article employs a comparative analysis of some important recent Commonwealth libel cases to analyze what has gone wrong with U.S. defa- mation law since New York Times v. Sullivan and to suggest a new direc- tion for its reform. In Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Lange v. Atkinson, and Reynolds v. Times Newspapers, the highest courts of the Australian, New Zealand, and English legal systems were con- fronted with the same challengefaced by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan. They had to decide the proper constitutionalbal- ance between protection of reputation and protection of free expression in defamation actions brought by public officials over statements of fact.
    [Show full text]
  • Imagereal Capture
    THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS BY KEVEN BooKER* and GEORGE WINTERTON** Following recent disagreement between the Commonwealth and Victorian Solicitors-General over whether the States have power to employ aliens in public offices in view of section 3 clause 5 of the Act of Settlement 1701 (U.K.), this Article considers whether that clause applies in the States and, if it does, whether they or the Commonwealth can amend or repeal it. These issues are examined in light of the common law on the employment of aliens in public office, the reasons for the enactment of the Act of Settlement, and the question whether, and to what extent, the doctrine of paramount force applies to legislation enacted prior to the establishment of a colony. The Article concludes that section 3 clause 5 did not apply in Australia, either by reception or by paramount force, although the common law on the employment of aliens applied by reception; and the common law did not disqualify naturalized persons from holding public office. The authors argue that in any event, Commonwealth legislation, validly enacted under the "Naturalization and aliens" power (section 51(xix)) has removed any disabilities the Act of Settlement might have imposed on the employment of naturalized persons. Moreover, pursuant to section 51 ( xxxviii), the Commonwealth could authorize the States, or any of them, to pass legislation repug­ nant to Imperial legislation extending to the State by paramount force. 1. Introduction Imperial statutes became part of the law operating in Australian colonies in two ways. Statutes intended to apply in a colony were said to operate there by paramount force.1 Statutes not intended specifically to apply in a colony, but forming part of the law of England at the date of settlement of the colony (or some later date set by legislation)2 and applicable to the circumstances of the colony, were said to apply by way of reception.3 A colony could repeal or amend statutes inherited by reception, but not those applying by paramount force.
    [Show full text]
  • An Opportunity Lost: the United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law
    Federal Communications Law Journal Volume 49 Issue 3 Article 4 4-1997 An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law Douglas W. Vick University of Stirling Linda Macpherson Heriot-Watt University Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj Part of the Communications Law Commons, and the European Law Commons Recommended Citation Vick, Douglas W. and Macpherson, Linda (1997) "An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law," Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 49 : Iss. 3 , Article 4. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol49/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Federal Communications Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law Douglas W. Vick* Linda Macpherson** INTRODUCTION ..................................... 621 I. BACKGROUND OF THE ACT ....................... 624 I. THE DEFAMATION ACT 1996 ...................... 629 A. The New Defenses ......................... 630 B. The ProceduralReforms ..................... 636 C. Waiving ParliamentaryPrivilege ............... 643 III. AN OPPORTUNITY LOST ......................... 646 CONCLUSION ....................................... 652 INTRODUCTION The law of defamation in the United Kingdom remains
    [Show full text]
  • LSE Brexit: Welsh Independence: Can Brexit Awaken the Sleeping Dragon? Page 1 of 4
    LSE Brexit: Welsh independence: can Brexit awaken the sleeping dragon? Page 1 of 4 Welsh independence: can Brexit awaken the sleeping dragon? Wales is the only devolved nation within the UK that has never caused a stir in constitutional terms. This is because Welsh independence has remained largely a dormant political issue, both within Wales and within the wider UK context. Can Brexit awaken the sleeping dragon, asks Darryn Nyatanga (University of Liverpool)? Brexit does present the opportunity to awaken real discussion on the potential of Welsh Independence. This can be attributed to two reasons, firstly – independence could be the only way to ensure Welsh interests are met after Brexit. Also, there has been a growth in sub-state nationalism within the UK, exposed by the Brexit referendum and the withdrawal process, highlighting the point that the UK is united in name only. Welsh nationalism The agenda for Welsh independence can only arguably be pushed by a strong sense of nationalism. This is the case in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, nationalism has been spearheaded by the SNP. Scottish independence (and Scottish home rule – before the introduction of devolution in 1998) has long been the main objective for the SNP since its genesis. In the case of Northern Ireland, two main forms of national identity exist; British and Irish. The latter identity challenges the status quo of the UK’s unitary nature. Irish nationalism in political terms is spearheaded by Sinn Fein, who advocate for the constitutional status of Northern Ireland to change i.e. Irish (re)unification.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Intermediary Liability in Defamation: Proposals for Statutory Reform
    INTERNET INTERMEDIARY LIABILITY IN DEFAMATION: PROPOSALS FOR STATUTORY REFORM Defamation Law in the Internet Age July 2017 Commissioned by the Law Commission of Ontario Prepared by Emily Laidlaw, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law Hilary Young, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of New Brunswick, Faculty of Law The LCO commissioned this paper to provide background research for its Defamation Law in the Internet Age project. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the LCO. Internet Intermediary Liability in Defamation: Proposals for Statutory Reform Emily Laidlaw, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law Hilary Young, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of New Brunswick Faculty of Law Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ..………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………. 1 II. THE COMMON LAW OF PUBLICATION IN DEFAMATION ……….…………………………………….……….. 3 A. Introduction to Publication ……………………………………………………………………………….……… 3 B. Innocent Dissemination ………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 4 C. Publication by Omission……………………………………………………………………………………………..7 D. Conclusion on the common law of publication ………………..…………………………………..….. 9 III. THE LAW OF PUBLICATION AS APPLIED TO INTERNET INTERMEDIARIES ………..…..…………….. 10 A. Introduction ..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10 B. The Common Law ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11 1. United States ………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 11 2. United Kingdom …………………………………………………………………………………………..14 3. Australia
    [Show full text]
  • Public Person Libel Standards in the British Commonwealth Caribbean Versus the United States
    PUBLIC PERSON LIBEL STANDARDS IN THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH CARIBBEAN VERSUS THE UNITED STATES By ROXANNE SABRINA WATSON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006 Copyright 2006 by Roxanne Sabrina Watson To my parents, Sybil and Earle Watson, with gratitude for your love and support ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my supervisory committee chair, Dr. Bill Chamberlin, for his support and guidance over the past four years and also for his patience in working with me in what has turned out to be a very large and involved dissertation. I also want to thank my other supervisory committee members—professors Laurence Alexander, Lisa Duke, David Geggus, and John Wright. I know that without the efforts of each in his or her specific area of expertise, this dissertation would not be possible. I want to thank my parents, Sybil and Earle Watson, for emotional and spiritual encouragement throughout the dissertation process, and for listening to my desperate outbursts and frustrations on a daily basis and keeping me focused on God. Thanks also go to my sister, Kerry Hendricks, for her spiritual encouragement and for her presence when I most needed someone to drive four hours with me to Georgia and back. Thanks also go to my brother, Huntley Watson, for moral support and encouragement. I would also like to acknowledge Eyun-Jung Ki, my dissertation friend with whom I shared many frustrations and triumphs as we waded through the process together.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit and Parliamentary Sovereignty Keith Ewing∗
    bs_bs_banner Brexit and Parliamentary Sovereignty Keith Ewing∗ This note addresses the implications of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union for the legal principle of parliamentary sovereignty, and argues that the strong restatement of the latter is the most significant feature of the decision. The aim here is to show how traditional principle in the Dicey tradition has been strongly applied against the competing claims of EU law, the royal prerogative, the referendum and devolution. However, the note also argues that the claims relating to parliamentary sovereignty could have produced a different result and that the most compelling feature of the case was the argument that was not forcefully put by the Government, namely that Parliament had already provided sufficient authority for the triggering of Article 50. INTRODUCTION On 23 June 2016 the people of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar voted to leave the European Union. The Brexiters won by a slim majority (51.89 per cent to 48.11 per cent) on a 72 per cent turnout, and they lost comprehensively in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Brexiters nevertheless claimed that the Government had a mandate to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and to do so legally with prerogative power (and without parlia- mentary approval), a claim perhaps reinforced politically by the Conservative Party election manifesto in 2015.1 The latter had set in train the referendum process accompanied by a promise that the Conservatives if elected would re- spect the result, evidently not expecting the outcome delivered. The problem, however, is that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was silent on the legal effects of the vote, perhaps reflecting the confidence of all concerned that the Brexiters would fail.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Legislative Memorandum: the Defamation Act 2013
    Post-Legislative Memorandum: The Defamation Act 2013 October 2019 CP 180 Post-Legislative Memorandum: The Defamation Act 2013 Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty October 2019 CP 180 © Crown copyright 2019 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/official-documents Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at Civil Law Policy Team Civil Justice and Law Division, Post Point 10.18 Ministry of Justice 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ [email protected] . ISBN 978-1-5286-1634-8 CCS1019227570 10/19 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Post-Legislative Memorandum: The Defamation Act 2013 Contents Introduction 3 Objectives 3 Background 3 Summary of Changes made by the Act 4 Implementation 6 Secondary Legislation 6 Legal Issues 6 Other Reviews 6 Preliminary Assessment of the Act 7 1 Post-Legislative Memorandum: The Defamation Act 2013 2 Post-Legislative Memorandum: The Defamation Act 2013 Introduction 1. This post-legislative memorandum is being published as part of the post- legislative scrutiny process set out in Cm 7320, and is being submitted in the first instance to the Justice Select Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Defamation Law: England and the United States
    University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review Volume 24 Issue 1 Fall 2016 Article 3 8-28-2017 Comparative Defamation Law: England and the United States Vincent R. Johnson Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umiclr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons Recommended Citation Vincent R. Johnson, Comparative Defamation Law: England and the United States, 24 U. Miami Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 1 (2017) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umiclr/vol24/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMPARATIVE DEFAMATION LAW: ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES Vincent R. Johnson 2 U. MIAMI INT'L &COMP. L. REV. V. 24 I. COMMON HISTORY,DIFFERENT PATHS................................. 4 II. SHARED PRINCIPLES................................................................. 11 III. IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES...................................................... 17 A. BASIC CHOICE OF VALUES ............................................... 18 1. ENGLISH LAW IS PRO-REPUTATION,PRO-PLAINTIFF .19 2. AMERICAN LAW IS PRO-SPEECH,PRO-DEFENDANT... 21 B. FALSITY AND FAULT ......................................................... 22 1. PRESUMED FALSITY VERSUS PRESUMED TRUTH
    [Show full text]
  • Written Constitution for the UK
    Contents Page Mapping the Path towards Codifying - or Not Codifying - the UK Constitution ROBERT BLACKBURN, PhD, LLD, Solicitor Professor of Constitutional Law Centre for Political and Constitutional Studies King's College London PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH Aims This programme of research has been prepared at the formal request1 of the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee chaired by Graham Allen MP to assist its inquiry, and the policy debate generally, on the proposal to codify - or not - the UK constitution. The work been prepared in an impartial way, adopting a pragmatic approach to the issues involved, and does not seek to advocate either codification or non-codification. Its purpose is to inform the inquiry of the issues involved and, in the event that a government in the future might wish to implement such a proposal, it seeks to provide a starting point and set of papers to help facilitate the complex and sensitive issues of substance and process that would be involved. Structure of the Research The content starts (Part I) by identifying, and giving a succinct account of, the arguments for and against a written constitution, prepared in rhetorical manner. It then (Part II) sets out a series of three illustrative blueprints, prepared in the belief that a consideration of detailed alternative models on how a codified constitution might be designed and drafted will better inform and advance the debate on the desirability or not of writing down the constitution into one documentary source. These are - (1) Constitutional Code - a document sanctioned by Parliament but without statutory authority, setting out the essential existing elements and principles of the constitution and workings of government.
    [Show full text]