DOCSLIB.ORG

The Appointment, Tenure and Removal of Judges Under Commonwealth

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Appointment, Tenure and Removal of Judges Under Commonwealth The The Appointment, Tenure and Removal of Judges under Commonwealth Principles Appoin An independent, impartial and competent judiciary is essential to the rule tmen of law. This study considers the legal frameworks used to achieve this and examines trends in the 53 member states of the Commonwealth. It asks: t, Te ! who should appoint judges and by what process? nur The Appointment, Tenure ! what should be the duration of judicial tenure and how should judges’ remuneration be determined? e and and Removal of Judges ! what grounds justify the removal of a judge and who should carry out the necessary investigation and inquiries? Re mo under Commonwealth The study notes the increasing use of independent judicial appointment va commissions; the preference for permanent rather than fixed-term judicial l of Principles appointments; the fuller articulation of procedural safeguards necessary Judge to inquiries into judicial misconduct; and many other developments with implications for strengthening the rule of law. s A Compendium and Analysis under These findings form the basis for recommendations on best practice in giving effect to the Commonwealth Latimer House Principles (2003), the leading of Best Practice Commonwealth statement on the responsibilities and interactions of the three Co mmon main branches of government. we This research was commissioned by the Commonwealth Secretariat, and undertaken and alth produced independently by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. The Centre is part of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law. Principle s ISBN 978-1-90522-155-4 Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law British Institute of International and Comparative Law Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5JP 9>781905 221554 Comp of Judicial Proj_Prelims (new) 26/6/15 09:33 Page i The Appointment, Tenure and Removal of Judges under Commonwealth Principles A Compendium and Analysis of Best Practice Comp of Judicial Proj_Prelims (new) 26/6/15 09:33 Page ii Comp of Judicial Proj_Prelims (new) 26/6/15 09:33 Page iii The Appointment, Tenure and Removal of Judges under Commonwealth Principles A Compendium and Analysis of Best Practice Comp of Judicial Proj_Prelims (new) 26/6/15 09:33 Page iv Published and Distributed by The British Institute of International and Comparative Law Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5JP © Commonwealth Secretariat 2015 This work is to be cited as J. van Zyl Smit, The Appointment, Tenure and Removal of Judges under Commonwealth Principles: A Compendium and Analysis of Best Practice (Report of Research Undertaken by Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law) British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A Catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978–1–905221–57–8 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any restricted system of any nature without the written permission of the copyright holder, application for which should be addressed to the distributor. Such written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature. Typeset by Cambrian Typesetters Camberley, Surrey Printed in Great Britain by Polestar Wheatons Ltd Cover design by Nick Clarke Comp of Judicial Proj_Prelims (new) 26/6/15 09:33 Page v CONTENTS FOREWORD BY COMMONWEALTH SECRETARY-GENERAL ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi ABOUT THE BINGHAM CENTRE xiii SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND BEST PRACTICE xv 1 Appointments xv 2 Tenure xviii 3 Removal from office xx INTRODUCTION xxv 0.1 Overview and scope of study xxv 0.2 Commonwealth principles, their development and international context xxix 1 APPOINTMENTS 1 1.1 The appointment of judges and the rule of law 1 1.2 Criteria for judicial office 2 1.3 Appointment mechanisms 10 1.4 The role of the executive 12 1.5 The role of the legislature 25 1.6 Composition and structure of judicial appointments commissions 30 1.7 The role of judicial appointments commissions 44 2 TENURE 57 2.1 Judicial tenure and the rule of law 57 2.2 Duration of judicial appointments 58 2.3 Protection of judicial remuneration 73 3 REMOVAL FROM OFFICE 79 3.1 The removal of judges and the rule of law 79 3.2 Substantive grounds of removal 81 3.3 Removal mechanisms 88 v Comp of Judicial Proj_Prelims (new) 26/6/15 09:33 Page vi CONTENTS 3.4 Removal via an ad hoc tribunal 92 3.5 Removal by disciplinary councils 102 3.6 Parliamentary removal 105 APPENDIX 1 113 Commonwealth Latimer House Principles (2003) On the Accountability of and the Relationship between the Three Branches of Government 113 Annex – Latimer House Guidelines for the Commonwealth (1998) 117 APPENDIX 2 129 Note about terminology 129 Australia 130 Bahamas 132 Bangladesh 134 Barbados 135 Belize 136 Botswana 138 Brunei Darussalam 140 Cameroon 140 Canada 142 Cyprus 144 Fiji 145 Ghana 147 Guyana 149 India 151 Jamaica 154 Kenya 155 Kiribati 158 Lesotho 159 Malawi 161 Malaysia 163 Maldives 165 Malta 167 Mauritius 168 Mozambique 170 Namibia 171 Nauru 172 New Zealand 173 Nigeria 175 Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States 177 vi Comp of Judicial Proj_Prelims (new) 26/6/15 09:33 Page vii CONTENTS Pakistan 179 Papua New Guinea 181 Rwanda 183 Samoa 185 Seychelles 186 Sierra Leone 188 Singapore 189 Solomon Islands 191 South Africa 192 Sri Lanka 194 Swaziland 196 Tanzania 197 Tonga 199 Trinidad and Tobago 200 Tuvalu 201 Uganda 203 United Kingdom 205 Vanuatu 209 Zambia 210 vii Comp of Judicial Proj_Prelims (new) 26/6/15 09:33 Page viii Comp of Judicial Proj_Prelims (new) 26/6/15 09:33 Page ix FOREWORD BY COMMONWEALTH SECRETARY-GENERAL When Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting in Abuja in 2003 adopted the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Accountability of and the Relationship between the Three Branches of Government, they demonstrated continuing Commonwealth commitment to advancing respect for the separation of powers including judicial inde- pendence, and a collective determination to raise levels of practical observance. The Commonwealth can be justifiably proud of being the only international organisation with a consolidated set of principles governing the relation between the three branches of government. Covering subjects such as the harmonious balancing of power between the three branches, and how they should interact in the kind of democratic societies which the Commonwealth seeks to uphold, the Principles stipulate that there should be restraint in the exercise of power within each respective sphere in order not to encroach upon the legitimate discharge of constitutional functions by others. This Compendium on the appointment, tenure and removal of judges in the Commonwealth outlines the various constitutional arrangements in Commonwealth member states, and makes recommendations. It also indicates best practice in the appointment, security of tenure, and removal of judges in light of the Latimer House Principles. It analyses statistics, soft law instruments, commentaries, and recent developments, as well as the composition and workings of judicial appointments commissions in Commonwealth member states. Our hope is that the best practices shared in this publication, and other agreed Commonwealth values and principles, will assist member states in formulating legislative and institutional policy, and with strengthening independence and accountability in the relationships between the three branches of government. This Compendium makes clear that legal frameworks are not the only factors determining the extent to which judges in the Commonwealth are ix Comp of Judicial Proj_Prelims (new) 26/6/15 09:33 Page x FOREWORD able to act effectively and independently in discharging their functions. Other influences include the extent to which a culture of the rule of law pervades branches of the state and the wider public; the competence and independence of the wider legal profession; the provision of legal educa- tion and judicial training; efforts to ensure equality of opportunity and a pool of applicants for judicial office that broadly reflects the society; the resourcing of the justice system and settled understandings about the appropriate interaction between judges, elected politicians and the media; appropriate legal immunities for judges when performing their judicial functions; and, a balance between institutional autonomy and the protec- tion of the independence of individual judges. A truly democratic spirit also has to inform the letter of the rules. Our Commonwealth Charter states: We believe in the rule of law as an essential protection for the people of the Commonwealth and as an assurance of limited and accountable government. In particular we support an independent, impartial, honest and competent judi- ciary and recognise that an independent, effective and competent legal system is integral to upholding the rule of law, engendering public confidence and dispensing justice. Accordingly, the Compendium stresses the importance of judiciaries that are independent, impartial and efficient. If the rule of law is to be respected, it is necessary to have fair and impartial processes for resolv- ing disputes; for correct and clear interpretation and application of the law; and, for holding governments, institutions, and private individuals accountable. As a values-based organisation, the Commonwealth works to advocate and uphold collectively agreed values and principles. We recognise the need for each
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States Canada
    Comparative Table of the Supreme Courts of the United States and Canada United States Canada Foundations Model State judiciaries vs. independent and Unitary model (single hierarchy) where parallel federal judiciary provinces appoint the lowest court in the province and the federal government appoints judges to all higher courts “The judicial Power of the United “Parliament of Canada may … provide for the States, shall be vested in one Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Constitutional supreme Court” Constitution of the a General Court of Appeal for Canada” Authority United States, Art. III, s. 1 Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 101 mandatory: “the judicial Power of optional: “Parliament of Canada may … provide the United States, shall be vested in for … a General Court of Appeal for Canada” (CA Creation and one supreme Court” Art III. s. 1 1867, s. 101; first Supreme Court Act in 1875, Retention of the (inferior courts are discretionary) after debate; not constitutionally entrenched by Supreme Court quasi-constitutional convention constitutionally entrenched Previous higher appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy judicial Council were abolished in 1949 authority Enabling Judiciary Act Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26 Legislation “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising “a General Court of Appeal for Canada” confers under this Constitution” Art III, s. 2 plenary and ultimate authority “the Laws of the United States and Treaties made … under their Authority” Art III, s. 2 “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” (orig. jur.) Jurisdiction of Art III, s. 2 Supreme Court “all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction” Art III, s.
    [Show full text]
  • The Appointment, Tenure and Removal of Judges Under Commonwealth
    The The Appointment, Tenure and Removal of Judges under Commonwealth Principles Appoin An independent, impartial and competent judiciary is essential to the rule tmen of law. This study considers the legal frameworks used to achieve this and examines trends in the 53 member states of the Commonwealth. It asks: t, Te ! who should appoint judges and by what process? nur The Appointment, Tenure ! what should be the duration of judicial tenure and how should judges’ remuneration be determined? e and and Removal of Judges ! what grounds justify the removal of a judge and who should carry out the necessary investigation and inquiries? Re mo under Commonwealth The study notes the increasing use of independent judicial appointment va commissions; the preference for permanent rather than fixed-term judicial l of Principles appointments; the fuller articulation of procedural safeguards necessary Judge to inquiries into judicial misconduct; and many other developments with implications for strengthening the rule of law. s A Compendium and Analysis under These findings form the basis for recommendations on best practice in giving effect to the Commonwealth Latimer House Principles (2003), the leading of Best Practice Commonwealth statement on the responsibilities and interactions of the three Co mmon main branches of government. we This research was commissioned by the Commonwealth Secretariat, and undertaken and alth produced independently by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. The Centre is part of the British Institute of International and
    [Show full text]
  • Mauritius's Constitution of 1968 with Amendments Through 2016
    PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:39 constituteproject.org Mauritius's Constitution of 1968 with Amendments through 2016 This complete constitution has been generated from excerpts of texts from the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project, and distributed on constituteproject.org. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:39 Table of contents CHAPTER I: THE STATE AND THE CONSTITUTION . 7 1. The State . 7 2. Constitution is supreme law . 7 CHAPTER II: PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL . 7 3. Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual . 7 4. Protection of right to life . 7 5. Protection of right to personal liberty . 8 6. Protection from slavery and forced labour . 10 7. Protection from inhuman treatment . 11 8. Protection from deprivation of property . 11 9. Protection for privacy of home and other property . 14 10. Provisions to secure protection of law . 15 11. Protection of freedom of conscience . 17 12. Protection of freedom of expression . 17 13. Protection of freedom of assembly and association . 18 14. Protection of freedom to establish schools . 18 15. Protection of freedom of movement . 19 16. Protection from discrimination . 20 17. Enforcement of protective provisions . 21 17A. Payment or retiring allowances to Members . 22 18. Derogations from fundamental rights and freedoms under emergency powers . 22 19. Interpretation and savings . 23 CHAPTER III: CITIZENSHIP . 25 20. Persons who became citizens on 12 March 1968 . 25 21. Persons entitled to be registered as citizens . 25 22. Persons born in Mauritius after 11 March 1968 . 26 23. Persons born outside Mauritius after 11 March 1968 .
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Act 1905
    Q UO N T FA R U T A F E BERMUDA SUPREME COURT ACT 1905 1905 : 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY 1 Interpretation CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT 2 Union of existing Courts into Supreme Court 3 Prescription of number of Puisne Judges 4 Assistant Justices 5 Appointment of Judges of Supreme Court 6 Precedence of Judges 7 Powers of Judges to exercise jurisdiction 8 Powers of Acting Chief Justices 9 Powers etc. of Puisne Judge 10 Seal of Court 11 Place of sitting JURISDICTION AND LAW 12 Jurisdiction of Supreme Court 13 [repealed] 14 Jurisdiction in respect of persons suffering from mental disorder 15 Extent of application of English law 16 [repealed] 17 [repealed] 18 Concurrent administration of law and equity 19 Rules of law upon certain points 20 Proceedings in chambers 21 Provision as to criminal procedure 22 Savings for rules of evidence and law relating to jurors, etc. 1 SUPREME COURT ACT 1905 23 Restriction on institution of vexatious actions ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION 24 Admiralty jurisdiction of the Court 25 Mode of exercise of Admiralty jurisdiction 26 Jurisdiction in personam in collision and other similar cases 27 Wages 28 Supreme Court not to have jurisdiction in cases falling within Rhine Convention 29 Savings DISPOSAL OF MONEY PAID INTO COURT 30 Disposal of money paid into court 31 Payment into Consolidated Fund 32 Money paid into court prior to 1 July 1980 and still in court on that date 33 Notice of payment into court 34 Forfeiture of money 35 Rules relating to the payment of interest on money paid into court SITTINGS AND DISTRIBUTION OF BUSINESS OF THE COURT 36 Sittings of the Court 37 Session day 46 [] OFFICERS OF THE COURT 47 Duties of Provost Marshal General 48 Registrar and Assistant Registrar of the Court 49 Duties of Registrar 50 Taxing Master BARRISTERS AND ATTORNEYS 51 Admission of barristers and attorneys 52 Deposit of certificate of call etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lives of the Chief Justices of England
    This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the information in books and make it universally accessible. https://books.google.com I . i /9& \ H -4 3 V THE LIVES OF THE CHIEF JUSTICES .OF ENGLAND. FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST TILL THE DEATH OF LORD TENTERDEN. By JOHN LOKD CAMPBELL, LL.D., F.E.S.E., AUTHOR OF 'THE LIVES OF THE LORd CHANCELLORS OF ENGL AMd.' THIRD EDITION. IN FOUE VOLUMES.— Vol. IT;; ; , . : % > LONDON: JOHN MUEEAY, ALBEMAELE STEEET. 1874. The right of Translation is reserved. THE NEW YORK (PUBLIC LIBRARY 150146 A8TOB, LENOX AND TILBEN FOUNDATIONS. 1899. Uniform with the present Worh. LIVES OF THE LOED CHANCELLOKS, AND Keepers of the Great Seal of England, from the Earliest Times till the Reign of George the Fourth. By John Lord Campbell, LL.D. Fourth Edition. 10 vols. Crown 8vo. 6s each. " A work of sterling merit — one of very great labour, of richly diversified interest, and, we are satisfied, of lasting value and estimation. We doubt if there be half-a-dozen living men who could produce a Biographical Series' on such a scale, at all likely to command so much applause from the candid among the learned as well as from the curious of the laity." — Quarterly Beview. LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARINg CROSS. CONTENTS OF THE FOURTH VOLUME. CHAPTER XL. CONCLUSION OF THE LIFE OF LOKd MANSFIELd. Lord Mansfield in retirement, 1. His opinion upon the introduction of jury trial in civil cases in Scotland, 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Forum À L'intention Des Juges Spécialisés En Propriété
    WIPO/IP/JU/GE/19/INF/1 ORIGINAL: FRANÇAIS / ENGLISH DATE: 13 NOVEMBRE / NOVEMBER 13, 2019 Forum à l’intention des juges spécialisés en propriété intellectuelle Genève, 13 – 15 novembre 2019 Intellectual Property Judges Forum Geneva, November 13 to 15, 2019 LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS LIST OF PARTICIPANTS établie par le Secrétariat prepared by the Secretariat WIPO FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY WIPO/IP/JU/GE/19/INF/1 page 2 I. PARTICIPANTS (par ordre alphabétique / in alphabetical order) ABDALLA Muataz (Mr.), Judge, Intellectual Property Court, Khartoum, Sudan ACKAAH-BOAFO Kweku Tawiah (Mr.), Justice, High Court of Justice, Accra, Ghana AJOKU Patricia (Ms.), Justice, Federal High Court, Ibadan, Nigeria AL BUSAIDI Khalil (Mr.), Judge, Court of First Instance; President, General Administration for Judges, Council of Administrative Affairs for the Judiciary, Muscat, Oman AL KAMALI Mohamed Mahmoud (Mr.), Director General, Institute of Training and Judicial Studies, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates ALABDULQADER Ahmed (Mr.), Appeal Judge, Commercial Court, Dammam, Saudi Arabia ALABUDI Ahmed (Mr.), Appeal Judge, Commercial Section, Appeal Court, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia ALARCON POLANCO Edynson Francisco (Sr.), Magistrado, Corte de Apelación del Distrito Nacional, Santo Domingo, República Dominicana ALEXANDROVA Iskra (Ms.), Judge, Third Department, Supreme Administrative Court, Sofia, Bulgaria ALHIDAR Ibrahim (Mr.), Judge, Commercial Court, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia ALJABRI Nayef (Mr.), Counselor, Court of Appeal, Kuwait City, Kuwait ALKHALAF Mahmoud (Mr.), Judge, Court
    [Show full text]
  • Lord Chief Justice Delegation of Statutory Functions
    Delegation of Statutory Functions – Issue No. 2 of 2015 Lord Chief Justice – Delegation of Statutory Functions Introduction The Lord Chief Justice has a number of statutory functions, the exercise of which may be delegated to a nominated judicial office holder (as defined by section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (the 2005 Act). This document sets out which judicial office holder has been nominated to exercise specific delegable statutory functions. Section 109(4) of the 2005 Act defines a judicial office holder as either a senior judge or holder of an office listed in schedule 14 to that Act. A senior judge, as defined by s109(5) of the 2005 Act refers to the following: the Master of the Rolls; President of the Queen's Bench Division; President of the Family Division; Chancellor of the High Court; Senior President of Tribunals; Lord or Lady Justice of Appeal; or a puisne judge of the High Court. Only the nominated judicial office holder to whom a function is delegated may exercise it. Exercise of the delegated functions cannot be sub- delegated. The nominated judicial office holder may however seek the advice and support of others in the exercise of the delegated functions. Where delegations are referred to as being delegated prospectively1, the delegation takes effect when the substantive statutory provision enters into force. The schedule, which is Issue 2 of 2015, is correct as at 17 December 2015.2 It contains new delegations, revocation of certain delegations to a number of judges and corrections to the delegations to the President of the Queen’s Bench Division and Chancellor of the High Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY)
    www.coe.int/cybercrime Strasbourg, 30 November 2020 T-CY (2020)33 Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY) T-CY 23 23rd Plenary of the T-CY Virtual meeting, 30 November 2020 Meeting report T-CY(2020)33 23rd Plenary/Meeting report 1 Introduction The 23rd Plenary of the T-CY Committee, meeting online on 30 November 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, was chaired by Cristina SCHULMAN (Romania) and opened by Jan KLEIJSSEN (Director of Information Society and Action against Crime, DG 1, Council of Europe). More than 130 representatives of 57 Parties, Observer and Ad-hoc Observer States, as well as of international organisations and Council of Europe committees participated. The regular plenary session was followed by a meeting of the T-CY Protocol Drafting Plenary from 1 to 3 December 2020. 2 Decisions The T-CY decided: Agenda item 1: Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda . To adopt the agenda; Agenda item 2: Bureau elections . To thank the outgoing Bureau for its contribution to the work of the T-CY; . To elect Cristina SCHULMAN (Romania) as Chair and Pedro VERDELHO (Portugal) as Vice- chair of the T-CY. To elect as Bureau members: - Albert ANTWI-BOASIAKO (Ghana); - Miriam BAHAMONDE BLANCO (Spain); - Camila BOSCH CARTAGENA (Chile); - Vanessa EL KHOURY-MOAL (France); - Benjamin FITZPATRICK (USA); - Justin MILLAR (United Kingdom); - Gareth SANSOM (Canada); - Nathan WHITEMAN (Australia). Agenda item 3: Terms of Reference for the preparation of the 2nd Additional Protocol . To extend the Terms of reference for the negotiations to May 2021 to permit finalisation of the draft Protocol.
    [Show full text]
  • 4Th IAP NORTH AMERICAN and CARIBBEAN REGIONAL CONFERENCE Montego Bay, Jamaica W.I
    4th IAP NORTH AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN REGIONAL CONFERENCE Montego Bay, Jamaica W.I. 2 – 4 November 2016 “Prosecution and Governance in the 21st Century – Current and Future Challenges to Tackling Cybercrime and Organized Financial Crimes” Wednesday, 2 November 2016 15:00 – 18:00 Registration for 4th IAP North American and Caribbean Regional Conference at the Hilton Rose Hall Resort and Spa 19:00 – 21:00 Welcome Reception – Hilton Rose Hall Resort & Spa Thursday, 3 November 2016 08:00 – 09:00 Registration at the Montego Bay Convention Centre - Rose Hall Shuttles will be provided daily from the Hilton Hotel to the Convention Centre; Dress Code: Business Casual) 09:00 – 10:00 Opening Ceremony Greetings: The Honorable Mrs. Justice Zaila McCalla, OJ - Chief Justice of Jamaica The Honorable Mr. Delroy Chuck, QC, MP - Minister of Justice Ms. Paula V. Llewellyn, CD, QC - Director of Public Prosecutions CULTURAL ITEM – 10 minutes Mr. Han Moraal - Acting Secretary-General of IAP Ms. Sirah Abraham - Criminal Justice Adviser to Barbados and Eastern Caribbean Professor Trevor Munroe - Executive Director of National Integrity Action Mr. Luis G. Moreno - US Ambassador to Jamaica TBC 10:00 – 10:10 The role of the International Association of Prosecutors (IAP) Dr. Rasmus H. Wandall - General Counsel of IAP 10:10 – 11:45 Plenary 1: “Cybercrime in a Changing Landscape: Implications for the Next Generation” Chair: Professor Hopeton Dunn - Jamaica Director -Caribbean Institute of Media and Communication, University of the West Indies, Mona Campus Speakers:
    [Show full text]
  • Upholding the Australian Constitution
    CROWN OR REPUBLIC: THERE IS NO VIA MEDIA GRAY CONNOLLY Reasonable people may differ on the issue of whether Australia should remain as a constitutional monarchy or whether Australia should become a republic. It is my view that any move by the Australian people to a republican form of government would require enormous and unsafe alteration of our Constitution, such that a wholly new organic law would be the only safe alternative. I have no idea what is proposed for Australia’s republic other than populist, unserious pablum. My purpose here is to set out why any move to a republic would pose an enormous threat to our Constitution. I PROVISIONS REQUIRING AMENDMENT The central characteristic of the Constitution is the predominance of the Crown in every aspect of governmental powers.1 To amend the Constitution to create a republic would, at the very least, require the altering of the following key provisions. A The Preamble The Commonwealth of Australia is, literally, constituted via these words and the Constitution that follows: Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth 191 under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established. On any view, this preamble would have to change and a new sovereign authority found to replace the Crown. What would this new preamble read like? Also, would Australians still rely humbly on Almighty God? Will we be asked to vote God out of the Constitution? Will a more Jacobin approach be taken? B Chapter II of the Constitution Chapter II of the Constitution sets out the Executive Power of the Commonwealth – and it will all have to be significantly amended, or, more likely, replaced in its entirety.
    [Show full text]
  • Register of the Colonial Dames of Ny, 1893-1913
    THE C OLONIAL DAMES OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK REGISTER O F THE COLONIAL DAMES OFHE T STATE OF NEW YORK 1893 - 1 913- * "> '■ 5 ORGANIZED A PRIL 29th, 1893 INCORPORATED APRIL 29th, 1893 PUBLISHED B Y THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS NEW Y ORK MCMXIII THEEW N YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY 646? 1 9 ASTOR, L ENOX AND TILOeN FOUNDATIONS R 1 9'5 L. Printedy b Frederick H. Hitchcock 105 West 40th Street New York CERTIFICATE O F INCORPORATION '"aiantaiwiokiTih ( -r-^iKsmtssaittlot'.Kl CERTIFICATE O F INCORPORATION HEOF T Colonial D ames of the State of New York We, t he undersigned women, citizens of the United States and of the State of New York, all being of full age, do hereby asso ciate and form ourselves into a Society by the name, style and title of : "The C olonial Dames of the State of New York," andn i order that the said Society shall be a body corporate and politic under and in pursuance of the Act of the Legislature of the State of New York (Chapter 267), passed May 12, 1875, en~ titled "An Act for the incorporation of societies or clubs for cer tain lawful purposes," and of the several Acts of the Legislature of said State amendatory thereof, we do hereby certify : First. — T hat the name or title by which the said Society shall be known in law, shall be "The Colonial Dames of the State of New York." Second. — T hat the particular business and objects of the said Society shall be patriotic, historical, literary, benevolent and so cial, and for the purposes of perpetuating the memory of those honored men whose sacrifices and labors, in
    [Show full text]
  • THE SUPREME COURT of MAURITIUS ---JUDGMENT of the LORDS of the JUDICIAL COMMITTEE of the PRIVY COUNCIL, Delivered T
    Privy Council Appeal No. 28 of 1998 (1) Gilbert Ahnee (2) Sydney Selvon and (3) Le Mauricien Limited Appellants v. The Director of Public Prosecutions Respondent FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS --------------- JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, Delivered the 17th March 1999 ------------------ Present at the hearing:- Lord Steyn Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Hoffmann Sir Iain Glidewell Sir Andrew Leggatt [Delivered by Lord Steyn] ------------------ 1. This is an appeal from a judgment, given on 9th March 1994, by which the Supreme Court of Mauritius found the appellants guilty of the offence of scandalising the court and sentenced each appellant to pay a fine of 100,000 Rupees. The finding was based on an article which appeared in the daily afternoon newspaper "Le Mauricien" on Monday, 5th July 1993. The defendants were respectively the journalist, who wrote the article, the editor of the paper, and the owner and publisher of the paper. The genesis of the article. 2. The background to the article of 5th July 1993 is as follows. In 1993 at a public meeting Mr. Harish Boodhoo, a local politician, made serious allegations about the impartiality of Sir Victor Glover, who was then Chief Justice of Mauritius, and generally called into question the conduct of business in the Supreme Court. Mr. Boodhoo sent a summary of his allegations to judges, members of the legal profession and the press. Sir Victor Glover brought proceedings for defamation against Mr. Boodhoo. On Monday, 5th July 1993 the Supreme Court sat to hear the trial of the action.
    [Show full text]