DOCSLIB.ORG

The Sub Judice Rule of the House of Commons

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Sub Judice Rule of the House of Commons House of Commons Procedure Committee The Sub Judice Rule of the House of Commons First Report of Session 2004–05 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 16 March 2005 HC 125 Published on 4 April 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £14.50 The Procedure Committee The Procedure Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business, and to make recommendations. Current membership Sir Nicholas Winterton MP (Conservative, Macclesfield) (Chairman) Mr John Bercow MP (Conservative, Buckingham) Mr John Burnett MP (Liberal Democrat, Torridge and West Devon) David Hamilton MP (Labour, Midlothian) Mr Eric Illsley MP (Labour, Barnsley Central) Huw Irranca-Davies MP (Labour, Ogmore) Eric Joyce MP (Labour, Falkirk West) Mr Iain Luke MP (Labour, Dundee East) Rosemary McKenna MP (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) Mr Tony McWalter MP (Labour, Hemel Hempstead) Sir Robert Smith MP (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) Mr Desmond Swayne MP (Conservative, New Forest West) David Wright MP (Labour, Telford) Powers The powers of the committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 147. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/proccom and a list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Simon Patrick and Libby Preston (Clerks) and Susan Morrison (Committee Assistant). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerks of the Procedure Committee, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3318; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] The Sub Judice Rule of the House of Commons 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 Our inquiry 5 The history of the rule 5 2 The justification for the rule 7 Prejudice of cases 7 Comity 8 3 Problems with the rule 10 Level of disquiet 10 Related cases 10 Delay 11 Reference to cases not impinging on the merits 11 Inquests 12 Tribunals 14 4 The Chair’s discretion 14 5 Select committees 15 6 Conclusions 16 Conclusions and recommendations 17 Annex: Sub Judice Resolution, 2001 19 Formal minutes 20 Witnesses 21 List of written evidence 21 The Sub Judice Rule of the House of Commons 3 Summary The House of Commons adopted its current sub judice rule (see p 19) by resolution in 2001 following the Report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999. The House of Lords has a parallel resolution. The rule prevents reference being made in proceedings in the Chamber or in committees to cases which are active in the courts (as defined in the resolution). The rule does not apply when the House is considering primary or secondary legislation, and the Chair has discretion to disapply it on other occasions. Two reasons are put forward for the rule: the need not to prejudice court proceedings (which applies also outside Parliament, where it is enforced by the contempt of court rules), and the principle of “comity”, whereby it is considered undesirable for Parliament to act as an alternative forum to decide court cases. Few cases are referred to the Speaker for the exercise of his discretion, and even fewer are disputed on the floor of the House. However, the Committee received details of two cases (which are still active), one of which affected the consideration of a closely related case in a select committee, and the other of which inhibited questioning about the arrangements in force in an institution where a death had taken place. Although the rule delays Parliamentary activity rather than prohibiting it altogether, the delay can run for several years. This delay can be particularly marked in coroners’ court proceedings; the Committee recommends that the Speaker should be willing to disapply the rule where the desirability of the House discussing a matter of public concern outweighs the likelihood of prejudicing the inquest. The resolution applies the provisions for criminal cases to coroners’ court proceedings, and the Committee recommends that both Houses should consider how the points at which such proceedings are treated as being active can be more suitably defined. The Committee does not recommend that the rule be extended to tribunals (except those under the 1921 Act), even though the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies to some of them. The Speaker can exercise his discretion to disapply the rule only if a Member refers a case to him: the Committee encourages Members to do this whenever they consider that the rule is unreasonably impeding the work of Parliament. Select Committee chairmen should consult the Speaker in advance, if practicable, if a sub judice issue arises; otherwise, the evidence concerned should be taken in private. The Committee concludes that, with appropriate use of the Speaker’s discretion, it does not recommend changes to the sub judice rule at the moment (except for the clarification relating to coroners’ courts mentioned above), but may wish to return to the matter in the light of experience. It reminds Members of their responsibility not to say anything which would influence the outcome of a court case. The Sub Judice Rule of the House of Commons 5 1 Introduction Our inquiry 1. The sub judice rule of the House of Commons, which is set out on p 19, prevents reference being made in proceedings in the Chamber or in committees to cases which are active in the courts. There are two main exceptions: a) the rule does not apply when the House is considering primary or secondary legislation; b) the Speaker1 may relax the rule at his discretion. The rule relates only to the courts of the United Kingdom, and does not, in general, extend to tribunals, a matter to which we return in paragraph 29. 2. In the last few months we have received two representations about the operation of the rule: Donald Anderson MP, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote to us about a case which had arisen there,2 and the Leader of the House sent us a letter from Ms Sally Keeble MP, who had written to him about restrictions brought about by the application of the rule to coroners’ courts.3 3. We decided to undertake an inquiry into the rule, not restricted to the two cases raised with us, but into the operation of the rule more generally. We have taken oral evidence from Mr Roger Sands, the Clerk of the House, Ms Helen Irwin, the Principal Clerk of the Table Office, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, a Law Lord who chaired the most recent inquiry into the subject (see paragraph 7), and Ms Sally Keeble. We have also received some valuable written evidence, and our attention has been drawn to material relating to other Commonwealth countries (see paragraph 9). To everyone who helped with our inquiry, we express our thanks. 4. An inquiry into the sub judice rule will inevitably receive information about individual cases; the cases referred to by Mr Anderson and Ms Keeble are still active in the courts and we have had to be guarded in the way in which we have referred to them. The history of the rule 5. The first codification of the sub judice rule in the House of Commons was a resolution of 23 July 1963, following a report by our predecessor committee.4 That report traces the development of the rule as a convention dependent on Speakers’ rulings since 1889.5 A 1 For the position of committee chairmen, see paragraph 36. 2 Ev 35 3 Evidence not reported: later letters by Ms Keeble are at Ev 24, 25. 4 For the text of this resolution, see Ev 39. See Select Committee on Procedure, First Report, Session 1962–63, The Rule Relating to Reference in the House of Commons to Matters Considered as Sub Judice, HC 156. The matter was referred to the committee on 21 November 1962 following an instance of the rule being applied to a civil case in December 1961 (para 1). 5 The 1844 case mentioned in that report did not relate to a Speaker’s ruling but to a case before the courts which was for that reason not referred to in the Queen’s Speech nor by two Members in the debate on it: HC (1962–63) 156 pp 48, 56; Parl Deb (1844) 72, cc 5, 85–6, 98. 6 Procedure Committee further resolution was made on 28 June 1972, following a further report from the committee, which exempted civil cases to some extent if the matter to be raised related to ministerial decisions or issues of national importance; at that time national industrial disputes might be brought before the National Industrial Relations Court.6 The application of the rule developed through individual rulings; for example, a ruling of 12 May 19927 said that it applied to coroners’ courts, which were not specifically mentioned in the 1963 resolution. Similarly, although the resolutions did not mention select committees, committees were advised that they should apply it, at least to proceedings taking place in public. 6. Meanwhile, the House of Lords had made no corresponding resolution, but guidance was inserted in the Companion to the Standing Orders following reports of their Procedure Committee.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contempt and Public Interest
    Contempt and Public Interest as an incidental but not intended Robin Bowiey, in this paper which received by-product, cause some likelihood an honourable mention in the 2005 CAM LA of prejudice to a person who hap­ pens at the time to be a litigant ...It Assay Prize, advocates dearer rules regarding is well settled that a person cannot be prevented by process of contempt sub judice contempt. from continuing to discuss publicly a matter which may fairly be regarded Introduction "The conflict between freedom of as one of public interest, by reason speech and the proper administra­ of the fact that the matter in ques­ The law of sub judice contempt strivesto tion of justice is most likely to arise tion has become the subject of litiga­ balance the right to freedom of speech when a media organisation pub­ tion."8 ' . and discussion of matters of public inter­ lishes material which may interfere Walker explains that until the High Court's est with the right for persons facing legal with the course of particular legal decision in Hinch, there was considerable proceedings to have a fair trial, unpreju­ proceedings. Typically, those respon­ uncertainty regarding the practical appli­ diced by media comment. Striking a sible will not intend to prejudice the cation of the Breadmakers principle, with balance between these two interests is proceedings. They may have been some courts viewing the principle as an a difficult task, which in Australia, has motivated solely by a desire to bring inflexible rule.9 In Hinch it was held that been addressed by the common law over to the attention of the public mat­ courts must engage in a "balancing exer­ time.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges to the Sub Judice Rule in South Africa
    Page 1 of 9 Original Research Challenges to the sub judice rule in South Africa Author: As a lawyer, it is a privilege to contribute to this Festschrift in honour of Professor Doctor Johan Kobus van Rooyen1, 2 Buitendag. His entire career has been a quest for the truth. In the process, he has fearlessly rejected political agendas based on the Bible, and has inspired countless students in their Affiliations: 1Faculty of Law, University of quest to serve God in a practical and humane manner. His published research as well as the Pretoria, South Africa output of his doctoral students, both present and past, bear witness to a life dedicated to the search for knowledge in the service of God. He has also assisted substantially in placing South 2Faculty of Theology, African theological research on the international map. In a sense, this article which deals with University of Pretoria, South Africa the protection of the right to a fair trial of an accused, also acknowledges Johan Buitendag’s quest for justice for all South Africans, whatever their creed, gender, race or standing. The Note: subject of my article demonstrates my own quest to promote the constitutional right of an Chair, Broadcasting accused to a fair trial, a right that should not be subject to inordinate pressure by the media, Complaints Commission of South Africa (1993−); and which gives priority to the right of an accused to be presumed innocent: an accused who Emeritus Professor of Law, may frequently suffer loneliness and a sense of rejection. Related to that it is, of course, always University of Pretoria; important to bear in mind that freedom of expression is at the heart of our democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • JUSTICE MATTERS Independence, Accountability and the Irish Judiciary TANYA WARD
    JUSTICE MATTERS Independence, Accountability and the Irish Judiciary TANYA WARD 22473_ICCL_Judiciary_cover_sectio1473_ICCL_Judiciary_cover_sectio1 1 111/07/20071/07/2007 111:26:561:26:56 Th e Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) is Ireland’s leading independent human rights watchdog, which monitors, educates and campaigns in order to secure full enjoyment of human rights for everyone. ABOUT THE AUTHOR: TANYA WARD is Senior Research and Policy Offi cer with the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. 22473_ICCL_Judiciary_cover_sectio2473_ICCL_Judiciary_cover_sectio2 2 111/07/20071/07/2007 111:26:581:26:58 CONTENTS ABOUT THE ICCL 5 SECTION 4 Personal Independence and the Irish Judiciary 45 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 7 4.1 Introduction 46 4.2 Appointments 46 4.2.1 Selection and Criteria 46 SECTION 1 Introduction 9 4.2.2 Th e Judicial Advisory Appointments Board 1.1. Introduction 10 (JAAB) 50 1.2. Aims and Objectives of Study 12 4.3 Conditions of Service and Tenure 54 1.3. Methodology 13 4.4 Adequate Remuneration 56 1.4. Report Outline 14 4.5 Freedom of Expression and Association 57 4.5.1 Representation and Association 57 4.5.2 Extra-Judicial Comment and Educating SECTION 2 International Human Rights the Public 58 Standards on Judicial Independence and 4.6 Competence, Diligence and Judicial Studies 60 Impartiality 15 4.6.1 Judicial Studies in Ireland 60 2.1 Introduction 16 4.6.2 Induction 62 2.2 What is Judicial Independence? 16 4.6.3 Human Rights Education 63 2.3 What is Judicial Impartiality? 18 4.6.4 Further Academic Studies 65 2.4 International
    [Show full text]
  • Upholding the Integrity of Our Justice System and Balancing Rights
    UPHOLDING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM AND BALANCING RIGHTS A note from Indranee Rajah S.C., Senior Minister of State for Law The Administration of Justice (Protection) Act was enacted by Parliament on 15 August 2016. • The Act can be found at statutes.agc.gov.sg. • The Minister for Law’s Second Reading (2R) speech can be found at www.mlaw.gov.sg. With the Act, the law of contempt of court is now written into statute. Contempt of court has always existed at common law in Singapore. However it was the only non-statute based criminal law, an observation by former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, which prompted the review that led to the Act that has just been passed. Under the common law, there were also no upper limits on the punishment that could be meted out. The Act: • maintains the existing law of contempt, save for one change; • introduces a new procedural mechanism to deal with contemptuous publications in the social media age; and • imposes limits on the maximum punishment. Putting contempt law into statutory form makes it clearer and defines its boundaries. This is important given the penal consequences for contempt. PURPOSE AND INTENT Singapore adheres strongly to the rule of law. The laws against contempt of court ensure fair and effective justice, and protect the integrity of our legal institutions. They balance free speech with an individual’s right to a fair trial and ensure that court orders are complied with. All these are critical to maintaining societal order. The law of contempt falls into four broad categories:- • Scandalising the Court – this prevents baseless attacks against our judges.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER—26 General Rules of Procedure
    CHAPTER—26 General Rules of Procedure Notices General procedure very matter proposed to be raised in the House by a member, whether E is in the form of a question, resolution, motion, Bill, amendment, or otherwise, requires notice. Every notice, required by the rules has to be given in writing addressed to the Secretary-General and signed by the member giving notice and has to be delivered at the Notice Office between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m.1 every day except Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday.2 Notices left or received after 4.00 p.m. on any open day, or left on any day when the Notice Office is closed are treated as given on the next open day3 but subsequently modified for different classes of business as notified in Bulletin Part-II prior to the commencement of every session.4 Notices may be delivered by members personally or through messengers and can also be sent by post. The Rules Committee was of the view that the notices/communications received through Fax should be treated as authentic notices/ communications provided that they were signed and followed by written notices.5 At the stage of adoption of the report, the House, however, did not accept the Committee’s recommendation.6 For the convenience of members, in addition to the box kept outside the Notice Office, another box is kept at the Rajya Sabha Reception Counter in the main Reception Hall of the Parliament House, for enabling the personal staff of members to deposit notices of questions, motions, resolutions, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • SCC File No. 37112 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA
    S.C.C. File No. 37112 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ONTARIO) BETWEEN: JOSEPH PETER PAUL GROIA APPELLANT (Appellant) -and- THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA RESPONDENT (Respondent) -and- DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, LAW SOCIETY TRIBUNAL, ADVOCATES’ SOCIETY, BARREAU DU QUEBEC, CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION, BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION, INDEPENDENT CRIMINAL DEFENCE ADVOCACY SOCIETY, FEDERATION OF LAW SOCIETIES OF CANADA, ONTARIO CROWN ATTORNEYS’ ASSOCIATION, ONTARIO TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION, CRIMINAL LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO INTERVENERS FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN (Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) MINISTRY OF JUSTICE AND GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP ATTORNEY GENERAL 160 Elgin Street GOVERNMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN Suite 2600 820 – 1874 Scarth Street OTTAWA ON K1P 1C3 REGINA SK S4P 4B3 D. Lynne Watt Sharon H. Pratchler, Q.C. Tel: (613) 786-0171 Tel: (306) 787-5584 Fax: (613) 788-3587 Fax: (306) 787-9111 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Ottawa agent to Counsel for the Intervener Counsel for the Intervenor, Attorney General Attorney General of Saskatchewan of Saskatchewan - i - LERNERS LLP GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP 130 Adelaide Street West 160 Elgin Street Suite 2400 Suite 2600 TORONTO ON M5H 3P5 OTTAWA ON K1P 1C3 Earl A. Cherniak, Q.C. (9113C) Jeffrey W. Beedell Tel: (416) 601-2350 Tel: (613) 786-0171 Fax: (416) 867-2402 Fax: (613) 788-3587 Email: [email protected] Email: jeff.beedell @gowlingwlg.com Counsel for the Appellant, Joseph Peter Paul Ottawa Agent to Counsel for the Appellant, Groia Joseph Peter Paul Groia LENCZNER SLAGHT ROYCE SMITH DENTONS CANADA LLP GRIFFIN LLP 99 Bank Street, Suite 1420 Suite 2600 OTTAWA ON K1P 1H4 130 Adelaide Street West TORONTO ON M5H 3P5 David R.
    [Show full text]
  • Contempt of Court
    III. CONTEMPT OF COURT Linda Fuerst* A. Introduction Critics have condemned the power to punish for contempt in Canada as "antiquated and autocratic",' "remedial and coercive", 2 and 3 "complex and ill-defined". While not all have been so harsh, most agree that the law in its present state is vague, confusing and in need of reform. 4 The contempt provisions in Bill C-19 5 address many defects in the current law. The most significant revision is the amendment of section 8 of the Criminal Code, 6 abolishing the common law power of judges to punish for contempt.' The Bill adopts the recommendation made by the Law Reform Commission of Canada that steps be taken to eliminate the anomaly created by section 8 and to enumerate and define the forms of criminal contempt. Section 8 would be amended to restrict liability to one of three offences created in the Code, 9 with the exception of the power to impose punishment for non-compliance with a judicial order in a civil matter.' 0 * Law Reform Commission of Canada. This article does not necessarily reflect the Commission's views. 1 Cavanaugh, Civil Liberties and the Criminal Contempt Power. 19 CRIM. L.Q. 349, at 361 (1977). 2 Watkins, The Enforcement of Conjrmity to Law Through Contempt Proceed- ings, 5 OSGOODE HALL L.J. 125, at 139 (1967). 3 Speech by The Honourable Mark MacGuigan, Lawyers' Club of Toronto Meeting, 9 Jan. 1984. 4 See Coveney, Contempt of Court: Bulvark of Freedom or Lynch-Pin of Tyranny?, 13 WESTERN ONT. L. REV.
    [Show full text]
  • Note on Parliamentary Inquiries Into Judicial Activities
    Warsaw, 30 October 2020 Note-Nr.: JUD-BiH/389/2020 [AlC] NOTE ON PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES INTO JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA This Note has benefited from contributions made by Dr. Marta Achler, Centre for Judicial Co-operation of the European University Institute, Italy; Professor Laurent Pech, Head of the Law and Politics Department, Middlesex University London and Professor of European Law; and Professor Jens Woelk, Professor of Comparative and Constitutional Law, University of Trento, Italy. It was developed in consultation with, and with inputs from, the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina. OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Ul. Miodowa 10, PL-00-251 Warsaw Office: +48 22 520 06 00, Fax: +48 22 520 0605 www.legislationline.org EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Parliamentary committees of inquiry (PCIs), when established and undertaken in accordance with existing law and good practices, represent an important tool in the functioning of a healthy democracy. Where such inquiries examine the work of the judicial branch, they should adhere to established rules that preserve the separation of powers and uphold the independence of the judiciary. In spite of the wide existence of legislation across the OSCE region governing the establishment and procedure of PCIs – including in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) – few have clearly established guidelines for the work of an inquiry into the judicial branch. While the rules and practices that exist across the OSCE region vary in some respects, the comparative study of the jurisdictions examined in this Note reveals that any PCI looking into the judiciary must carefully balance the public interest and the general mandate of the Parliament on the one hand, and the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary on the other.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Research Foundation Media Law Seminar – the New Contempt
    FINAL VERSION LEGAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION MEDIA LAW SEMINAR – THE NEW CONTEMPT LEGISLATION WEDNESDAY 15 MAY 2019, PULLMAN HOTEL, PRINCES STREET, AUCKLAND Douglas White President Law Commission INTRODUCTION 1. Mr President, Justice Simon Moore, Mr Director, Andrew Brown QC, and members. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this Legal Research Foundation Media Law Seminar. 2. My specific topic is the new contempt legislation. 3. The seminar is timely because the Justice Committee of Parliament reported back to Parliament on 5 April 2019 recommending that the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill be passed with the amendments shown in the Bill attached to the Committee’s Report.1 4. The next step in the legislative process will be the second reading of the Bill. No date for the second reading has been fixed yet. Once the Bill has been given its second reading it will be referred to the Committee of the whole House when further changes may be made before being given its third reading. 1 Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill 2018 (39-2) (select committee report) at 1. 1 FINAL VERSION 5. The Bill, which is to be renamed the Contempt of Court Bill, codifies in statute significant parts of the common law of contempt. In particular, it covers: a. publication contempt; b. disruptive behaviour in the courtroom; c. juror contempt; d. enforcement of court orders; and e. allegations or accusations about Judges or courts. 6. The Bill follows the Law Commission’s 2017 Report – Reforming the Law of Contempt of Court: A Modern Statute Ko Te Whakahou I Te Ture Mō Te Whawhati Tikanga Ki Te Kōti: He Ture Ao Hou.2 The Report included a Bill drafted by Parliamentary Counsel.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction)
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN (Appellate Jurisdiction) Present: Mr. Justice Mushir Alam Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah Civil Appeals No.621 to 624 of 2019 (on appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh, Sukkar Bench dated 03.06.2016, passed in Const.P.424, 425, 1626 & 1627 of 2016) National Accountability Bureau thr. its Chairman, Islamabad (in all cases) ...….Appellants Versus Shabbir Ahmed Malik & others (in C.A.621 & 623 of 2019) Abdul Ghaffar Kalwar & others (in C.A.622 & 624 of 2019) …….Respondents For the appellants: Mr. Imran ul Haq, Addl. PG NAB Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Chaudhry, AOR For respondent No.1: Mr. Aftab Alam Yasir, ASC Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR (in C.A.621 & 623 of 2019) Nemo. (in C.A.622 & 624 of 2019) Dates of hearing: 07th & 8th January, 2020. JUDGEMENT Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J. – These appeals raise a specific legal question: whether default of payment under a Voluntary Return (“VR”) settlement vitiates the settlement, resulting in initiation of further proceedings by the National Accountability Bureau (“NAB”) against a holder of public office or any other person under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (“Ordinance”) or whether NAB can recourse to section 33E of the Ordinance to recover the amount of VR as arrears of land revenue? 2. Brief facts are that the respondents were Food Inspectors who, at the time, also held the charge of the Wheat Procurement Centre in District Jacobabad. During the inquiry C.A.No.621/2019 etc 2 initiated by the NAB against the respondents on the basis of an alleged misappropriation of wheat bags causing loss to the national exchequer, the respondents voluntarily came forward to settle the matter by offering VR under section 25(a) of the Ordinance, of the gains acquired through the said misappropriation.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance for Promoting Judicial Independence and Impartiality
    OFFICE OF DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE ...promoting the transition to and consolidation of democratic regimes throughout the world. GUIDANCE FOR PROMOTING JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY Revised Edition January 2002 Technical Publication Series Office of Democracy and Governance Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance U.S. Agency for International Development Washington, DC 20523-3100 TO ORDER THIS DOCUMENT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE CLEARINGHOUSE: · Please reference the document title (Guidance for Promoting Judicial Independence and Impartiality Revised Edition) and document identification number (PN-ACM-007). · USAID employees, USAID contractors overseas, and USAID sponsored organizations overseas may order documents at no charge. · Universities, research centers, government offices, and other institutions located in developing countries may order up to five titles at no charge. · All other institutions and individuals may purchase documents. Do not send payment. When applicable, reproduction and postage costs will be billed. Fax orders to (703) 351-4039 Attn: USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) E-mail orders to [email protected] ABOUT THE TECHNICAL PUBLICATION SERIES The USAID Office of Democracy and Governance Technical Publication Series was launched in March 1998. The series includes publications intended principally for USAID personnel; however, all persons interested in the sector may benefit from the series. Authors of individual publications may be USAID officials and/or other individuals from the public and private sector. The Office of Democracy and Governance reserves the right to review and edit all publications for content and format and all are subject to a broad USAID review process. The series is intended in part to indicate best practices, lessons learned, and guidelines for practitioner consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rule of Res Sub Judice (Section 10)
    Global Journal of Transformation in Law, Human Rights and Social Justice Vol. 4, Issue 1 – 2020 ISSN: 2581-4001 The Rule of Res Sub Judice (Section 10) Gagan Chaudhary1, Prof. Dr. Komal Audicya1 1L.L.M (Criminal Law), Jaipur National University, Jaipur. Introduction With an enormous number of pending cases, the Indian legal executive is overburdened and faces a distinct absence of assets. In a circumstance like this, when two suits emerging out of similar issues between similar gatherings are brought under the steady gaze of the courts, there will undoubtedly be wastage of assets and negligible prosecution. The main area of the piece characterizes and clarifies the convention and afterward the remainder of the article is committed to looking at certain particular parts of the hypothesis of res sub judice which is isolated into five unequivocal segments. At long last, we look past the regulation itself so as to obviously comprehend the degree of its application1 The tenet of res sub judice depends on open strategy which intends to limit an offended party to one case and to forestall the chance of two conflicting decisions by indeed the very same court in regard of the equivalent relief.2 The convention has two targets, one is to keep courts of simultaneous locale from at the same time attempting two equal suits between similar gatherings identifying with same issue in issue. Second is to dodge the clashing choices of two skillful courts over a similar issue and furthermore to spare the hour of the court where resulting suit is initiated in a similar issue.
    [Show full text]