The holdings and collective rationale of Courts can be studied only in retrospect, and not by anticipatory analysis of any sort. However, it can be argued that one may validate this premise by the virtue of applied logic alone, as follows: first, that federal judges do, at this moment, maintain a schematic of strict life tenure granted to them by the Constitution. Second, that the actions of federal judges in the context of these executive orders were at conflict with the intentions of the executive. Third, that these actions by the judiciary – irrespective of personal political belief and assured by rigorous congressional scrutiny upon the judicial appointments of its officers – resulted from the courts interpreting the Constitution to the best of their respective wisdom and legal
The ultimate arbiter of disputes between the citizen and the state superior courts are the superior courts. The courts determine the constitutional validity of executive and legislative acts. The legal line beyond which the might of the state cannot trump the rights of citizens, they delineate it. The judiciary has been given the vital role of reconciling the conflicting demands of power and liberty, responsibility and freedom and the might of the State and rights of the citizens, in a Constitution with a chapter on fundamental
Article 368 (4)-(5) were inserted in the in the Article 368 because of preventing the supreme court to contradict any Constitutional Amendment Act on the theory of ‘basic features' of the Constitution. Features of Judicial Review in India 1. Judicial Review is the power which can be used by both the Supreme Court and the High Courts. But the power to determine the constitutionality of any law is in the hands of the Indian Supreme Court. 2.
Discretion has a fairly effective role within the justice system, specifically when looking at the sentencing and punishment of offenders. Discretion can have a distinct effect on the outcome of a case. The role of decision making through an individual may provide for a different insight into different cases which therefore means that no two verdicts are reached in the same way. The role of discretion when looking at charge negotiation (or plea bargaining) is to decide whether or not the accused may be granted a 'lesser ' punishment in exchange, they plead guilty. from prosecutors.
The immunity from legal action under Section 14 CJA is given to either a judge or any person in the exercise of judicial duty or function and this would necessary include the judges and the deputy registrars of the court in the performance of their judicial function. Section 14 CJA is to protect the public interest in an independent and impartial justice system instead of the personal interest of a judge. All immunities are a departure from the ideal of equality before the law which enshrined in Article 8. Thus, the basis for judicial immunity should be rooted in the need to protect the public but not the judges. It must always be subjected to rational and critical appraisal.
Government sovereignty; the rule of law and the separation of powers govern the public law and with it, the relationship between the state and the individuals that comprise it. According to AV Dicey, the rule of law can be subsumed into three pillars. Firstly everyone, regardless of status, race or heritage, is equal in the eyes of the law and hence should be treated the same with respect to criminal law. Secondly, that the principles of British law come from ordinary, judge-made law, which bind individuals with certain rights and obligations. Finally, the law must be preferred to an arbitrary power, which forms its opinions on a subjective standpoint alone.
The public prosecutor’s office represents an organ for criminal justice. Public prosecutors as those who carry out the tasks of the office (and who by law have already been granted the relevant legal authority by the law not transmitted from a decision by the relevant prosecutor general), are significant agents in criminal prosecution (and, to a limited extent, non-criminal justice). The public prosecutors must ensure protection of the public interest (not the closely related concept of state
This adversely affects the administration of criminal law and justice. The factor of delay may thus have a direct bearing on the increased rate of absconding of offenders. The capacity, antecedents and character of the sureties are seldom questioned during the proceedings. There have also not been prosecutions for perjury or furnishing false bail bonds. Contrary to the above, the professional surety is generally considered an important person who helps in lessening the burden of the court by enabling it to make its order effective.
Many different items and statements are often excluded from evidence in a criminal trial because it is considered “inadmissible”. Hearsay evidence may be admissible in criminal proceedings if it satisfies certain requirements. These are: • if any statutory provision makes it admissible (e.g. cases where a witness is unavailable); • if any rule of law preserved by section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003 makes it admissible; • if all parties to the proceedings agree to it being admissible;
The doctrine of binding precedent is restricted to common law legal systems, yet is integral to their operation. Being that body of law found in the decisions of the courts, common law depends for its application and development upon the ability of judges to locate and follow the decisions reached by courts in previous cases sharing the same material facts as those of the cases currently before them. The doctrine of binding precedent operates by reference to the hierarchy of the courts,' which generally means that courts are obliged to follow relevant decisions of those courts which sit above them in the court hierarchy. It is important to note that while taken for granted within common law systems, binding precedent is alien to civil law jurisdictions.