If so, a prima facie duty of care arose. The first stage of the test in the case of Anns v Merton LBC  AC 728 incorporates the neighbour principle by Lord Atkin. Then, secondly, it was necessary to consider whether there were any considerations that ought to “negative, or to reduce or limit” that duty. The second stage of the test predicts ‘policy’ factors that negating, reducing or limiting a duty, which but for those policy reasons would be
Procedural due process and Substantive due process may seem similar but they have vast differences. The overall purpose of due process is to extend justice and fairness to the individual in relationship to government. Procedural due process is an analysis of the procedure required by the constitution when states seek to deprive people of life, liberty or property. Procedural due process is made to protect individual citizens from the coercive power of the Government by ensuring the adjunction process under valid, impartial and fair laws. Procedural due process is a basic claim under the fourteenth amendment that there is an absence of fair process.
Or indeed, why not accept... later explanations by the legislators... as to what they really meant?” In this quote, Scalia acknowledges potential imperfections of legislators but then says that it is not up to the courts to correct these deficiencies . These flawed statutes should be kicked back to the legislature, which seems to be the only governmental body that has the proper authority to make corrections. Later in the piece, he says that there actually are permissible corrections that can be made to the law, provided that the change is made to the very face of an obviously misspoken statute. But what constitutes as “obvious”? Furthermore, who has the authority to make that
MLK distinguishes the two types of Law by using St Augustine’s theory on Natural Law, stating that a law is considered unjust when it “degrades human personality”. King relates this back to segregation. In other words, a law such as segregation degrades ones dignity and self worth so it is deemed an unjust law. Dworkin believes principles are a set of standards that upholds laws, to ensure justice and fairness is served. This way of thinking seems similar to MLK’s idea of morality being connected with the law
Part one: I strongly believe that judge Foster’s view is more persuasive. The judges should take into consideration the legislative intent when judges interpret and apply statutes due to the fact that words do not always show the intent that the legislative branch had when it created a statute. As a result, the goal of the statute will not be reached. The fact that words sometimes do not convey the real message of it is really important when it comes to criminal system. It will never be fair to punish a person when the judge knows that the words existing in the statute are not what the legislative branch intended to punish.
What is Natural Justice? Natural justice is a concept of common law, which represents procedural principles introduced by courts, which must be followed by judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative agencies during decision-making. Natural justice has principles concerning procedural fairness and ensuring these principles are followed, protects the rights of citizens, enhances public confidence and ensures that a fair decision is reached. Hence, it can be said that natural justice implies fairness, equity and equality. The principles of natural justice were derived from Romans who believed that some legal principles occur naturally and statutory basis was not necessary.
The Spirit of Laws. 1748. He states, “To prevent this abuse, it is necessary, from the very nature of things, that power should be a check to power...“ (Document D). This evidence explains that checks and balances because it talks about checking powers. There will be a lot of unfairness and government will not work properly.the legislative and executive branch cannot work against each other they must work together.
Utilitarianism is when an effort is made to try and provide an answer to a practical question. Utilitarianism relies on a theory of intrinsic value. They believe it’s possible to compare the intrinsic value to compare two actions and predict which one would have a better consequence. Utilitarian’s don’t always refer to a choice as a moral issue (West). According to Mill, “acts should be classified as morally right or wrong only if the consequences are of such significance that a person would wish to see the agent compelled, not merely persuaded, and exhorted, to act in a preferred matter.
The main objectives are to find that whether judicial intervention is needed to justify the right to die or not. Whether desire to die is unnatural or abnormal and whether the right to life and personal liberty of Indian constitution is self inclusive of right to die. The essay will mainly focus on the issue that how the judiciary of India is responding towards the present issue when this right has been approved in many countries of the world.
The living constitution approach implies that consequences do guide decisions because rules are bent and the original meaning of the documents are reinterpreted and applied to modern situations. Originalists argue that one cannot look to judges to come up with different answers because one does not like what happens when you apply the original view. However, as strong as this argument against the living constitution approach is, they still uphold timeless principles through these actions but just not as strictly as the Originalists do. An example of this is the confrontation clause debate about whether an accused molester should or should not be required to confront the child accuser in court. The Originalist approach says that the molester should be required to confront the child accuser because consequences cannot be considered and we must stick to the original view of the documents.