He says that justice involves the idea of equality. He goes on to argue that the use of justice can’t be described in terms of the idea that justice and generality, as a legal ideal, might share. Laws should be very clear and it should be specified as to which norms have the status of law. Hart discusses this and takes the stand that they should not be the end-all of legal morality. Thus, as far as primary rules are concerned, Hart argues that there is a need for certainty, so that these rules can be applied by general public without any official guidance.
The concept of judicial independence a fundamental important in United Kingdom legal system. The concept is enshrined in Act of Settlement !701. Not only does the judicial independence form an element in the concept of the separation of power and rule of law, but also it ensure two other powers apart from Judiciary fully comply with the constitution and the law. To begin with, the concept also emphasizes the safeguards for judicial independence. It is crucial the judge is independent and impartial.
In Article Three of the Constitution, it states “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity” This states that no matter which case is in session or who the victim or criminal is, all cases are equal. In other words, every case is in under judicial power, which allows it to be fair and equal. The judicial branch is the branch that interprets the laws and without the judicial branch the laws would be misused or abused. The wording of a bill or law can often be confusing, which is why the judicial branch exists, without the judicial branch laws would not be fair. In order to establish justice, laws need to be interpreted and judged.
Firstly, they should be clear, precise, accessible, cohesive but also subject to statutory interpretation. They cannot be retrospective in effect, only prospective. Additionally, they too are subject to constitutional and statutory limits imposed upon them. Secondly, they must respect and protect fundamental human rights, as well as comply with the nation’s obligations in international law, in addition to domestic
It is the judge’s duty to hear and establish the facts of the case as well as to decide upon consideration of those facts whether there will be any remedy. Consideration of those facts will be supported by evidence so as to increase credibility. Evidence is a proof of facts, it is a way how to prove or disprove them. The rules on evidence must be distinguished some evidence is admissible in court and some evidence is inadmissible. If the evidence is inadmissible in court you will not be allowed to rely on it in your proceedings.
Law enforcement officers and others in the system are expected to uphold the law and apply it free of personal moral beliefs. Moral relativism allows them to remove personal beliefs from the equation altogether, and judge based only on the law. In an ideal situation, the law will be administered as it is written, with moral judgments taking place at the legislative level, and not the enforcement level of
“Although presumption is not evidence and has no weight as such, it does make a prima facie case for the party in whose favor it exists and points out the party who has the burden of going forward […], but it must be remembered at all times that basic facts must be supplied before a presumption comes into existence, […], and it has a binding effect until successfully rebutted by the other party.”1 Keywords:- Presumption, Preliminary Treatise, Dialogical theory Concept and Definitions: The term presumption is an English translation of the Latin term “praesumptio”. It originated from the Roman law of the Middle Ages.2As Fisk noted, in the earlier days of Roman law, there have been praesumptio juris and praesumptio hominis. Shain adds praesumptiones
The principle on which the doctrine of necessity is based has its origin in the writings of Henry de Bracton, who is a medieval jurist. Doctrine of necessity is contrary to the concept of Nemo in propria causa judex, which means that any person should not become the judge in a conflict of interest scenario. Nemo in propria causa judex is also known as rule against bias and is the minimum necessity of the natural justice required to be followed by decision making authorities who must act impartially and fairly without bias and prejudice. The rule of Nemo in propria causa judex is based on the concept of ensuring public confidence in the administrative decision making process. In the judicial and quasi judicial context, this concept is backed by the basic underlying rule of “Justice must not only be done but also seen to be done”.
Statutory interpretation is the process at which the court interprets and analyzes law. There are rules following this judicial process at which the law is analyzed. The traditional rules involve the literal rule, the golden rule, and the mischief rule. The Literal Rule The literal rule is the first rule the judges must apply when deciding a case. It governs and give interpretation to the law.
A legal system, according to him, does not need to be moral in order to be legitimate. His theory of law is a system of rules involving primary and secondary rules. Primary rules such as Acts of Parliaments, common law, constitutional law facilitates certain behavior while secondary rules are ‘rules about rules’, which determines the validity of legal rules (rules of recognition) as well as allow the modification of it. The rule of recognition is significant as it distinguishes valid rules from non-valid ones without taking into account of