British constitutional principle of judicial independence Convention tracking its statutory origin and was enacted in 1701, Act of Settlement. The Act formally recognized the independence of the judiciary, the main content, secure the right to use qualification subject to good behaviour , the removal of the judge (an address of both houses of parliament), and also the establishment of an appropriate mechanism. Convention in doing so given a set of legislative handle reiterated that the cornerstone of the separation of powers, judicial independence doctrine important pillar one.
Doctrine and Its Interpretation Of The Multi-Faceted The theory of the independence of the judiciary, the doctrine of separation of powers, an integral part of the American political doctrine, in order to maintain the judiciary, legislature and executive branches (three branches of government) in addition to the government in decision-making and business. The main object of the theory and the philosophy behind it is to prevent a fall into the hands of any department of the government there is no accountability, and absolute power.
In practice, although the judge is expected not to interfere with the government's business, it is not the world's most influential common law jurisdiction, the United States, where the Supreme Court has the power to blow down the legislation is unconstitutional (Marbury v Madison) and illegal destruction of the power and sovereignty of the legislative Council. The Executive Executive power is vested in the Cabinet of Ministers is appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
The Yang di-Pertuan Agong of the appointment of the Prime Minister for the first time, members of the House of Representatives, presided over the cabinet. Prime number on whose behalf the members of the House of Representatives by the Minister of his judgment is likely to get the confidence of the majority of members that house. Yang di-Pertuan Agong of State to appoint other ministers between members of any parliament building. The Cabinet collective responsibility to Parliament.
The legislative powers conferred by the Constitution of Malaysia in Parliament State Legislative Assemblies. Parliament has been defined as "Article 44" of the Constitution By Yang di-Pertuan Agong, that the two houses which name the Dewan Negara (Senata) and the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives). The Senate elected and appointed members. Elect two representatives per country to the senate. Yang di-Pertuan Agong appointed members appointed. Members of the House of Representative by 222 electoral term of until the dissolution of Parliament.
That unless faster dissolving Parliament should continue for five years from the date of the first meeting. The Judiciary The Judiciary by Part IX of the Constitution. It includes Federal Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court in Malaya state and other in Sabah and Sarawak. Court's jurisdiction is to control Article 121A of the High Court does not have jurisdiction in any issues related to sharia courts (the courts having jurisdiction over people believe in the religion of Islam).
The Federal Court set 121 (2) the right to decide the appeal decision Court of Appeal, the High Court judge, such as the original or contact jurisdiction specified in Article 128 and 130, or other judicial jurisdictions as may be conferred by or under federal law. Article 121 (1B) provides for the establishment of the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the appeal against the decision, to determine High Court or its judges and other judicial jurisdictions, may be granted or under federal law.
In addition to the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court (the superior courts), and also the lower court under Article 121 (1) the Sessions Courts and the Magistrates Court. THE HOUSE OF LORDS - Ironically Chamber The same is true position in the UK, which said that the doctrine has its genesis. For ages, the House of Lords Appeal Court (The House of Lords), the Chief Justice and other law lords sitting in one of the Houses of Parliament on the bench, and presided over the legislation, change it, even if does not participate in the debate, and have enjoyed the exercise voting rights
legislation and participate in the process, the executive branch of government and the legislature. In Europe, the judges are free to exercise their powers , revocation does not meet the "Treaty of Rome" legislation (the statute that gave life to the EEC). The practice continues to this day unabated. Malaysia and Doctrines In a pattern of parliamentary democracy, and its interpretation of the classic, is a sovereign state. This concept also applies in Malaysia has adopted the British parliamentary democracy, the legal framework and many of its style.
However, all those who do not understand or accept the practice of parliamentary democracy and the concept of separation of powers, scholars and practitioners in the legal profession's views on this issue appear often superficial and embarrassing. For many people, including the Malaysian Bar and his colourful vocal predecessor, the independence of the judiciary environment doctrine of judicial officers, social prison, you can’t play a role, if they shared a cup of tea with the president of the executive authorities.
This is wrong. More emotion, or even more disturbing is that they deliberately ignored the independence of the judiciary, its limitations , contradictions inevitably overlap in practice and a violation of the doctrine of the deeper meaning. The independence of the judiciary is not the product of an article of the Constitution, is not ignorant of the group of lawyers, politicians or scholars misunderstood. This is a constitutional convention, such as the method to solve the 1701 support section of the legislation by the smallest.
It is a theory, a theory that is given life and meaning through good conduct and good conscience and integrity, such well-known men on Clapham omnibus. It a responsible government responsibility the judiciary included. Evolution of the principle of judicial independence as time goes on in the changing political and legal landscape is different things to different people, but it remains fundamentally about the judge to assume their responsibilities, without having to worry about any oppression external impact.
This includes media criticism, criticism of the legal and judicial fraternity and the power of money, political power, otherwise it will hinder a clear and fearless distributive justice in the fear of the fear of the rule of law. Judiciary faces many challenges in this regard, in Malaysia. At least these poor ignorant some members who pose the biggest challenge , and its operation is independent of the doctrine in their day-to-day in violation of it. The poor judicial behaviour is the privilege of the Parliament to deal with.
This is not to say that in the bar or the media. The poor judgment of the privileges and obligations of the Court of Appeal, rather than uninformed politically motivated lawyers, retired judges or scholars to usurp the constitutional convention theme. The doctrine of independent thinking, independent of external influences (not simply the other branches of government) , independent of personal bias, political and religious restrictions and the urgent need of the society.
Maybe this is for the latter reason, why the embarrassment bars and opposition political parties in Malaysia, they do not take action, and sought to evade a change Christian Judge Lau Bee Lian sitting to hear a controversial and highly sensitive issue, religious heart and religious overtones of the conflict, read law, she will not be able to distance themselves, or so independent and forensic the Allah substance (Malaysian Catholic Herald).
Larger than life salaries, judges often intentionally designed to provide them with more than just a simple comfortable life and financial security payment. It's also designed to protect them from the money to money inducements and other commercial considerations , may influence their decisions, their thought processes, the temptation of a judge. External influences other safeguards judicial independence, judicial officers, while on the bench, including protecting them from prosecution, and the qualifications.
Sometimes misunderstood, lawyer s and judges proved ground breaking case, in Australia, in 2005, the last protection. Violation Of The Great History Of Our Lives Commitment in the State Court of Appeals judge before chief magistrate Di-Fingeleton she did the trial of an offense and to imprisonment for a term not promise still sitting justice in Queensland, Australia in the 2005 final protection omissions (immunity from prosecution in office) personnel. Her test and then held on this issue is generally considered to be a purely political movement.
Australian High Court to overturn her conviction and order her release from prison is a harsh criticism, the judicial officers of the Queensland judicial system and the process of trial and convicted Fingleton sitting. Criticism of the High Court directed, mainly in the low court judge in the state administrative and justice for their collective failure to understand what is a very basic principles of jurisprudence and constitutional law which, among other things dealing with the independence of the judiciary doctrine in the background, the separation of powers.
Greater historical places, such as Australia bagged Gough Whitlam Australian Government to prove breach of this doctrine in 1975 by Sir Garfield Barwick Justice opposing views. Judge of the Federal High Court sitting in Australia often did not condemn cause adverse impact on the evaluation of the government's political decisions, and in more recent times, the Australian Prime Minister Gillard (Julia Gillard) government encroachment of the Chief Justice of the High Court, she decided to send the processing of refugees in Malaysia can be said to be in breach of Australia's human rights obligations.
Afternoon, Gillard will seek legislation to overcome the barrier of the sovereign authority of the legislature in the judicial things first reading. Apparently did not understand the background and significance of its deep-seated, of Salleh Abbas swallow things and his dismissal by the Malaysian Bar is a political issue. Also undermine the convention, but with good reason, is not without precedent. Malaysian lawyers and political events, the power of the attack Run, do not understand the doctrine, or the legality of such action overlap.
Informed Public Comment The Risk Of Disease From decisions or influence other judges or members of them and their decisions, an important pillar of the doctrine of separation of powers on the independence of the judiciary into disrepute count of public and professional independence. (Contempt the advice of counsel and with the judges in the past, this is an area of ?? only parliamentary or another court properly constituted and open have the right to correct and comment).
Ridicule and negative public comments is a form of interference with the independence of the judiciary, the surface as contempt proceedings. This includes unwarranted opinions, judges have a harmless cup of tea with the Prime Minister of the day. Interpolation due to the misconduct of such a statement, or even can’t be ignored, let alone punished. All accounts, both the precedents and no understanding of constitutional law, the Malaysian Bar and vocal embarrass yourself with these distant Tea Party is a potential violation of judicial independence advocates.
Question 2 Johar borrowed RM6,000 from Yati but Johar was unable to repay the full amount within five months as Johar promised to Yati. After some negotiation between Johar and Yati, Yati agreed to accept RM3,000 from Johar in full settlement of the debt instead of RM6,000. However, after Johar had paid to Yati, he still received a letter from Yati demanding the balance of the loan which amounts of RM3,000.
The agreement is not a valid consideration invalid, one of these categories of agreements unless they are exempted from the rules listed in the same section. Section 2(d) Contact Act 1950 "Promised desire, commitment or any other person or to give up to do, or to do or give up to do, or promise to do so, or to do things, such act or abstinence or promise to give up the commitment to be called to consider" Can be seen as a bargain, or the price paid by the party, purchase commitments or actions of other consideration.
Pledged when the offer or commitment to do or give up to do things, to have to pay the price. The price to be paid may perform a future act or abstinence is an act or abstinence or price. Offer and Acceptance Offer and acceptance analysis is a traditional method to determine whether an agreement exists between the parties contract law. The agreement an offer that certain terms of the contract entered into by a person (the "offeror") (the "offeree") the offeror wishes no further negotiations.
The contract, said to have accepted the offer (the terms of the agreement) by the offeror offeror bargain induced promises or commitments, the performance has been considered to exist. Both the offer and the acceptance formula to determine the moment in the development of the 19th century formed. This contract has been weakened traditional methods of the development of the law of estoppel, misleading conduct and misleading statements and unjust enrichment.
Johar had negotiated with Yati and make an agreement which Yati agreed to accept RM3,000 from Johar for full settlement instead of RM6,000. Therefore, after Johar had paid RM3,000 to Yati as full settlement, means this scenario had already been settled, Yati shouldn’t had any argument. As the agreement that they had made, Johar should only needed to pay a total amount of RM3,000 to Yati, and Johar had already paid to Yati, so Johar may just ignore the letter that given by Yati.