While the
Westminster system had largely developed because of the doctrine of separation
of powers, the Australian system of government is largely based on the Westminster.
This doctrine of separation of powers proposes that the three institutions of
government, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary should be
exercised as separate and independent branches. It is this doctrine that
stresses the need for the independence of the judiciary from the other two
government institutions in order to protect the freedom of individuals. It is
under this doctrine that no person can be a Member of Parliament and a judge at
the same time. The doctrine of separation of powers offers several advantages,
it proposes separate, specialized and efficient branches of government and it
also reduces the abuse of government power by dividing it.
a) Why is the
independence of the judiciary an important feature of Australia's system of
justice?
The judiciary is
the government branch that is concerned with the administration of justice. The
judiciary is absolutely separate from the executive and the legislature, so it
can check the concentration of government power. The independence of the
judiciary is crucial of a democratic community because when judges are
presiding over cases, there must be no interference and intimidation from the
external forces. The independence issues touches upon the conflict of authority
and freedom. If the doctrine of separation of powers did not exist, the
authority would not be prevented from interfering in the administration of
justice, therefore the basic freedoms of the citizens would not be guaranteed.
It is up to the judiciary to exercise according to the law. It would be without
the independence of the judiciary that the principles of rule of law and
natural justice would be jeopardy and other institutions of government would
interfere in the administration of justice.
There are three
main elements of the independence of the judiciary they are, permanency of
tenure, dismissal by parliament and fixed remuneration. Permanency of tenure
means that judges are appointed by the executive government and have a
permanent tenure until they have to retire at the age of seventy. It was a constitutional referendum in 1977
that placed this requirement on federal judges. Also state laws have been made,
for the state judges to retire at the same age. The only exception is the
Family court justices; they have to retire at the age of sixty-five.
Judges can only
be dismissed on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity and can only
be dismissed by parliament representatives. This is a very serious undertaking
and has been used in the Australian parliament, but no federal judges have ever
been dismissed. The constitution provides that a salary of a judge cannot be
reduced. This is to prevent manipulation of salaries to a low level, which
would force judges to retire from the bench. This would be suitable to an
indirect interference in the independence on the judicature. However parliament
can increase judges salary if the wish to.
Judges also must
not interfere with each other's deliberations and decisions. While judges hear
and make judgments and administer laws, the doctrine of precedent is so
entrenched as a rule of conduct that it is the golden rule for judges to follow
legal principles created as precedents in superior courts. Judicial
independence is also necessary because a judge cannot hear an appeal from a
case that she or he have just presided over, this would lead to an
inconsistency in deciding the appeal.
Judges also have
judicial independence. They have a law that protects them from having threats
of civil litigation for their statements in their judgments. It is also a
criminal offence for a person to interfere with a judge's performance while
they are performing their duties. The rule of law is strictly applied; to
acknowledge that everyone has an equal standing before the law and accepted
judicial practices must be followed.
b) Give two
examples how judges must comply with the rule of law.
The doctrine of
precedent is a fixed rule of the judicial conduct. It is the inferior courts
that have the obligations to follow the legal principles created in the
superior courts. This when decisions made in the superior courts become binding
precedents on inferior courts and judges cannot ignore them. For example if a
District Court judge ignores the legal principle made in the Supreme Court,
then on appeal it certain that the decision will be reversed because accepted
judicial rules were not followed.
It is the
principle of independent judiciary that conforms to the rule against bias.
Everyone expects their justice to be administered by a member of the judiciary
who is independent form the legislative and executive powers of the government
and completely impartial to the case before them for resolution. Judges are
expected to be disqualified themselves when they have any interference with the
financial or other interests in the outcome of a case. This is the fundamental
principle for the application of constitutional law as it is to criminal law.
For example a person, who is challenging the legality of legislation at a great
cost, would expect the judge to resolve the case on its merit rather than the
power of the government institution.
No comments:
Post a Comment