You can download the solution to the following question for free. For further assistance in Law assignments please check our offerings in Accounting assignment solutions. Our subject-matter experts provide online assignment help to Accounting students from across the world and deliver plagiarism free solution with free Grammarly report with every solution.
(ExpertAssignmentHelp does not recommend anyone to use this sample as their own work.)
150 – 200 words; no leeway.
1300 words; 10% leeway excluding citations, quotations, footnotes and bibliography.
Discuss why a High Court decision that a recently enacted statute is unconstitutional would be seen by a government as a more serious set-back to its legislative reform programme than a decision by a judge of a State Supreme Court interpreting the meaning of a key provision in the statute in a manner contrary to the Government’s intentions, as demonstrated by the speech of the responsible Minister when he/she introduced the proposed legislation to Parliament. (17 marks)
NOTE: Please ensure you refer to the 'Short Essay Information' Document
Review your requirements with our FREE Assignment Understanding Brief and avoid last minute chaos.
We provide you services from PhD experts from well known universities across the globe.
No more plagiarism worries. We give you a FREE Grammarly report with every assignment.
This short essay attempts to provide a view relating to the power of the courts to interpret legislations and statutes and also to determine their constitutional validity. The objective of this short essay is to throw light upon the reason for the government to see the decision of the High Court to turn an enacted statute as unconstitutional, as a serious asset back to its legislative reform program than the decision of a State Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of a key provision in the statute in a manner contrary to the government's intention. For the purpose of this essay, I have conducted the in-depth study of the Australian governmental structure and the power of the judiciary system and also the hierarchical structure of the same. The fact relating to the controversies relating to the process undertaken by courts to interpret statutes and the step taken by Parliament to control that will also be discussed.
Getting a proper source of information and the validity of the same has been a challenge for me. For completing this essay properly, I am required to complete the research by week 5 and the first draft by week 6 and by week 7, I will plan to complete the final draft. I will attempt to complete the process relating to proofreading and referencing by week 8.
Australia has a federal governmental structure and the Constitution of Australia empowers the Australian parliament to form laws, while the High Court enjoys the authority to usurp the power to interpret those laws as formed and to decide their applications in different cases the other federal courts also exercises the same authority. The High Court even possesses the power to interpret the Constitution and is regarded as one of the important roles that it is required to perform, for example, the High Court of Australia is vested with powers that can enable it to interpret a law to be unconstitutional, even the Parliament does not possess the authority to do so. And this can be taken as a barrier by the government. this essay has been framed with an objective to construct a discussion that will efficiently throw light upon the reason for the government to see the decision of the High Court to turn an enacted statute as unconstitutional, as a serious asset back to its legislative reform program than the decision of a State Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of a key provision in the statute in a manner contrary to the government's intention.
In Australia, the governmental structure has been formed as a federal structure where powers can be exercised both by the State governments and the Federal Government itself. Powers have been segregated in three different heads by the Australian Constitution by forming a Federal Government, in the form of, the Parliament, the Executive Government, and the judicature, and this structure is regarded as the doctrine of segregation of power in three different heads of the government. Oppression is a big issue for any government and with the aim to cut short the chances of governmental oppression the constitution has framed such a framework where the powers will be in the hands of three different heads and the three sources of power will be headed by different bodies, namely, the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. These three bodies will check each other's activities and their validity and maintain the balance. Among the three different bodies, the judiciary is regarded as a separate body from the other two bodies of the government and such freedom has been granted to the judiciary system in order to safeguard the democracy of the nation. The ultimate role of the Australian Parliament is the enactment of new laws. While the courts follow the statute and the precedents, which can be regarded as the verdict provide for any past cases. The hierarchical framework of the judiciary system orders a court to follow the decision of any superior court. The Australian judiciary and legal system have also stated the formation of the appellate framework where a parson who is aggrieved with the decision of a court and there lies a question of law or fact he can make a further appeal to a higher court to get that mistake sorted out. The hierarchical system specifies the fact that the State Supreme Court can be supervised by the High Court as the latter is superior to the former.