GOD IS BOS NO POWER GET BIT GOD

Saturday, December 5, 2009

LEGAL FRAMEWORK DEL 1423


Part A
1.Briefly explain the UK court structure.
2. Malaysia’s legal system comprises laws which have emerged from three significant periods in Malaysian history dating from the Malacca Sultanate, followed by the spread of Islam to Southeast Asia, and thereafter the absorption into the indigenous culture of British colonial rule which introduced a constitutional government and the common law. Therefore Malaysian court structure is also greatly influenced by the English Court System. Briefly explain Malaysian court structure.
3. The constitutional law of the UK is regarded as consisting of statute law on the hand and case law on the other, whereby judicial precedent is applied in the courts by judges interpreting statute law.
a) Describe the rules of statutory interpretation
b) What are the differences between binding precedent and persuasive precedent?
c) The decisions of which courts are binding on the decisions of which other courts?
Part B
1. What is meant by judicial independence ?
2. what are the key factors that to ensure judicial independence in the British system?
1.Briefly explain the UK court structure.
The UK Legal System
Background and Constitution
The United Kingdom of Great Britain There have been significant constitutional reforms since the Labour Government came into power in 1997, which make any description of the UK legal system before then out of date. The Labour Government immediately instituted a process of devolution, i.e., devolving certain areas of government to the component countries of the UK: a separate Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly were established following referendums in the countries concerned. Ireland already had its Assembly, although this was not in operation (see below under Northern Ireland. In the context of these new legislatures the English Parliament is often referred to as ‘Westminster’. These devolved governments are dealt with in separate sections.The UK is a signatory of the European convention of human Rights, and this has recently been incorporated into UK law with the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998. This allows for the provisions of the Convention to be applied directly by the UK courts.
There is no written constitution. The Queen is the Head of State, although in practice the supreme authority of the Crown is carried by the government of the day. The legislature is a bicameral Parliament. The House of Commons consists of 659 Members of Parliament (MPs), elected by simple majority vote in a general election every five years, although the Government has the right to call an election at any time before then, and in practice usually brings the date forward to secure electoral advantage. The House of Lords until recently consisted of life peers, awarded peerages for public service, and a large number of hereditary peers whose membership of the House of Lords depended on their aristocratic birth. The Labour Government began the long-overdue process of reform of the House of Lords by abolishing the voting rights of all the hereditary peers apart from ninety-two who remain until the House is fully reformed. The Government is made up of the Prime Minister, formally appointed by the Queen, and who is normally the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons, and ministers with departmental responsibilities, of whom the Ministers of State form the Cabinet. The ministerial posts are the choice of the Prime Minister.
The constitutional law of the UK is regarded as consisting of statute law on the one hand and case law on the other, whereby judicial precedent is applied in the courts by judges interpreting statute law. A third element consists of constitutional conventions which do not have statutory authority but nevertheless have binding force. Much of the relationship between the Sovereign and Parliament is conventional rather than statutory.
The Royal Courts of Westminster developed out of the Curia Regis ( or the King’s council). The Court of Exchequer was first court to emerge form the Curia Regis and dealt initially with disputes connected with royal revenues . The Court of common Pleas was set up in the time of Henry 11 to hear disputes between the King’s Subjects. The court of King’s Bench was last to emerge and initially was closely associated with the king himself , hearing disputes between subjects and the king. As the system developed the court of chancery was added and there was also a court of Admiralty. The court of Probate and the Divorce Court developed from the old ecclesiastical courts which formerly dealt with these matters. Each of these courts had its own jurisdiction, sometimes overlapping and sometimes conflicting. This was particularly true with regard to the common law courts and the court of chancery. For example, in Knight v Marquis of Waterford (1844) 11 CI & Fin 653 the appellant was told by the House of Lords, after 14 years of litigation in equity, that he had a good case but must begin his action again in a common law court. It is useful to refer at this point to Wood v Scarth (1858) ( see Chapter 12). This case is a further illustration of the delays which resulted from the administration of law and equity in separate courts. Anyway, this was how the English legal system entered the nineteenth century and it was this inheritance that the Victorians set out to rationalize into the form with which we are familiar.



The House of Lords
The House of Lords hears appeals from the Court of Appeal in England and Wales and Northern Ireland in both civil and criminal matters and from the Court of Session in Scotland in civil matters. In addition, the House hears criminal appeals from a Divisional Court of the Queens's Bench Division of the High Court in England and Wales and from the High Court in Northern Ireland. Certain kinds of civil cases may also be brought direct from the High Court in England and Wales and Northern Ireland under what is colloquially known as the 'leapfrog' procedure. The House may also hear appeals from the Courts-Martial Appeal Court.
Although the right to appeal to the House of Lords is ancient, the conditions under which appeal can be made have been closely defined over the last hundred years. Each category of appeal is now subject to statutory provisions either confirming or creating rights of appeal, providing for the granting of leave to appeal, defining time limits within which leave may besought from the House itself and in some kinds of appeal providing for certification of suitability of the appeal by the courts from which the appeal is to be brought. For example, civil appeals are governed by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 with additional provision for England and Wales in the Administration of Justice (Appeals) Act 1934 and for Northern Ireland in the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. Criminal appeals from the Court of Appeal are governed by the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and appeals from the Divisional Court by the Administration of Justice Act 1960. Similar but separate provisions govern the comparable appeals from Northern Ireland. 'Leapfrog' appeals from the High Court are regulated by the Administration of Justice Act 1969. Broadly speaking these acts provide that an appeal is permissible only with the leave of the court below whose order is being appealed against or of the House of Lords itself.
Broadly speaking, if a case is suitable to be argued before the House of Lords, the issues involved must be of general and public rather than of individual importance and questions of law rather than questions of fact must beat issue. In criminal and courts-martial cases there is an additional, statutory requirement that leave cannot be granted either by the court below or by the House itself unless the court below has certified that a point of law of general public importance is involved in its decision. So when the appeal arrives, the point of law at issue is formulated precisely in the form of a question. Similarly in 'leapfrog' appeals the High Court must certify that the case relates to the construction of a statute or statutory instrument or be a case in which the trial court and Court of Appeal are already bound by a previous decision of the House of Lords or Court of Appeal.
The House of Lords is the UK's oldest common law court and it has performed a judicial function in one form or another since the 15th century. As late as the 19th century, any peer could sit in judgment on a case, even if they had no legal training whatsoever. Fortunately, that all changed in 1876, when parliament decreed that life peers with relevant experience should be appointed to the Lords, to act in a judicial capacity.
The Law Lords sat in the chamber of the House of Lords to consider appeals, until a bomb damaged the chamber during the Second World War, when they temporarily moved to a committee room. The Law Lords considered this move preferable and they decided to stay there after the chamber was repaired. They still hear cases there today. However, the Lords sit in the chamber to deliver their judgment.
Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal consists of two divisions: the Civil Division hears appeals from the High Court and County Court and certain superior tribunals, while the Criminal Division may only hear appeals from the Crown Court connected with a trial on indictment (i.e. trial by judge and jury (the jury is only present if the defendant pleads "not guilty")).
What is the Court of Appeal?
If a convicted person feels he or she has not had a fair trial in the Crown Court and has been wrongfully convicted, or that the sentence imposed by the judges is unfair, then he or she can take their case to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), where more senior judges will consider the merits of their case.In order to avoid a logjam scenario where the court would be inundated with appeals, it is necessary to filter out any obviously unlikely to succeed. Therefore the defendant must first get permission (or leave) to appeal from the Court of Appeal, or a certificate that states the case is fit for appeal, from the judge who has heard it.
A Court of Appeal judge (there are 35 Lords Justices of Appeal) will decide whether the case is suitable for reconsideration. Only about a quarter of cases put forward for appeal will actually be allowed to go ahead. However, this is no guarantee that the case will ultimately be successful. The Court hears about 6,000 criminal appeals and applications per year.
How does it fight crime?
The test for the court is whether it is satisfied that the only verdict which a reasonable jury could have returned after a proper summing up would have been one of guilty. Sometimes the court decides to "apply the proviso". This means it agrees with the arguments of the party bringing the appeal, but considers there to have been no miscarriage of justice. This means the conviction is left unaltered. If the convicted person is claiming that their sentence is too severe then the judges can reduce it. However, they have no power to increase it.Criminal proceedings are tipped in favour of the defendant at all times. It is a basic principle of English law that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Consequently, when the prosecution wants to appeal against an acquittal, their powers are more limited. They cannot appeal against the findings of a jury unless the jury or witnesses have been bribed or threatened. If there has been a conviction for "jury nobbling" then the prosecution can apply to the High Court for an order quashing the acquittal. However, provided the accused has been convicted, the prosecution can challenge a sentence that they think is too lenient. The prosecution do this by writing to the attorney-general and asking him to refer a case to the Court of Appeal for re-sentencing. It is not just the prosecution who can ask the attorney-general to do this. Members of the public, such as distressed relatives of the victim, can also request this.
The Court of Appeal also sits as the Civil Division to hear civil cases. This part of the court is headed by the Master of the Rolls. Cases are heard by at least three judges, except in certain limited circumstances, such as applications for leave to appeal, appeal against an interlocutory order (a provisional court order or one that is incidental to the final decision) or where the parties have consented to the case being heard by two judges.The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) is a busy court, hearing about 1,000 cases each year. In some cases the Lords Justices of Appeal may be joined by the Lord Chancellor, the President of the Family Division, the Vice Chancellor of the Chancery Division, and High Court judges. From the Magistrates' Court, an appeal can be taken to the Crown Court on matters of fact and law or, on matters of law alone, to the Divisional Court of Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, which is called an appeal "by way of case stated". The Magistrates' Court is also an inferior court and is therefore subject to judicial review. The Crown Court is more complicated. When it is hearing a trial on indictment (a jury trial) it is treated as a superior court, which means that its decisions may not be judicially reviewed and appeal only lies to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. In other circumstances (for example when acting as an appeal court from a Magistrates' Court) the Crown Court is an inferior court, which means that it is subject to judicial review. When acting as an inferior court, appeals by way of case stated on matters of law may be made to the Divisional Court of Queen's Bench Division of the High Court. Appeals from the High Court, in criminal matters, may only go to the House of Lords. Appeals from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) may also only be taken to the House of Lords. Appeals to the House of Lords are unusual in that the court from which appeal is being made (either the High Court or the Court of Appeal) must certify that there is a question of general public importance. This additional control mechanism is not present with civil appeals and means that far fewer criminal appeals are heard by the House of Lords.
High Court
What is the High Court?
The High Court is a civil court and has the authority to hear any civil case in England and Wales. It handles everything from libel and litigation to shipping cases and divorce. Along with the Court of Appeal, it is based at the gothic buildings of the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand, London (pictured), but also sits at 26 towns around the country.
It forms the Supreme Court of Judicature, with the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court. And it is divided into three divisions. These are: the Queen's Bench Division, the Chancery Division, and the Family Division.
How does it fight crime?
The Queen's Bench Division (QBD) is headed by the Lord Chief Justice, and has nearly 70 judges. It hears contract and tort cases where the claimant is seeking damages above a certain amount. A judge usually sits alone, but a jury of 12 may be employed to hear cases involving fraud, libel, slander, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.The QBD also encompasses a Commercial Court, which has specialist judges dealing with insurance, banking and commercial matters; and an Admiralty Court, which deals with shipping matters such as claims for damage caused by collision at sea and salvage rights following the sinking of a vessel. There is a Technology and Construction Court, which was specially created in 1998 to hear any High Court cases involving technically complex matters, for example, those involving computers and engineering disputes.
If your local council illegally makes a wrong decision, the QBD courtroom is the place where this will be put to rights. The QBD hears challenges against the power of local authorities to make certain decisions, a type of case known as a judicial review. On average, more than 110,000 claims are started in the QBD each year but only about 3,500 of these will be set down for trial, and a mere 700 or so trials will be completed. The reason is that the vast majority of cases are settled by the parties prior to the court hearing.The Chancery Division is headed by the Lord Chancellor and has about 17 judges. Disputes concerning insolvency, mortgages, copyright and patents, trust property, probate and intellectual property matters, are referred to this court. Cases are heard by a single judge and juries are never used. It hears a small amount of appeals on tax and bankruptcy matters.
The Family Division is headed by the President of the Family Division, and has about 17 judges. It hears cases concerning access and custody of children, nullity of marriage and other matters concerning the family. It consists of a single judge and never uses a jury. It hears appeals from magistrates, when these concern family matters.The QBD, alone, fights crime. It does this in two ways. First, it hears appeal by way of case stated from criminal cases in the Magistrates' court. This is a procedure whereby a court refers a statement of the facts and a question of law to a superior court for advice.Second, it hears applications for the ancient legal right of "habeas corpus". This is a law that demands the liberty of anyone who is being unlawfully detained, whether that be by the police, a hospital, a prison, or another person.
Crown Court
What is the Crown Court?
The Crown Court deals with all indictable cases, which are serious offences triable before a judge and jury, and these include murder, rape, serious assault, kidnapping, conspiracy, fraud, armed robbery, and Official Secrets Act offences. These offences cannot be tried at the Magistrates' court.The most famous Crown Court is 'The Old Bailey', otherwise known as the Central Criminal Court, which will be familiar to fans of John Mortimer QC's series of books about Rumpole of the Old Bailey. It has played host to some of the UK's most notorious criminals such as John Christie, who lured women back to his home at 10 Rillington Place, the Yorkshire Ripper, the Kray twins and Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hanged in England.
However, the Old Bailey is just one of more than 90 Crown Court centres throughout England and Wales. These centres are divided into six "circuits".The Crown Court is part of the Supreme Court of Judicature. It is presided over by a professional judge. If the case is serious, the judge is likely to be a High Court judge, who would normally be attached to the Queen's Bench Division. Otherwise the judge will be a circuit judge or a recorder - a part-time circuit judge.The Crown Court is also the appeal court against convictions and sentences by magistrates. When appealing against conviction, the Crown Court judge re-hears all the evidence that witnesses have already given in the lower court, but there is no jury. For all appeals, the judge sits with between two and four lay magistrates.
How does it fight crime?
Defendants are usually represented by lawyers, but can elect to represent themselves. This can sometimes have distressing consequences, particularly where the accused cross-examines the victim. The law was changed in 2000 to prevent this happening in rape and sexual offence cases. Children are also protected from having to answer to anyone accused of kidnapping, false imprisonment or child abduction. When there is a jury, the judge's role is limited to deciding matters of law and summing up for the jury. A jury consists of 12 people aged between 18 and 70 taken from the electoral list. What goes on in the jury room is secret, and can never be discussed. The jury decides whether the accused is guilty or not, by looking at the facts that have been established. On average defendants will have to wait about three months for their case to come to trial, and this wait will sometimes be in custody. The Crown Court is a hive of activity when it sits. The average time taken to conduct a trial is seven hours, which translates to about one and a half court days. There are, on average, about 120,000 defendants annually, and about one quarter of these will plead not guilty.
It is not unusual for defendants to meet their barrister for the first time on the morning of their case, for a conference of just 15 minutes. Barristers often only receive their instructions for a case on the day before trial. This has caused speculation that miscarriages of justice may be taking place.The Government has promised a shake-up of the criminal court system. Prime Minister Tony Blair announced in June 2002 that he wanted to give greater emphasis to the rights of the victims of crime, and proposed changing the law to allow previous convictions to be disclosed to juries, and scrapping the "double jeopardy" rule, which stops people being tried for the same crime twice regardless of the discovery of new evidence.
.
County Court
What is the County Court?
The County Courts are the first contact most people have with the civil law process in England and Wales. Similarly to the magistrates' courts that deal with the majority of criminal cases, the County Courts deal with most of the civil cases - those relating to family or property law - such as divorce or disputes over land.
How does it fight crime?
The County Court primarily deals with civil law, so it doesn't fight crime in the same way as the criminal courts in England and Wales. However, the County Court does hear more formal cases before a district or circuit judge, and deals with over 95 per cent of all divorce cases. The judge will be advised by a court clerk on all matters, and will preside over most common law matters.Despite their name the county courts do not fit within county boundaries in England and Wales, in fact, the 230 county courts are scattered around the towns and cities that require their services. All property cases up to £30,000, all personal injury claims less than £50,000, and bankruptcy matters are all carried out by the District Judge at the county court. In addition, the County Court hosts the small claims court, where most minor civil matters can be resolved with an informal arbitration.
Magistrates' Court
What is the Magistrates' Court?
The overwhelming majority of the public who come into contact with the court system will do so with the magistrates' court, and there are more than 700 magistrates' courts in England and Wales. It is rare for the sort of cases dealt with in these courts to grab the nation's attention, or hit the headlines. However, these courts are a vital cog in the wheel of justice, and nearly all of the UK's criminals will pass through their doors.In our massively complex society, which is governed by a myriad of rules, the magistrate's courts perform a fast and relatively cheap public service, handling everything from common assault to driving while disqualified.
How does it fight crime?
Magistrates may be legally qualified and salaried (stipendiary magistrates) or unqualified and unpaid lay justices, and there is also a legally qualified clerk attached to each court to assist the magistrates. There are about 29,000 lay justices and more than 60 stipendiary magistrates. A magistrates' court is normally composed of at least two, and not more than seven, magistrates, when trying a case.Magistrates' courts handle all the less serious crimes, such as parking offences, which cannot be tried by a jury. These are known as "summary" offences. Certain more serious crimes such as manslaughter and arson can only be tried at the Crown Court, where a jury may be present. These are known as solemn or indictable offences. Some crimes fall into the category of being "triable either way", and these can be heard in either court. An example would be if a potentially serious offence such as theft was committed in a small way, such as theft of a packet of crisps. For certain offences, the magistrate will take an initial look at the evidence to make sure there is enough there for the case to proceed to the Crown Court.
2.Malaysia’s legal system comprises laws which have emerged from three significant periods in Malaysian history dating from the Malacca Sultanate, followed by the spread of Islam to Southeast Asia, and thereafter the absorption into the indigenous culture of British colonial rule which introduced a constitutional government and the common law. Therefore Malaysian court structure is also greatly influenced by the English Court System. Briefly explain Malaysian court structure.
Malaysia’s legal system has been determined by events spanning a period of some six hundred years . Of these , three major periods were largely responsible for shaping the current system. The first was the founding of the Malacca Sultanate at the beginning of the fifteenth century second was the spread of Islam to South-east Asia and its subsequent entrenchment in the indigenous culture ; and finally , and probably the most significant in modern Malaysia , was British colonial rule which brought with it constitutional government and the common law system. The establishment of Malacca as a port around A.D. 1400 also witnessed the spread of Islam by Indian traders from Gujerat and Arabs form West Asia. Evidence of the route by which islam was brought to the region is not conclusive. Some historians felt it was transplanted here form India rather form Arab countries. The controversy continues in the absence of clear evidence to support either contention. Whatever the merits of the contention, it does not detract form the fact that significant changes were effected on the indigenous culture. However, the adoption of the new religion did not result in the complete elimination of the pre-Islamic culture On the contrary , The more prevalent Hindu customs and animistic traditions continued unabated. Islam was merely grafted on to the existing culture. Today, the Hindu elements in the celebration of marriages and coronations of rulers are observed as indigenous culture .
The was the socio-cultural state of Malacca in its heyday as a Malay empire. The maintenance of law and order in Malacca was crucial to its prosperity as a trading port. Therefore, law was placed under the direct charge of the Bendahara ( Chief Minister) who exercised both political and judicial functions . The Temenggung ( Commander of Troops and Police) was responsible for apprehending criminals maintaining prisons and generally keeping the peace . The welfare of foreigners residing in the state were looked after by several shahbandars ( Habour Masters and and Collectors of Customs ).
Little is known of the administration of justice in those days but it is generally accepted that the law administration of justice in those days but it is generally accepted that the law administered then was a combination of Muslim law and the adat temenggung . The term “adapt temenggung” refers to the patriarchal Malay customary law as distinct from the matrilineal adat perpateh practiced in the present region of Negeri Sembilan and certain parts of Malacca “Adat” as used in the region can mean custom, courtesy , proper behavior , customary behavior or customary law. Reference to adat in this section is taken to mean customary law or customs which have legal consequences. The adat temenggung was the law of the sultan or the law ordained by the rulers and later adopted in the other regions of peninsular Malaysia . It was the basis of the law as found in the Malay legal digests that were compiled between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries ; for instance , the Undang- Undang Melaka (risalut Hukum Kanun of A.D. 1523), the Pahang Digest of 1596, the Kedah Digest of 1605, the Johore Digest and the Ninety –Nine Laws of Perak.
The formal legal text of traditional Malacca consisted of the Undang-Undang Melaka (Laws of Malacca), variously called the Hukum kanun Melaka and risalut Hukum kanun , and the Undang- Undang laut Melaka (the Maritime Laws of Malacca). The laws as written in the legal digests went through an evolutionary process , and according to the sejarah melayu ( The Malay Annals ) it was in the region of sultan Muzaffar Shah (144-1456 a.d.) that orders were given to compile the laws to provide for uniformity of decisions . The legal rules that eventually evolved were shaped by three main influence , namely , the early non –indigenous Hindu/Buddhist tradition , Islam and the indigenous adat.
The extent to which these laws were actually applied is unclear .Some accounts of the administration of criminal justice can also be found in tom pires Suma Orientalis . In contrast to the Undang – Undang laut Melaka which dealt with rules and regulations to be observed at sea , the Hukum Kanun covered a wide range of criminal and civil matters
“ the Malacca digest exhibits no clear divisions between constitutional, criminal and civil law . It jumbles regultions for court etiquette, criminal law , the jurisdiction of the ruler and his ministers, the law of fugitive slaves , the law of libel, the law of contract affecting the hire of slaves and animals , the penalties for lessee majeste and the breach betrothal agreements and the penalties for stealing the slaves of owners of various ranks.”
In addition , the digests also contained some aspects of Islamic law such as validity of marriage ), property claim , trusteeship , performance of prayer , taking of oath and others . It becomes Obvious form a study of the digests that there was no clear demarcation between secular and religious affairs but it does provide an insight into the laws administered in the Sultanate at the time.
Malacca was occupied by the Portuguese from 1511 to 1641 and by the Dutch form then till 1795 when the British briefly occupied it. It was restored to the Dutch in 1801. Form 1807 till 1818 it was reoccupied by the British and finally in 1924 , they took over for good under the terms of the Anglo –Dutch Treaty of 1824 . Malacca was but a pawn that became inextricably intertwined in the network of European imperialism . Events and political intrigues in Europe were shaping Malacca’s destiny.in this time the British colonial rule which introduced a constitutional government and the common law.
British had became a colonial power by the middle of the eighteenth century. For strategic reasons stemming form Anglo-French rivalry and the desire to maintain and develop the china trade , the British were propelled to find a suitable port where ships on the voyage form India to China could refit and revictual.
The British acquisition of the island of Penang, the first territory in Malaysia to fall into british hands must be seen in the light of the overall British policy in the East .On behalf of the East India Company , Captain Francis light obtained a cession of the island form the sultan of Kedah in 1786. the sultan of Kedah had ceded the island on the assurance of British protection in the event that his state was attacked b Siam( as Thailand was then called) . While Captain Light conveyed this condition to his superiors , they chose to ignore it in the Treaty. By 1790, the sultan soon become disillusioned and in 1791, he made an unsuccessful attempt to retake Penang. A new treaty the same year was forced on him confirming the cession of the island in return for a pension of 6000 dollars . thus began the era of British colonialism in Malaysia.
Malaysia’s legal system comprises laws which have emerged from three significant periods in Malaysian history dating from the Malacca Sultanate, followed by the spread of Islam to Southeast Asia, and thereafter the absorption into the indigenous culture of British colonial rule which introduced a constitutional government and the common law.
The Malaysian legal system law can be classified into two general categories: written and unwritten law. “Unwritten law” refers to laws which are not enacted by the Legislature and which are not found in either the Federal or State constitutions. This category of law
derives from cases decided by the Courts and from the application of local customs, which is otherwise known as “common law”. “Written law” refers to the laws contained in either the Federal and State Constitutions, or codified or enacted as statutory
legislation. Islamic law, which is only applicable to Muslims, is enacted under the Federal Constitution. The State legislature has jurisdiction and is permitted to make
(Islamic) laws pertaining to persons professing the religion of Islam. Such laws are administered by a separate Court system, the Syariah Courts. The State Legislature also has jurisdiction over the constitution, organisation and procedure of the Syariah Courts.
The written laws are much influenced by English laws as the Malaysian legal system retains many characteristics of the English legal system. However, these laws have also been influenced by Australian and Indian laws. Since Malaysia gained its independence in 1957, the application of the laws of England, although still frequently referred to in Malaysia, is conditional and subject to limitations. These limitations are set out in
Section 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956, which provides that: “The said common law, rules of equity and statutes of general application shall be applied so far only as the circumstances of the States of Malaysia and their respective inhabitants permit and subject to such qualifications as local circumstances render necessary.” Therefore, the laws of England may only be applied when there is a lacuna in the Malaysian statutes. In that event, the relevant English laws which are suitable and appropriate to the local circumstances will be applied.



The Malaysian Court structure is also greatly influenced by the English Court system, and is divided into the Subordinate Courts and the Superior Courts. The lowest level of the Subordinate Courts is the Penghulu Courts, presided over by a headman appointed by the State government for the district. The equivalent in Sabah and Sarawak are the Native Courts relating to the native customs of the indigenous people in those two States. Above these Courts are the Magistrate’s Courts which deals with minor criminal and civil cases. The Sessions Courts are the highest of the Subordinate Courts. The Superior Courts comprises of the High Court, theCourt of Appeal and the Federal Court (which is the highest Court in the land).in malaysia have Courts like The Penghulu’s Court A “Penghulu” is the chief of a village who is authorized to hold a Court. The Court has a very limited jurisdiction and operates in West Malaysia only. The parties to the proceedings must be of Asian race who speak and understand the Malay language. The Court only holds proceedings involving recovery of
liquidated debt, with or without interest, not exceeding RM50 or any cases involving petty crimes. The orders issued by this Court are not strictly enforceable. Nevertheless, the Penghulu may send the record of proceedings to a Magistrates’ Court for the enforcement of the order. An appeal from a decision of the Penghulu Court lies to the Magistrate’s Courtin its jurisdiction.
The Malaysian legal system is based on English common law. The Federal Court reviews decisions referred from the Court of Appeals; it has original jurisdiction in constitutional matters and in disputes between states or between the federal government and a state. Peninsular Malaysia and the East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak each have a high court. The Federal Court of Malaysia is the highest judicial authority and the final court of appeal in Malaysia. The country, although federally constituted, has a single-structured judicial system consisting of two parts - the superior courts and the subordinate courts. The subordinate courts are the Magistrate Courts and the Sessions Courts whilst the superior courts are the two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status, one for Peninsular Malaysia and the other for the States of Sabah and Sarawak, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court. The Federal Court, earlier known as the Supreme Court and renamed the Federal Court vide Act A885 effective from June 24, 1994, stands at the apex of this pyramid.
Before January 1, 1985, the Federal Court was the highest court in the country but its decisions were further appealable to the Privy Council in London. However on January 1, 1978, Privy Council appeals in criminal and constitutional matters were abolished and on January 1, 1985, all other appeals i.e. civil appeals except those filed before that date were abolished. The setting up of the Court of Appeal on June 24, 1994 after the Federal Constitution was amended vide Act A885 provides litigants one more opportunity to appeal. Alternatively it can be said that the right of appeal to the Privy Council is restored, albeit in the form of the Federal Court.
The Special Court was established on March 30, 1993 vide Act A848, now provided for in Article 182 of the Federal Constitution. All offences committed by the Rulers (the Rulers being the monarchical heads of the component states of the Federation of Malaysia) including His Majesty The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be heard by the Special Court. The Special Court shall also hear all civil cases by or against them. This Court shall be chaired by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court and he shall be assisted by four other members, namely the two Chief Judges of the respective High Courts and two other persons appointed by the Conference of Rulers who hold or have held office as a judge. The court system in Malaysia has its origins in the 1807 charter known as the First Charter of Justice whereby the British East India Company obtained from the British Crown the right to establish a permanent Court of Judicature in the settlement of Penang.Prior to the formation of Malaysia in 1963, there were three Supreme Courts of Judicature in Commonwealth South-east Asia:
The Supreme Court of the Federation of Malaya ,The Supreme Court of Singapore
The Supreme Court of Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei ,Each Supreme Court consisted of a High Court and a Court of Appeal, and was headed by a Chief Justice.
Formation of Malaysia
In 1963 the remaining British territories in Southeast Asia, save Brunei, were incorporated into an enlarged federation of Malaysia. The 1963 Federal Constitution replaced the various Courts of Appeal with a single Federal Court of Malaysia, headed by a Lord President of the Federal Court, with three High Courts, each headed by a Chief Justice, below it:The High Court of Malaya ,The High Court of Singapore ,The High Court of Borneo A separate Supreme Court of Judicature was established in Brunei.The High Court of Singapore ceased to be part of the Malaysian judicial system when Singapore left the Federation on 9 August 1965.
Privy Council appeals
Even after the independence of Malaya and the subsequent formation of Malaysia, by an Agreement between Her Majesty The Queen and His Majesty The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, and by Article 131 of the Federal Constitution, decisions of the Federal Court could be taken on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.Privy Council appeals on criminal and constitutional matters were abolished on 1 January 1978. Civil appeals were abolished on 1 January 1985, whereupon the Federal Court was renamed the "Supreme Court of Malaysia".
In 1994, in order to restore a second tier in the appellate system which was lost when Privy Council appeals were abolished, the Constitution was amended to establish a Court of Appeal of Malaysia (headed by a President of the Court of Appeal) under the Supreme Court, which once again was renamed the "Federal Court of Malaysia".As part of the reforms, the High Court of Borneo was renamed the "High Court of Sabah and Sarawak". The office of Lord President of the Supreme Court was replaced by that of "Chief Justice of Malaysia", while the Chief Justices of Malaya and Borneo were re-titled "Chief Judge of Malaya" and "Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak" respectively. These changes were seen by many in the Opposition as an attempt to downgrade the prestige of the judiciary.
Trial by jury
Until 1995, there was a right to trial by jury - usually by a jury of seven men and women - in all capital cases.Trial by jury was available in all cases on indictment in the former British settlements of Penang and Malacca until they were restricted to capital cases in 1978. In the Malay states, trial by jury had not been available under colonial rule, with capital cases being tried by a judge sitting with two assessors, but was introduced for capital cases after independence in 1957 by the first prime minister of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman. In Sabah and Sarawak, capital trials continued to be tried by a judge sitting with two assessors, as they had been before independence.
From 1 January 1995, jury trials throughout Malaysia were abolished.
The Federal Court
The Federal Court may hear appeals of civil decisions of the Court of Appeal where the Federal Court grants leave to do so.The Federal Court also hears criminal appeals from the Court of Appeal, but only in respect of matters heard by the High Court in its original jurisdiction (i.e. where the case has not been appealed from the Subordinate Courts).
The Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine any appeal against any High Court decision on criminal matters. It also has the jurisdiction to hear and determine civil appeals where the amount of the subject matter of the claim is not less than RM250,000,
except with the leave of the Court. This power extends to hearing appeals from any judgment or order of the High Court, whether made in the exercise of its originalor its appellate jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal is the second highest Court in Malaysia and is presided over by three Court of Appeal Judges. The Federal Court The Federal Court is the highest Court in Malaysia.
All proceedings are conducted by at least three Federal Court Judges. The Federal Court has three jurisdictions: original, consultative and appellate but it does not cover those matters under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. The Federal Court’s original jurisdiction allows it the exclusive power to deal withconstitutional issues raised under Article 128(1) and (2) of the Federal Constitution to determine whether a federal or state law is invalid. Its consultative jurisdiction allows it to determine any question referred to it by the King. The Federal Court also has the jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal appeals from the Court of Appeal. However, appeals to the Federal Court are not granted as of right - the leave of theFederal Court is required. The Court of AppealThe Court of Appeal generally hears all civil appeals against decisions of the High Courts except where against judgment or orders made by consent. In cases where: the claim is less than RM250,000, the judgment or order relates to costs only, the appeal is against a decision of a judge in chambers on an interpleader summons on undisputed facts, the leave of the Court of Appeal must first be obtained. The Court of
Appeal also hears appeals of criminal decisions of the High Court.
Appeals from the Small Claims Court are to the Magistrate’s Court. Appeals from the Industrial Court are by way of certiorari to the High Court. Appeals from the High Court are to the Court of Appeal. However appeals from the Registrars of High Court are to a High Court Judge in chambers. Thereafter if there is a further appeal, it will be referred to the Court of Appeal. Appeals from the Court of Appeal are to the Federal Court. Appeals to the Federal Court require the leave of the Court. An appeal is usually by way of a re-hearing, but fresh evidence is only allowed to be admitted with leave of Court. The Appellate Courts will rarely interfere with a decision based on the exercise of the lower Court’sdiscretion, or with a trial Judge’s view of the facts based on his perception of the witnesses, unless that exercise of discretion or perception was clearly wrong.Enforcement of Judgments and Orders
The High Court
The High Courts have general supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction over all the Subordinate Courts, and jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Subordinate Courts in civil and criminal matters.The High Courts have unlimited civil jurisdiction, and generally hear actions where the claim exceeds 250,000 Malaysian ringgit (RM), other than actions involving motor vehicle accidents, landlord and tenant disputes and distress. The High Courts hear all matters relating to:the validity or dissolution of marriage (divorce) and matrimonial causes, bankruptcy and matters relating to the winding-up of companies, guardianship or custody of children,
grants of probate, wills and letters of administration of estates, injunctions, specific performance or rescissions of contracts, legitimacy of persons. The High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction in all criminal matters other than matters involving Islamic law.
Cases are heard by a single judge in the High Court, or by a judicial commissioner. While High Court judges enjoy security of tenure, judicial commissioners are appointed for a term of two years, and do not enjoy similar protection under the Constitution.The jurisdiction of the High Court is original, appellate and supervisory.In the exercise of its original jurisdiction, it has unlimited criminal and civil powers. Any civil matter
that cannot be determined by the Subordinate Courts is heard before the High Court. In criminal cases, however, save for offences punishable by death no case may be brought to the High Court unless an offender has been properly committed for trial after apreliminary hearing in the Magistrate’s or Sessions Court.There are two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status in Malaysia: the High Court of Malaya andthe High Court of Sabah and Sarawak. These High Courts have also established other branches of the High Court in the different states of the country, which have local jurisdiction. Each High Court branch has jurisdiction where:
(a) the cause of action arose; or (b) the defendant or one of the defendants resides or
has his place of business; or (c) the facts on which the proceedings are based exist
or are alleged to have occurred; or (d) any land the ownership of which is disputed is
situated within the local jurisdiction of the Court. Malaysia
The High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur is further
organised into the following divisions:
(a) Commercial Division; (b) Appellate and Special Powers Division;
(c) Civil Division; and (d) Criminal Division.
In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the HighCourt hears appeals from the Magistrate’s and SessionsCourts within its own jurisdiction.
The Special Court
The Special Court was established in 1998 and is provided for under Article 182 of the Federal Constitution. The Special Court hears all offences committed by the monarchical heads of the component states of the Federation of Malaya, including His Majesty the Yang Di Pertuan Agong, and all civil cases brought by or against them. It is chaired by the ChiefJustice of the Federal Court who is assisted by four other members, namely the two Chief Judges of the respective High Courts and two other persons appointed by the Conference of Rulers.
The Industrial Court
The Industrial Court is an arbitration tribunal and is not regarded as a civil Court. The Industrial Court is constituted and empowered by the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The function of the Industrial Court is to arbitrate disputes between employers and employees
arising from alleged unjustified dismissals in which the employee seeks to claim for reinstatement or damages in lieu of reinstatement. An award by the Industrial Court will be enforceable in the same manner as a Court order. Decisions from the Industrial Court may be quashed by way of an application for certiorari to the High Court. Labour Court
The Labour Court is an administrative tribunal primarily established to resolve disputes between employers and employees relating to breaches of the terms of employment contract(s), including the payment of wages and other issues arising under the Employment Act and its subsidiary regulations. The decisions of a Labour Court are not final and may be appealed to the High Court. Any employee who wishes to bring the dispute to the Labour Court must lodge acomplaint to the Director General of Labour within sixty days from the date of the act(s) giving rise to the claim. Syariah Court
The Syariah Court only hears matters pertaining to Islamic law and family law of persons professing the religion of Islam, including the Islamic law relating to succession, both testate and intestate. However, the Syariah Court is not allowed to exercise jurisdiction
over any offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years and/or any fine exceeding RM5,000, or whipping exceeding six strokes, or any combination thereof. The Syariah Court is not open to all advocates and solicitors of Malaysia. The Courtadmits only Syarie lawyers, who are persons deemed to have sufficient knowledge of Islamic law.
Sessions Courts
Somewhat like the former Quarter Sessions in England, the Sessions Courts have jurisdiction to try offences which are not punishable by death. They are presided over by Sessions Court judges (formerly Sessions Court Presidents).The Sessions Courts also hear all civil matters of which the claim exceeds RM25,000 but does not exceed RM250,000, except in matters relating to motor vehicle accidents, landlord and tenant and distress, where the Sessions Courts have unlimited jurisdiction.
The Magistrate’s Court
The Magistrate’s Courts deal with the vast majority of cases, both civil and criminal, and are situated in almost all major towns in Malaysia. A Magistrate’s Court is presided over by a Magistrate, and has jurisdiction to deal with civil cases where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter does not exceed RM25,000, generally all and criminal matters for which the maximum punishment does not exceed ten years imprisonment or are punishable with a fine not exceeding RM10,000 only. However, it is to be noted that a Magistrate may not impose a term of imprisonment exceeding five years. The Sessions Court The Sessions Court, presided over by a Sessions Court Judge, is the highest of the Subordinate Courts. A Sessions Court may hear any civil matters where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter does not exceed RM250,000 and has unlimited jurisdiction in respect of motor vehicle accidents, landlord/tenant disputes and distress actions. A Sessions Court has jurisdiction to try all criminal offences except those punishable with death. Magistrates are divided into First Class and Second Class Magistrates, the former being legally qualified and having greater powers. Second Class Magistrates are now not normally appointed.
The Magistrates' Courts also hear appeals from the Penghulu's Courts.
Other courts
The court of a penghulu, or Malay village head, has the power to hear civil matters of which the claim does not exceed RM50, where the parties are of an Asian race and speak and understand the Malay language. The Penghulu's Court's criminal jurisdiction is limited to offences of a minor nature charged against a person of Asian race which is specially enumerated in his warrant, which can be punished with a fine not exceeding RM25.In Sabah and Sarawak, there are no Penghulus' Courts, but there are instead Native Courts having jurisdiction on matters of native law and custom.There exist also Juvenile Courts for cases involving minors.
Syariah Courts
There is a parallel system of state Syariah Courts which has limited jurisdiction over matters of state Islamic (shariah) law. The Syariah Courts have jurisdiction only over matters involving Muslims, and can generally only pass sentences of not more than three years imprisonment, a fine of up to RM5,000, and/or up to six strokes of th
The Small Claims Tribunals
The Small Claims Tribunals within the Magistrate’sCourt are available for claims which do not exceed RM5,000. This Tribunal is intended to simplify the collection of small debts in an informal atmosphere. Legal representation by advocates and solicitors is not
allowed in the Small Claims Tribunal and the parties would have to represent themselves. As companies are required by law to be represented by advocates and solicitors in all Court proceedings, the Small Claims Tribunal does not entertain claims by or against
companies. Claims are commenced by completing the prescribed form, which is then filed with the Tribunal. The claimant is required to state the amount of the claim and the particulars of the claim in the prescribed form, including the relevant dates and the basis of the claim. The trial is held in a relaxed and informal manner. Although the normal rules of evidence do apply the Tribunal is unlikely to allow technical procedural
arguments. The trial is normally conducted in the Malay language before a Magistrate. If necessary, the parties may apply for the proceedings to be conducted in English, or for an interpreter to be present for testimony or submissions to be delivered in theChinese language or in Tamil. At the end of the trial the Magistrate makes an order, which stands as an enforceable judgment. Subordinate Courts The Subordinate Courts are divided into two Courts; namely the Magistrate’s Court and the Sessions Court.These are the lower Courts that have jurisdiction to deal with minor civil and criminal cases. Appeals fromdecisions of the Subordinate Courts are made to theHigh Court.
This is conclusion of Malaysia’s legal system comprises laws which have emerged from three significant periods in Malaysian history dating from the Malacca Sultanate, followed by the spread of Islam to Southeast Asia, and thereafter the absorption into the indigenous culture of British colonial rule which introduced a constitutional government and the common law. Therefore Malaysian court structure is also greatly influenced by the English Court System. Briefly explain Malaysian court structure.
.
a)Describe the rules of statutory interpretation
It is an accepted fact that judges do make law though not in the same mode as the legislature . The entire body of non- statutory law or common law has been evolved by judges as indeed so much of the statutory law as flows from judicial interpretation. Judges make laws in two ways:
a) Applying an established rule or principle to a new situation or set of facts . This occurs most frequently in areas where statutory law has made very little impact in such areas as the law of tort (civil wrongs).
b) Interpreting statutes enacted by the legislature . Statutes are rarely self-contained or self –explanatory and judges are frequently called upon to decide what they mean and how they are to be applied to particular situations. The authority of judges in respect of statues is a common law power in two respects:
- the power to decide whether a particular statute is valid
- the power to interpret them
with respect to the latter, judges interpret the meanings of words and apply them to the facts of particular cases brought before them . they also seek to accommodate the particular statute to the existing law : both common law and statutes . Thereafter the statute and the precedent are in effect read together because the latter will be binding as to the meanings of words interpreted by the court. The common law and laws enacted by parliaments are closely interdependent .
In arriving at a decision , judges do not decide arbitrarily . They are bound to follow certain accepted principles commonly known as precedents . A precedent is commonly defined as “a judgment or decision of a court of law cited as an authority for the legal principle embodied in its decision”. In its simplest form, a Binding precedent means when determining a dispute before the courts judges will follow what their predecessors had decided earlier in a similar situation .
The main body of the law is to be found in statutes , Together with the relevant statutory instruments , and in case law as enunciated by judges in the courts . But the judges not only have the duty of declaring the common law , They are also frequently called upon to settle disputes as to the meaning of words or clauses in a statue.
Parliament is the supreme lawgiver , and the judges must follow statutes ( but see Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (No 2) (1991) 1 ALL ER 70). Nevertheless three is a considerable amount of case law which gathers round Acts of Parliament and delegated legislation since the wording sometimes turns out to be obscure. Statutes were at one time drafted by practicing lawyers who were experts in the particular branch of law of which the statute was to be a part. Today, however , statutes are drafted by parliamentary counsel to the Treasury , and, although such persons are skilled in the law, the volume of legislation means that statutes are often obscure and cases continue to come before the courts in which the rights of the parties depend upon the exact meaning of a section of a statute . When such a case comes before a judge, he must decide the meaning of section in question. Thus even certain recognized aids to interpretation, and these are set out below .General Rule of interpretation evolved by judges is There are a number of generally recognized rules or canons of interpretation, and some of the more important ones are given.
The mischief rule
This was set out in Heydon’s Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7 a. Under this rule the judge will look at the Act to see what was its purpose and what mischief in the common law it was designed to prevent . Broadly speaking , the rule means that where a statute has been passed to remedy a weakness in the law the interpretation which will correct that weakness in the one to be adopted.
The literal rule
According to this rule, the working of the Act must be construed according to its literal and grammatical meaning whatever the result may be. The same word must normally be construed throughout the Act in the same sense, and in the case of old statutes regard must be had to its contemporary meaning if there has been a change with the passage of time.
The law Commission, in an instructive and provocative report on the subject of interpretation said of this rule that ‘to place undue emphasis on the literal meaning of the words of a provision is to assume an unattainable perfection in draftsmanship’.
The rule, when in operation , does not not always achieve the obvious object and purpose of the statute. A classic example is Whiteley V Chappel (1868-9) 4 LRQB 147. In that case a statute concerned with electoral malpractices made it an offence to personate ‘any person entitled to vote’ at an election . The defendant was accused of personating a deceased voter and the court , using the literal rule , found that there was no offence . The personation was not of a person entitled to vote , A dead person was not entitled to vote, or do anything else for that matter . A deceased person did not exist and could therefore have no rights. It will be seen, however , that the literal rule produced in that case a result which was clearly contrary to the object of parliament .A problem in relation to the literal rule arises from the difficulty that judges face in determining the literal meaning of even the commonest of terms . In R v Maginnis (1987), the judges differed amongst themselves as to the literal meaning of the common word ‘supply’ in relation to a charge of supplying drugs.
The golden rule
This rule is to some extent an extension of the literal rule and under it the words of a statute will as far as possible be construed according to their ordinary plain and natural meaning, unless this leads to an absurd result. It is used by the courts where a statutory provision is capable of more than one literal meaning and leads the judge to select the one which avoid absurdity, or where a study of the statute as a whole reveals that the conclusion reached by applying the literal rule is contrary to the intentions of parliament. Thus, in Re Sigsworth [1935] Ch 89 the court decided that the Administration of Estates Act 1925, which provides for the distribution of the property of an intestate amongst his next of kin, did not confer a benefit upon the person (a son) who had murdered the intestate (his mother), even though the murderer was the intestate’s next of kin, for it is a general principle of law that no one can profit form his own wrong.
The ejusdem generis rule
This is a rule covering things of the same genus , species or type. Under it, where general words follow particular words, the general words are construed as being limited to persons or things within the class outlined by the particular words . So in a reference to ‘dogs, cats , and other animals ‘s, the last three words would be limited in their application to animals of the domestic type, and would not be extended to cover animals such as elephants and camels which are not domestic animistic animals in the UK .
Noscitur a sociis rule
(The meaning of a word can be gathered from its context.) Under this rule words of doubtful meaning may be better understood from the nature of the words and phrases with which they are associated
In Addition to the major rules of interpretation, there are also several others considerations which the judge will have in mind. He will concern himself only with the wording of the Act, and will not as a general rule go to Hansard to look up reports of the debates during the passage of the act. There is here some conflict with the mischief rule, since it might be thought there is no better way to ascertain what mischief the Act was designed to prevent than by reference to the parliamentary debates in Hansard. Nevertheless , the law commission in their deliberations on the matter of statutory interpretation had decided against the use of Hansard since they doubted the reliability of statements made in Parliamentary debates.
The general rule that Hansard should not be referred to as an aid to interpretation was relaxed in pepper v Hart [1993] 1 ALL ER 42. The House of Lords held that reference to Hansard should be allowed where:
(a) The legislation is ambiguous or obscure or where a literal interpretation would lead to an absurdity;
(b) The material which is referred to consists of statements by a Minister or other promoter of the Bill together with such other Parliamentary material as is necessary to understand the statements and the effects of them;
(c) The statements relied upon are clear.
In addition to the three main rules of interpretation, three are a number of secondary aids to construction. These can be categorized as either intrinsic or extrinsic in nature.
Intrinsic Assistance
This is help which is actually derived from the statute which is the object of interpretation. The judge uses the full statute to understand the meaning of a particular part of it. Assistance may be found from various parts of the statute, such as: the title , long or short ; any preamble, which is a statement preceding the actual provisions of the Act ; and schedules, which appear as detailed additions at the end the Act. Section headings or marginal notes may also be considered, where they exist.
Extrinsic Assistance
Sources outside of the Act itself may, on occasion , be resorted to in determining the meaning of legislation for example , judges have always been entitled to refer to dictionaries in order to find the meaning of non legal words . The Interpretation Act 1978 is also available for consultation with regard to the meaning of particular words generally used in statues.
This is the conclusion of statutory interpretation . Statutory interpretation is rules of interpretation tend to some extent to cancel each others. Thus by using one or other of these rules judges can be narrow, reformist, or conservative. In fact Pollock, in his Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics , suggests: English judges have often tended to interpret statutes on the theory that Parliament generally changes the law for the worse and that the business of the judges is to keep the mischief of its interference within the narrowest possible bounds.
It must be said that this comment applies particularly to judicial interpretation of welfare law where they have sometimes been reluctant to fill in gaps in order to make the law work, whereas if the Act is in the field of ‘lawyers’ law , then they have been prepared to do precisely this in order, for example, to convict a guilty person of crime. This is, however , not surprising since judges are the product of a legalistic training and are clearly ill equipped to pronounce upon welfare law, whereas in crime, for example , they are dealing with rules which they better understand so that they feel less reluctant to fill in gaps.
b)What are the differences between binding precedent and persuasive precedent?
Several processes are necessary in forming a judicial decision . When a case is brought before the court , the first thing to be established are the facts of the case . These would be decided by the presiding judge and in the rare event that a jury is used , the facts would be determined by the jury. Once the facts are established , the judge will apply the law to determine which litigant should succeed . It is at this stage that the doctrine of precedent will control his decision.

In coming to a decision as to which precedent is binding , the judge is influenced by two main factors , namely ,
a) the origin of the precedent ; to be binding , a precedent must originate form a court of appropriate rank in the same hierarchy.
b) The contents of the precedent , that is , the ratio decidendi which is the legal reasoning . It is the legal reasoning . It is the legal reasoning of the precedent that is binding,
The concept of ratio decidendi is not an easy one to grasp. Suppose A bought a bottle of ginger ale , drank it and suffered diarrhea and other illness as a result of the presence of a decomposed snail in the bottle . He successfully sued the manufacturer for negligence in the manufacture of the product. In a subsequent case VENESSA bought clothes from another shop, wore them and suffered dermatitis and other related skin problems owing to the presence of certain chemicals in the clothes. The court in the latter case decide to apply the legal principle established in the first case on account of similarities in the material facts . The parties to the dispute may have changed , the kind of goods bought are different but nevertheless’ there is an element of common denominator justifying the application of the same rule. That rule which is the ratio of the earlier case is constant.. it may be stated as follows: A manufacturer of products owes a duty to the consumer to take reasonable care in the manufacture of products. If a consumer is injured as a result of the negligent act of the manufacturer , the latter is liable.’.
PRECEDENT is Legal principle, created by a court decision, which provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later. Generally, decisions of higher courts (within a particular system of courts) are mandatory precedent on lower courts within that system--that is, the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time to time a higher court will adopt the reasoning and conclusion of a lower court. Decisions by courts of the same level (usually appellate courts) are considered persuasive authority. That is, they should always be carefully considered by the later court but need not be followed. As a practical matter, courts can usually find precedent for any direction they want to go in deciding a particular case. Accordingly, precedent is used as often to justify a particular outcome in a case as it is to guide the decision.The body of judicial decisions in which were formulated the points of law arising in any case. A previously decided case that is considered binding in the court where it was issued and in all lower courts in the same jurisdiction.A court decision in an earlier case with facts and law similar to a dispute currently before a court. Precedent will ordinarily govern the decision of a later similar case, unless a party can show that it was wrongly decided or that it differed in some significant way. The decision of courts of justice when exactly in point with a case before the court are generally held to have a binding authority, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady because the law in that case has been solemnly declared and determined.To render precedents valid they must be founded in reason and justice; must have been made upon argument, and be the solemn decision of the court; and in order to give them binding effect there must be a current of decisions. According to Lord Talbot, it is "much better to stick to the known general rules than to follow any one particular precedent which may be founded on reason unknown to us." Blackstone says, that a former decision is in general to be followed unless "manifestly absurd or unjust," and, in the latter case, it is declared when overruled not that the former sentence was bad law, but that it was not law. Precedents can only be useful when they show that the case has been decided upon a certain principle and ought not to be binding when contrary to such principle. If a precedent is to be followed because it is a precedent, even when decided against an established rule of law, there can be no possible correction of abuses because the fact of their existence renders them above the law. It is always safe to rely upon principles."In Law, a previous decision, rule or practice which, in the absence of a definite statute, has whatever force and authority a Judge may choose to give it, thereby greatly simplifying his task of doing as he pleases. As there are precedents for everything, he has only to ignore those that make against his interest and accentuate those in the line of his desire. Invention of the precedent elevates the trial-at-law from the low estate of a fortuitous ordeal to the noble attitude of a dirigible arbitrament.
A precedent which must be applied or followed is known as mandatory precedent or binding authority. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must have regard to mandatory precedent when deciding a case. Mandatory precedent is usually created by superior courts and is binding on lower courts. By definition the decisions of lower courts are not binding on superior courts, although superior courts may often adopt the legal reasoning of lower courts.In extraordinary circumstances a superior court may overturn or overrule mandatory precedent, but will often attempt to distinguish the precedent before overturning it, thereby limiting the scope of the precedent in any event. In a case of first impression there is no mandatory precedent for the court to consider.A precedent which is not mandatory but which is useful or relevant is known as persuasive precedent or advisory precedent. In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through the adoption of the persuasive precedent by a superior court. law, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule which a court may need to adopt when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The term may also refer to the collective body of case law which a court should consider when interpreting the law. When a precedent establishes an important legal principal, or represents new or changed law on a particular issue, that precedent is often known as a landmark decision.
A precedent which must be applied or followed is known as mandatory precedent or binding authority. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must have regard to mandatory precedent when deciding a case. Mandatory precedent is usually created by superior courts and is binding on lower courts. By definition the decisions of lower courts are not binding on superior courts, although superior courts may often adopt the legal reasoning of lower courts.In extraordinary circumstances a superior court may overturn or overrule mandatory precedent, but will often attempt to distinguish the precedent before overturning it, thereby limiting the scope of the precedent in any event. In a case of first impression there is no mandatory precedent for the court to consider.A precedent which is not mandatory but which is useful or relevant is known as persuasive precedent or advisory precedent. In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through the adoption of the persuasive precedent by a superior court.
The first is the rule that a decision made by a higher court is binding precedent which a lower court cannot overturn. This is similar to the Leninist principle of party organisation known as democratic centralism, in that they both insist that a commitment at only the highest level of an organisation is necessary to commit that organisation at every level, and that the dissenting minority may maintain a differing opinion but are required to obey the majority decision.
The second is the principle that a court should not overturn its own precedents unless there is a strong reason to do so and should be guided by principles from lateral and lower courts. The second principle is an advisory one which courts can and do occasionally ignore.
Vertical stare decisis
Generally, a common law court system has trial courts, intermediate appellate courts and a supreme court. The lower courts administer most day-to-day justice. The lower courts are bound to follow precedents established by the appellate court for their region and the supreme court. Appellate courts are only bound to follow supreme court decisions. The application of the doctrine of stare decisis from a higher court to a lower court is sometimes called vertical stare decisis.
Horizontal stare decisis
In the Uk court system, the intermediate appellate courts are divided into "circuits". Each panel of judges on the court of appeals for a circuit is bound to follow the prior appellate decisions of the same circuit. Precedents of a Uk court of appeals may be overruled only by the court en banc, that is, a session of all the active appellate judges of the circuit, or by the Uk Supreme Court.
The British House of Lords was not bound to follow its own decisions until the case London Street Tramways v London County Council [1898] AC 375. After this case, once the House had given a ruling on a point of law, the matter was closed unless and until Parliament made a change by statute.This situation changed, however, after the issuance of the Practice Statement of 1966. It enabled the House of Lords to adapt English law to meet changing social conditions. In R v G & R 2003, the House of Lords overruled its decision in Caldwell 1981, which had allowed the House to establish mens rea ("guilty mind") by measuring a defendant's conduct against that of a "reasonable person," regardless of the defendant's actual state of mind.However, the Practice Statement has seldom been applied by the House of Lords, usually only as a last resort. As of 2005, the House of Lords has rejected its past decisions no more than 20 times. They are reluctant to use it because they fear to introduce uncertainty into the law. In R v Kansal (2002), the majority of House members took the view that R v Lambert (a previous case) had been wrongly decided, but declined to depart from their earlier decision.
And while lower courts are bound in theory by higher court precedent, in practice judges may sometimes attempt to evade precedents, by distinguishing them on spurious grounds. The appeal of a decision that does not follow precedent might not occur, however, as the expense of an appeal may prevent the losing party from doing so. Thus the lower court decision may stand even though it does not follow the higher court decision, as the only way a decision can enter the appeal process is by application of one of the parties bound by it.Occasionally, the application of prior case law results in court decisions which the judge explicitly states personal disagreement with the judgment he or she has rendered, but that he or she is required to do so by binding precedent, that is, the issue at hand was already decided by a higher court. Note that binding precedent is thus distinct from stare decisis, which are decisions from lateral courts, lower courts, or the same court, and affords deviation based upon "compelling justification”
Binding and Persuasive Precedent
To be binding the precedent must be contained within the ratio decidendi, and Be a decision made by a higher ( or in certain cases, the same) court. Persuasive Precedent is if a precedent is not contained in the ratio then no matter what court it was made, it is not binding, merely persuasive.
Advantages
a. There is certainty in the law . By looking at existing precedents it is possible to forecast what a decision will be and plan accordingly.
b. There is uniformity in the law . Similar cases will be treated in the same way. This is important to give the system a sense of justice and to make the system acceptable to the public.
c. Judicial precedent is flexible. There are a number of ways to avoid precedents and this enables the system to change and to adapt to new situations.
d. Judicial precedent is practical in nature, it is based on real facts, unlike legislation.
e. Judicial precedent is detailed. There is a wealth of cases to which to refer.
Disadvantages
a. Difficulties can arise in deciding what the ratio decidendi is, particularly if there are a number of reasons.
b. There may be a considerable wait for a case to come to court for a point to be decided.
c. Cases can easily be distinguished on their facts to avoid following an inconvenient precedent.
C.) The decisions of which courts are binding on the decisions of which other courts?
The decisions of which courts are binding on the decisions of which other courts
That is like this The decisions of The house of lords is binding on all courts below it and is bound by no other court but except the Court of Justice but if it were bound by its own decisions, the system could become too rigid whereby the judges would have to await legislation through Parliament to correct any mistakes they made at that level. The decisions made by House of Lord will binding all court like Court of Appeal , The High Court ,Crown Courts , last County courts and Magistrates because high from all court The House of Lord is binding on all courts below it and is bound by no other court (except the Court of Justice).
Rather than rely of the whims of the legislature, the house of lords decided by a Practice Direction { a decision as to its own procedure} in 1966 that it was not to be bound by its own previous decision, though it continues to recognize the value of certainty and so will depart form earlier decisions only in rare cases.
Starting with the highest authority, the House of lords, we find that this body was bound by its own decisions (London Street Tramways v London County Council [1898] AC 375), except, for example , where the previous decision had been made per incuriam, i.e. where an important case or statute was not brought to the attention of the court when the previous decision was made . However , in July 1966, the house of lords abolished the rule that their own decisions on points of law were absolutely binding upon themselves. The Lord Chancellor announced the change on behalf of himself and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in the following statement ; Their Lordship regard the use of precedent as an indispensable foundation upon which to decide what is the law and its application to individual cases. It provides at least some degree of certainty upon which individuals can rely in the conduct of their affairs , as well as a basis for orderly development of legal rules.
Their Lordship regard the use of precedent as an indispensable foundation upon which to decide what is the law and its application to individual cases . it provides at least some degree of certainty upon which individuals can rely in the conduct of their affairs , as well as a basis for orderly development of legal rules. Their Lordships nevertheless recognize that too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case and also unduly restrict the proper development of the law. They propose therefore to modify their present practice and, while treating former decisions of this House as normally binding, to depart from a previous decision when it appears right to do so. In this connection they will bear in mind the danger of disturbing retrospectively the basis on which contracts, settlements of property and fiscal arrangements have been entered into and also the special need for certainty as to the criminal law. This announcement is not intended to affect the use of precedent elsewhere than in this house.
A practice direction issued in March 1971 by the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords requires lawyers concerned with the preparation of cases of appeal to state clearly in a separate paragraph of the case any intention to invite the House to depart from one of its own decisions.
The declaration was not used for over 20 years to overrule decisions in the field of criminal law. It has now been used in the context of crime . For example , in R v Howe [1987] 2 WLR 568, the House of lords overruled its previous decision in DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975] 1 All ER 913 which had decided that duress could be a defence in a prosecution for murder . R v Howe removes the defence of duress from the law relating to murder altogether so that the defence is now never available to any participant in murder.
The Court of Appeal is bound by the House of Lord even if it considers them to be wrong, but is binding on all courts below it. That is Divisional Courts and the High Court create precedent. The court of appeal is normally bound by its own previous decisions in civil cases as well as those of the House of Lord.
The court of Appeal (Civil Division) is next rung of the hierarchy and this court is bound by its own previous decisions , as well as by those of the House of Lords (Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co [1944] 2 All ER 2930). There are however , two main exceptions to the above rule.
(a) if there are two conflicting decisions of its own on the case before it the Court may choose which one to follow.
(b) The court will not follow a decision of its own if that decision is inconsistent with a decision of the House of Lords or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council . Thus Repolmis [ 1921] 3 KB 560, A court Court of Appeal decision which said that in negligence all direct harm was actionable even if not foreseeable , was disapproved of by the privy Coucil in the Wagon Mound, 1961 (see Chapter 20) and was not subsequently followed by the Court of Appeal.
The decisions of the court of Appeal ( Civil Division) are binding on the lower civil courts , i.e the High court and the County court. On the criminal side, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) is bound by the decisions of the House of lords and normally by its own decisions and those of the former Court of Criminal Appeal and the earlier Court for Crown Cases Reserved. However , an ordinary court of there judges in the Criminal Division may deviate from previous decisions more easily than the Civil Division because different considerations apply in a criminal appeal where the liberty of the accused is at stake and in any case a full court of the Criminal Division can overrule its own previous decisions. A full court generally consists of five judges instead of three as is usual in an ordinary sitting. A decision of the Civil Division is not binding on the criminal Division and vice versa. Decisions of the Criminal Division are binding on lower criminal courts , i.e. the Crown Court and Magistrates’ Courts.
Divisional Courts
Divisional Courts are, in civil cases , bound by the decisions of the House of Lords the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and generally by their own previous decisions. However, a Divisional Court of Queen’s Bench decided in R v Greater Manchester Coroner , ex parte Tal [1984] 3 All ER 240 that a divisional court would normally follow a previous decision of another Divisional Court but could in rare cases exercise its power to refuse to follow a previous Divisional Court decision if the court was convinced that the previous decision was wrong . In criminal cases there is, under ss 12-15 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, an appeal from the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division straight to the House of Lords , and the Divisional Court is not bound by the decisions of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. The decisions of Divisional Courts are binding on judges of the High Court sitting alone and on Magistrates’ Courts but not on Crown Courts .
The High Court
The High Court is bound by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords but is not bound by other High Court decisions. At first instance (Huddersfield Police Authority v Watson [1947] 2 All ER 193). Nevertheless such a judge will treat previous decisions as of strong persuasive authority. If a judge of the High Court refuses to follow a previous decision on a similar point of law the law Reports will contain two decisions by judges of equal authority and the cases will remain in conflict until the same point of law is taken to appeal before a higher tribunal whose decision will resolve the position
Crown Courts
Decisions made on points of law by judges sitting at the Crown court are not binding though they are of persuasive authority. A judge sitting in the Crown Court , the jurisdictiuon of which is largely confined to criminal cases, is bound by decisions made in criminal matters by the House of Lords and Court of Appeal
County Courts
The decisions of these courts are not binding. The magistrates courts deal with most of the less serious criminal matters in this country At something like the same level County courts were created by the County Courts Act 1846 ,operate the chief lower courts for the trial of civil disputes , and a large number of cases are heard in these courts annually. And the decisions of this courts not binding all the courts .
Magistrates' Court
The overwhelming majority of the public who come into contact with the court system will do so with the magistrates' court, and there are more than 700 magistrates' courts in England and Wales. It is rare for the sort of cases dealt with in these courts to grab the nation's attention, or hit the headlines. However, these courts are a vital cog in the wheel of justice, and nearly all of the UK's criminals will pass through their doors.In our massively complex society, which is governed by a myriad of rules, the magistrate's courts perform a fast and relatively cheap public service, handling everything from common assault to driving while disqualified.
This courts are bound by the decisions of the higher courts like House of Lord . Their own decisions are not reported officially and have no binding force on other courts at the same level.

1.What is meant by judicial independence ?
Judicial independence is the doctrine that decisions of the judiciary should be impartial and not subject to influence from the other branches of government or from private or political interests. In most cases, judicial independence is secured by giving judges long, and sometimes lifetime, tenure and making them not easily removable.Judicial independence is important in any country in the world because for example if not have Judicial independence in the country it bring a lot impact in cases in court for information the judged must fell safe and in protection form political big name. So the justice exit in the country and everybody fell safety so because of this the Judicial independence is very important. Judicial independence is the doctrine that decisions of the judiciary should be impartial and not subject to influence form the other branches of government or from private or political interests. In most cases, judicial independence is secured by giving judges long, and sometimes lifetime, tenure and making them not easily removable.
Judicial independence means that judges are free to decide cases fairly and impartially, relying only on the facts and the law . It means that judges are protected from political pressure, legislative pressure, special interest pressure, media pressure, public pressure, financial pressure, or even personal pressure. Judicial independence is important matters because “ The law makes a promise neutrality. If the promise gets broken, the law as we know it ceases to exist” Anthony M. Kennedy form Supreme Court Justice say that . and it design and devoted to protecting the rights and liberties of all . By interpreting state and federal constitutions, the judicial branch checks the will of the legislature and executive , to ensure that all citizens , whether part of the majority or not, are allowed equal access to all rights and liberties guaranteed them.
Justice depends upon the ability of judges to render impartial decisions based upon open-minded and unbiased consideration of the facts and the law in each case. This ability, in turn, depends upon the independence of judges from external political and economic pressures. Independence puts judges in a position to check the excessive use of power by the other branches of government and to ensure that no one is above the law, thereby defending even the weakest members of our society from violations of their rights. The perception of judicial independence is essential to maintaining public trust and confidence in the courts. Without the ability to engender respect and support from the public, the judiciary would have limited power to hand down decisions that are sometimes politically unpopular. Wide public acceptance of and obedience to even highly controversial decisions involving election outcomes, the death penalty, and religious beliefs are possible because the public believes that outcomes result from a process that is not predetermined but in which independent judges strive faithfully to apply the laws to specific cases.
Within the United Kingdom , the judiciary manifests independence in both decisional processes and institutional operations. Decisional independence is the more fundamental attribute and the one that is most familiar to governmental systems outside the United Kingdom. Without it, judicial impartiality would be questionable and governmental checks and balances diminished. Institutional independence is less common, relating more to the United Kingdom model of governmental structure, and has been less uniformly experienced during our nation’s history, particularly among the states. This institutional aspect addresses the courts’ ability to administer their own operations as part of an independent branch of government, rather than as a dependent agency of the executive or legislative branches, which is the model in many other nations.
Judicial independence may be threatened in several ways—by ill-conceived actions by the other branches of government, by manipulation of judicial selection processes, by threats from members of the public, and by the failure of the judiciary to manage its own affairs effectively. The most potent threats to decisional independence involve attacks on judicial selection processes and judicial compensation.
2.what are the key factors that to ensure judicial independence in the British system?
The key factors that to ensure judicial independence in the British system is selection in order to try and promote the independence of the judiciary, the selection process is designed to minimize political interference judges, individually and collectively, and the other distinct branches of government. Relatively little attention tends to be paid to the process of initial selection for judicial office. When the selection process is addressed, it often takes the form of considering the extent to which it is appropriate for the appointing branch of government to engage others in the process of determining who should receive a judicial appointment. The process by which judicial appointments are made, however, can and does have an effect on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. That judicial independence is an absolute necessity for the protection of these rights is reason enough for governments in every country to have the constitutional, statutory, and administrative structures necessary to support judicial independence.An independent judiciary, free from undo influence, also helps safeguard the supremacy of law and ensure against the arbitrary exercise of power. Courts are often called upon to decide whether another branch of government has exceeded the limits placed on its authority by constitutional or other law. In ruling on such issues, the courts provide a most important, if not the only, credible means of challenging the abuse of governmental authority.
Thus, how might an independent judiciary be defined? One commentator defined such a judiciary as one that is free, in the discharge of its duties and responsibilities, from the influences of persons or institutions in the executive and legislative branches of government and from persons and organizations outside the government, who might wish to encourage the making of judicial decisions otherwise than by law. Within an independent judiciary, orders, decisions, and judgments are made by a judge on the basis of law and the application of recognized and established legal principles and rules, and not on the basis of the status of one or more of the parties before the court, by the dictates or influence of some person within or without the government, or by the direction or influence of some government or non-government official or agency this is key factors that to ensure judicial independence in the British system make sure judges rely can their work without others fear to power person.
Pay & RewardsThe pay of judges is determined by an independent pay review body. The pay of judges is determined by an independent pay review body. It will make recommendations to the government having taken evidence from a variety of sources. The government accepts these recommendations and will traditionally implement them fully. In a very general sense, two types of judiciary systems exist throughout the world. The two types can appropriately be characterized as the "career judiciary" and the "recognition judiciary." The essence of a career judiciary is that judges are appointed to junior positions and rise through the ranks by way of promotion to reach increasingly senior positions. In addition, such systems will often involve some sort of permanent tenure. Both tenure and promotions may be awarded only after a period of performance-based review. Additionally, the award of tenure and promotions to other than senior positions are typically made according to the recommendation of a panel of judges. Therefore, the way in which such a system will influence the independence and impartiality of each individual judge within the judiciary as a whole is an issue of real importance. Additional considerations regarding the independence of individual judges might include whether tenure protects against a reduction in salary, demotion to a lower court, or transfer to a different court of equal seniority. In short, the important question is whether individual judges are in a position to maintain individual independence within the greater body of the Independent will managed all this about pay and Rewards this one of key factors that to ensure judicial independence in the British system
Regulation The legal profession is a self regulating profession , for example it is responsible for its own professional standards and for dealing with those who fall short . In this case , the bodies are the Bar Council and the Law Society. Yes body will do all think form rewards , salary , where judges work all do by the Bar Council and Law Society.
Security of Tenure Security of Tenure is judges can in their until they resign own self nobody can fair judges this security of judges so judges can make good decisions in courts because they save form any power person who want attack him As long as judges hold their positions in “ good order”, they remain in post until they wish to retire or until they reach 70. yes if the juges in good condition they can work judges until reach 70. in court no any body can ugut the judges in court judges is like prime Minster also the prime Minster cannot say anything in court against judges in court so is show the power of law is also key factors that to ensure judicial independence in the British system
Political Conventions
There are two important conventions which help to preserve judicial independence.
Parliament does not comment on the cases which are before the court .Under a principle known as “Parliamentary Privilege”, MPs are protected form prosecution in certain circumstances by the court. Yes is one of key factors that to ensure judicial independence in the British system Selection In order to try and promote the independence of the judiciary, the selection process is designed to minimise political interference. The process focuses on senior members of the judiciary rather than on politicians.
References form internet
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/malaysia.htm -ini psl malaaysia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts_of_Malaysia---psl malaysia
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/world/malaysia.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts_of_Malaysia
www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/courtsys.htm
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/judicial%5findepence
www.writ.corporate.findlaw.com/mariner/20030610.html
www.lawcom.gov.uk
www.legalservices.gov.uk
www.bbc.co.uk/law
www.bized.co.uk
www.cjsonline.org
www.cjsonline.org
www.cps.gov.uk
www.criminal-justice-system.gov.uk
www.dca.gov.uk
www.eurunion.org
www.lawcom.gov.uk
References form book
The Malaysian Legal System , Wu Min Aun , Longman
ENGLISH LAW , Twelfth Edition , Denis Keenan

1 comment:

  1. There is no English Parliament. It is still the British Parliament, but it is able to legislate on domestic matters only for England. It is able to do this with votes from MPs elected in Scotland, N. Ireland and Wales who have no control on domestic matters in Scotland, N. Ireland and Wales.

    It still decides on UK matters such as foreign policy, defence and the overall budget for the UK.

    England is the only country in Europe without its own elected parliament or assembly.

    ReplyDelete