C Parliamentary Sovereignty v Bikie Laws
The doctrine of separation of powers works alongside that of parliamentary sovereignty, in that the parliament decisions reign of all others. In practice, the parliament can enforce and create laws that override court decisions, which the court has to enforce. The laws being enforced in the case of R v Brown, enacted by the Queensland Parliament include mandatory requirements for the courts, such as mandatory refusal of bail. These target those who are alleged bikie members, bikie members or members by association. This limits the unfettered independent decisions of the courts, as they now must follow the obligatory sentences set by the laws of Parliament. This blurs the lines of separation of powers …show more content…
The Crime and Misconduct Regulations 2005 (Qld) and the Criminal Code (Criminal Organisations) Regulation 2013 (Qld), both in Queensland have listed particular ‘gangs.’ The Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Bill 2013 (Qld) in particular sets out a further mandatory 15-year sentence on top of the sentence that would be given for the offence in question. The Tattoo Parlours Act 2013 (Qld) also bans the particular criminal organisations and members from owning, operating or working in tattoo parlours. These laws limit the freedom and liberties of members in our society. Australia is signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 25 states that “every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity … to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives … to have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.” However, these laws are directly targeting certain members of society, thereby contradicting international law that we are signatory to. This non-compliance is a principle of Bingham’s eight principles of rule of law that international law must be complied with. Other principles of the rule of law proposed by Bingham are to “afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights” and laws which should apply equally to all …show more content…
However, judges make decisions based on public perception, and thus this upholds the independence of the judiciary, making decisions with complete discretion. The independence of the judiciary is protected through s 72 of the Constitution, which protects the tenure and remuneration of the federal judges. With the guarantee and security of tenure, judges are not held accountable to external opinion and public perception. This means that the federal judges do not need to be threatened or adhere to the Executive or the general public, as it is only the Governor-General that can discharge them. The functions that were given to the Chapter III courts in Kable could not be conferred so as to diminish public confidence. Therefore, although the case of R v Brown highlighted that the mere statement of Premier Newman was insufficient to cause the public to undermine the judiciary, the functions of Chapter III courts should not be given, so as to diminish the public confidence in the court’s impartial exercise of judicial power. The legislation that was limiting the discretion of the courts in R v Brown, which further caused debate, are creating a potential for public confidence of the courts to be weakened in their impartial exercise of judicial
The doctrine of separation of powers works alongside that of parliamentary sovereignty, in that the parliament decisions reign of all others. In practice, the parliament can enforce and create laws that override court decisions, which the court has to enforce. The laws being enforced in the case of R v Brown, enacted by the Queensland Parliament include mandatory requirements for the courts, such as mandatory refusal of bail. These target those who are alleged bikie members, bikie members or members by association. This limits the unfettered independent decisions of the courts, as they now must follow the obligatory sentences set by the laws of Parliament. This blurs the lines of separation of powers …show more content…
The Crime and Misconduct Regulations 2005 (Qld) and the Criminal Code (Criminal Organisations) Regulation 2013 (Qld), both in Queensland have listed particular ‘gangs.’ The Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Bill 2013 (Qld) in particular sets out a further mandatory 15-year sentence on top of the sentence that would be given for the offence in question. The Tattoo Parlours Act 2013 (Qld) also bans the particular criminal organisations and members from owning, operating or working in tattoo parlours. These laws limit the freedom and liberties of members in our society. Australia is signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 25 states that “every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity … to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives … to have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.” However, these laws are directly targeting certain members of society, thereby contradicting international law that we are signatory to. This non-compliance is a principle of Bingham’s eight principles of rule of law that international law must be complied with. Other principles of the rule of law proposed by Bingham are to “afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights” and laws which should apply equally to all …show more content…
However, judges make decisions based on public perception, and thus this upholds the independence of the judiciary, making decisions with complete discretion. The independence of the judiciary is protected through s 72 of the Constitution, which protects the tenure and remuneration of the federal judges. With the guarantee and security of tenure, judges are not held accountable to external opinion and public perception. This means that the federal judges do not need to be threatened or adhere to the Executive or the general public, as it is only the Governor-General that can discharge them. The functions that were given to the Chapter III courts in Kable could not be conferred so as to diminish public confidence. Therefore, although the case of R v Brown highlighted that the mere statement of Premier Newman was insufficient to cause the public to undermine the judiciary, the functions of Chapter III courts should not be given, so as to diminish the public confidence in the court’s impartial exercise of judicial power. The legislation that was limiting the discretion of the courts in R v Brown, which further caused debate, are creating a potential for public confidence of the courts to be weakened in their impartial exercise of judicial