Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896934455

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-236504

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 1

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: LI, 568 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part II. The executive Government

Collection:: Economics Books

cusp. vl THE GOVERNOR AND THE LAW 281 authority of that martial law was necessary, was sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Court to inquire into the propriety of the act. At the same time, looking to the fact that the situation in the Colony was in the eyes of the Executive so serious that martial law was still in force, he was not prepared to dispose of the application without giving the respondents an opportunity of filing a further affidavit stating the grounds on which the necessity arose. With this view Broome J. concurred. As a matter of fact, no further steps were taken in the matter, as the Indemnity Act received the royal assent, and it was not thought necessary to deal with the matter further in the Courts of the Colony. On the other hand, attempts were made in England to obtain an adjudication of the Privy Council on the question. In the first place it was sought to bring an appeal from the decision of the Court Martial in Natal on the question, but, as has been seen above, the Privy Council rejected the attempt! on the express ground that the Indemnity Act was binding upon the Court, and that therefore it was quite impossible for any action to be taken by the Colonial Govern- ment in the matter. It is clear from the judgement that the Privy Council were not prepared to deny that it was open to the Court to examine the question whether or not a state of war was actually existing, and the remark of Lord Halsbury shows clearly that the decision in the case of Marais 2 must not be deemed to assert that the mere state- ment that war is raging is sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Court. It might be noted too that a line of argument which might have been adopted does not seem to have been urged ; the Indemnity Act provided that the sentences should be confirmed and prisoners still detained treated as though they were detained under ordinary sentences of the civil Courts.- It might have been contended that by making the sentences equivalent to those of the civil Courts a right of appeal from such sentences was brought into existence, but it is very improbable that such a contention would have 1 119071 A. C. 93; above, pp. 272-4. 2 11902] A. C. 109.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 1)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation