Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

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:: 1896935311

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-237672

Document type:: Volume

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

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 3

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XII Seiten, Seiten 1102-1670

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

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

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part VI. The judiciary

Collection:: Economics Books

“HAP. 1] THE TENURE OF JUDICIAL OFFICES 1339 In the case of Natal, however, special provision was made by the local Act?! that it would be lawful for the Crown on the address from both Houses of Parliament to remove the judges, and it is clear that the power of amotion which was granted by Burke’s Act remained unaffected. In all these cases the right of the Crown to dismiss for misbehaviour by a scire facias or a criminal information at the suit of the Attorney-General presumably remained unaffected, though the power is of no real moment. A new departure to some extent was made by the Common- wealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900. It was there laid down with regard to the judges as follows :— S. 72.2 The Judges of the High Court and of the other Courts created by the Parliament— L. Shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council ; 2. Shall not be removed except by the Governor-General in Council on an Address from both Houses of Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. 3. Shall receive such remuneration as Parliament may fix, but the remuneration shall not be diminished during their zontinuance in office. Under the Judiciary Act of 1903 there were three judges, 50 whom two were added by Act No. 5 of 1906. The salaries are £3,000 a year, and £3,500 for the Chief Justice. It will be noted that proved misbehaviour or incapacity is laid down as the ground of removal? but it is clear that it would still have rested on the Parliament to decide what proof it would ask of such incapacity or misbehaviour. ' No. 14 of 1893, ss. 43-5 (the usual provision against alteration of salaries is made in s. 45). ' 63 & 64 Vict. c. 12, Const. ' Therefore no other mode of removal (as by scire facias, &c.) would be available ; see Quick and Garran, op. cit., p. 730. The British practice (Todd, Parliamentary Government in England, ii. 857 seq.) allows removal (1) for misbehaviour, (2) on address of Parliament, which may be based on less than misbehaviour. In Australia and the Union there must be mis- behaviour, and an address is the mode of procedure indicated to show that misbehaviour has occurred. See also Harrison Moore. Commonwealth of Australia? pp. 200-5.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation