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

CHAP. IIT] JUDICIAL APPEALS 1377 tralia, and New Zealand. It was argued by Mr. Justice Hodges that there was a danger of conflicting decisions between the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee, and that the House of Lords was preferred at the ex- pense of the Judicial Committee in respect of its com- position, while a single Court would further the unity of the Empire, and this view received support in this country. But the other delegates at the Conference of 1901 were not in favour of any substantial change. The question of judicial appeals was discussed at the Colonial Conference of 1907. The Commonwealth then put forward a resolution, that it was desirable to establish an Imperial Court of Appeal, and Mr. Deakin dealt with it at length! He then made certain complaints against the Judicial Committee. He pointed out that only four judges sat on the case of Webb v. Outtrim,? despite the fundamental importance of that case, and he urged that the House of Lords was preferred by Australian lawyers to the Judicial Committee. He said that the desires of Australia would be satisfied if arrangements could be made to transfer Australian appeals from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the House of Lords, leaving it free for the other parts of the Empire to go to the Judicial Committee if they desired. He pointed out also the conflict between the Judicial Com- mittee and the High Court of Australia, which had arisen with regard to the income-tax cases. He quoted with approval the recommendations of Mr. Justice Hodges in 1901, and it is possible that he meant that the Common- wealth would accept the House of Lords as a Final Court when it would not accept the Judicial Committee. Dr. Jameson, on behalf of the Cape Colony, preferred the Judicial Committee ; it is significant that the reason which he gave was the presence in that body of Sir H. de Villiers, and he assumed that if the House of Lords was the final Court, it would not be possible to provide for representation of the Colonies. Mr. Deakin pointed out to him that this See Parl. Pap., Cd. 3523, pp. 200 seq. 119071 A. C. 81.

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