Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 100456	2009-06-08 13:47:00	Privy Council	Sweep (90)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
780633	2009-06-09 07:23:00	OK. Fine. But you and I both know that the Judges do not MAKE the law as such do they? Judges do make law - most definitely. Their decisions form the corpus of law known as the common law. However, parliament remains the supreme law making body - but there are certainly persons and bodies able to make law. Contracts are actually laws passed between individuals and parties of individuals and enforceable in courts of record. Also, the regulations of incorporated societies and associations are able to be subjected to judicial review.	Deane F (8204)
780634	2009-06-09 07:53:00	If you have a British passport you can also have a NZ Passport for example. When I lived in Australia for some years I qualified to become an Australian Citizen but if I had taken that option I would not qualify to hold a NZ passport. That's another one of the things that pees me of . Poms who have lived here since they were kids still refuse to have a NZ passport. "Must have a UK you know, you can travel to more places.." If it's good enough to live here all your life why not a NZ passport..	paulw (1826)
780635	2009-06-09 11:27:00	OK . . . . People swear when they get married to stay together "until death us do part" . It does not say "I will stay as long as I feel like it . " They are married forever, or until they give the court some money .	R2x1 (4628)
780636	2009-06-09 13:12:00	Judges do make law - most definitely. Their decisions form the corpus of law known as the common law. However, parliament remains the supreme law making body - but there are certainly persons and bodies able to make law. Contracts are actually laws passed between individuals and parties of individuals and enforceable in courts of record. Also, the regulations of incorporated societies and associations are able to be subjected to judicial review. Judges do not make law as such. Precedents are a different matter. My view is not toward contracts as such but more toward a person or persons being convicted of a criminal offence. Have you ever known a Judge to make a law? I agree that laws are made with the help of the public in general and may include the local Council Bylaws but a Bylaw may not overide any laws made by Parliament for example.	Sweep (90)
780637	2009-06-09 21:55:00	Well the Poms had to do this otherwise people from ex colonies like Africa, India, Bangladesh,Pakistan would have moved there although in their droves and swamped the English way of life. I understand why the Poms couldn't differentiate between Commonwealth countries even if we from Australia, Australia and Canada descended from pomgolia. Yeah it does grate that Hungarians, Italians, Germans, and Austrians have free access into pomgolia especially as we helped the poms give them a hiding in the 2 world wars. Take my word for it,the average pom prefers NZmOZ Can b4 foreign types,but do gooders win as usual. They made them take a statue of a pig out of town square because it offended the Muslims,argue against and you are a racist.	Cicero (40)
780638	2009-06-09 22:05:00	We have had them complaining about tame bus shelter ads in Mt Roskill because they show a shapely female. They say its not right to have them in their area especially near their mosque in St Lukes. I have no doubt the people who do the ads wont post them in these areas soon. The ads wouldn't be the same with chicks wearing a burka and that sack type dress they wear.	prefect (6291)
780639	2009-06-09 22:23:00	So we let them win,so much for cricket!	Cicero (40)
780640	2009-06-09 23:45:00	Have you ever known a Judge to make a law? Yes. In the cases of R v Poumako and R v Pora the judges in the Court of Appeal were ruling on an appeal about the penalties for home invasion. Those penalties had been increased and that the increase was active retrospectively - that is to say, even though the law increasing the penalties was passed after the appellants committed the crimes in question, parliament meant for offenders still to be liable for the increased penalties even if their crimes had taken place before the law was passed. In both cases the appellants won their appeals. The judges found that the law change was not consistent with the Bill of Rights Act and that parliament had not been specific enough in the law change about overriding the Bill of Rights Act. His Honour Justice Thomas (in R v Poumako) even said the law change "is incompatible with the cardinal tenets of a liberal democracy." Another easy to spot case in which law was most definitely made by judges is the famous "Lands Case" - New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641.	Deane F (8204)
780641	2009-06-10 00:15:00	Yes. In the cases of R v Poumako and R v Pora the judges in the Court of Appeal were ruling on an appeal about the penalties for home invasion. Those penalties had been increased and that the increase was active retrospectively - that is to say, even though the law increasing the penalties was passed after the appellants committed the crimes in question, parliament meant for offenders still to be liable for the increased penalties even if their crimes had taken place before the law was passed. In both cases the appellants won their appeals. The judges found that the law change was not consistent with the Bill of Rights Act and that parliament had not been specific enough in the law change about overriding the Bill of Rights Act. His Honour Justice Thomas (in R v Poumako) even said the law change "is incompatible with the cardinal tenets of a liberal democracy." Another easy to spot case in which law was most definitely made by judges is the famous "Lands Case" - New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641. You just do not get it do you. It was Parliament that drafted and enacted the law rather than the Court. The Judges simply interpreted the law as it stood and it is the fault of Parliament that the law(s) were not specific. No wonder when we have the situation where laws are made under urgency when the law makers are half asleep anyway. Possibly also the law makers are not getting the correct advice either.	Sweep (90)
780642	2009-06-10 00:29:00	You just do not get it do you. It was Parliament that drafted and enacted the law rather than the Court. The Judges simply interpreted the law as it stood and it is the fault of Parliament that the law(s) were not specific. Um, I suggest that it is you that is "just not getting it". Parliament might draft and enact a law - but law is absolutely worthless unless it is applicable and sensible in the real world. To claim that judges simply interpret law is missing the point entirely. Law is only real and meaningful to the extent that it can be enforced (and to the extent that it is observed by the citizenry - ie: civil obedience). We have a "common law" system. Our law consists of acts of Parliament and decisions of the courts. In almost any case in court that you could look at in which there is legal argument both acts of Parliament and decisions of the court that are on point are cited. The principle of stare decisis means that judges are bound just as much by decisions of superior courts as they are by the enactment itself. Therefore, the law insofar as it is enforced is informed both by acts of Parliament and judges. Any first year law student will tell you that judges make law. It is elementary.	Deane F (8204)
1 2 3 4