English Legal System & Constitutional Law (Including Retained EU Law) – A Case Study on DPP of Jamaica vs. Mollison

Introduction

In this assignment, the topic of discussion is the case of the director of public prosecutions of Jamaica vs. Mollison. The decision was held in 2003 And the comment of justice Ruler Bingham ‘Whatever covers there might be … between the activity of chief and authoritative powers, the partition between the activity of legal powers from one viewpoint and administrative and leader powers on the other is complete or viably so.’ acknowledged in UKPC 6 at para. 13 of the said instance of the Director of public arraignments of Jamaica v. Mollison. In this report, the Critical assessment of how much Lord Bingham precisely portrays the degree of the partition of abilities inside the UK today will be talked about alongside the effect the authority ought to have on the division of abilities and the pragmatic effect of that power and regardless of whether it advances the points of the precept of the detachment of abilities.

Case of DPP of Jamaica v Mollison [2003] and Judgement

A sentence of detainment at the joy of the Governor-General of Jamaica, as approved by area 29(1) of the Juveniles Act 1951, was contradictory with the Jamaican Constitution since it abused the protected rule that legal capacities, for example, condemning, and so forth ought to be practiced by the legal executive rather than the chief. A sentence of life in jail with a suggestion for the base time frame to be served couldn’t be fill in for such a discipline under the law. The main punishment that could be forced was confinement at the watchfulness of the court. The Defendant was 16 years of age when he carried out the wrongdoing of capital homicide in 1994. Following his conviction, he was condemned to confinement for the Governor-joy Generals under segment 29(1) of the Juveniles Act 1951. Respondent recorded an allure, guaranteeing that Section 29(1) of the Jamaican Constitution, which was made in 1962, was hostile with it. He contended, specifically, that a sentence approving his detainment at the chief’s circumspection, as the Governor-General, was contradictory with his sacred right, ensured by areas 15 and 20 of the Constitution, not to be denied of his freedom besides in the execution of a court’s sentence or request. The Court of Appeal maintained Defendant’s allure and supplanted the previously mentioned discipline. The appealing party (‘the DPP’) tested the incongruence assurance, guaranteeing that segment 26(8) of the Constitution explicitly kept up with any regulation that existed before the Constitution.

These decisions were held:

1. The Board accepted Defendant’s contention that the executive’s ability to hold him at will violated the constitutional concept that judicial tasks (such as a sentence) must be undertaken solely by the judiciary.^[1]
2. While the Constitution specifically maintained any pre-existing law, it did not make such laws immune to constitutional attack.
3. The Board did not doubt that the court had the authority to change or modify section 29 of the 1951 Act to make it constitutionally compliant.
4. The only penalty that could be imposed was detention at the discretion of the court. Make a decision based on your findings.^[2]

Assessment of the case

After the discussion of the case and the result of the case held in the court in 2003, the statement of justice lord B can be evaluated as well as implemented on the concept of today’s situation of separation of powers in form of the executive as well as legislative powers in the United Kingdom.

Critically evaluating the description of Lord Bingham accurately of the separation of powers within the UK today.

The Constitutional Reforms Act of 2005, Section 61, establishes the Judicial Appointments Council, which is responsible for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and courts of appeal. In this context, it can be evaluated that the said judgment of Lord Bingham is true in the present situation of the United Kingdom and the power division of the UK.^[3]

The impact the authority should have on the separation of powers.

In the UK Constitution, there truly is no key rule of division of abilities. Both as far as the motivation behind the public establishments and individuals who work inside the said areas, there are covers. To stay away from abuse of force, the United Kingdom relies upon an established arrangement of check and equilibrium. Examine how governing rules endeavours to stop conceivable abuse of force, just as how much the current government has endeavoured to improve them in the most recent days. The possibility of division of abilities enlivened various masterminds and sacred journalists, including Montesquieu, who all contemplated it. Albeit the United Kingdom’s constitution isn’t composed, it is a brilliant illustration of division of abilities for the remainder of the planet to imitate. The United Kingdom has a division of abilities; in any case, there are apparent hybrids as far as individuals and capacity across the various levels of administration. The authoritative, council and legal specialists should be in every way used inside their individual cut-off points, and they should be generally checked against each other.^[4] Thus, the impact of the division of authority and powers in the governance of the United Kingdom is impactful in today’s world.

The practical impact of that authority.

The Wright Committee presumed that Opposition benches Business Committee will indeed consider giving Politicians further responsibility and influence of the European Parliament initiative, make discussions more pertinent to the general populace, and enhance the oversight function of Choose Committee members, who would be eligible to receive period on the House floor through the Opposition benches Business Committee. The constitution of the United Kingdom is open to the separation of powers examination and that it should be. This, in my opinion, should reflect the change in our understanding of the judiciary duty. This trend is exemplified by the UKSC’s comparative competence, to name just one example. The scope of judiciary authority is defined by relation to an abstract framework of justice in this novel balance of powers, rather than by the initial beliefs about how the judiciary activity is executed.^[5] The Wright Committee assumed that Opposition seats Business Committee will to be sure consider giving Politicians further liability and impact of the European Parliament drive, make conversations more appropriate to the overall people, and improve the oversight capacity of Choose Committee individuals, who might be qualified to get period on the House floor through the Opposition seats Business Committee. The constitution of the United Kingdom is available to the partition of abilities assessment and that it ought to be. This, as I would like to think, ought to mirror the adjustment of how we might interpret the legal executive obligation^[6]. This pattern is exemplified by the UKSC’s relative ability, to name only one model. The extent of legal executive authority is characterized by connection to a theoretical structure of equity in this clever equilibrium of abilities, rather than by the underlying convictions concerning how the legal executive action is executed

Whether it promotes the aims of the doctrine of the separation of powers.

The statement of Lord Bingham is neutral in nature, this statement neither emphasizes the importance of the separation nor disrespects the separation of powers in the United Kingdom. The above-mentioned statement describes the overlap in the powers of the judiciary, legislative, and the executive sector of the United Kingdom parliament or government. On the other hand, this particular statement also gives light to the separation of judicial control from the executive and legislative powers and power holders. The separation of judiciary is important in a country in order to maintain law and order and to give authentic judgments in the cases. There can be a misuse of judicial powers if the executive and legislative council hold the power of the judiciary. This interpretation of the statement makes it clear that the Statement given by Lord Bingham is promoting the doctrine of the separation of powers and also describes the power of justice and truth. Lord Bingham also wanted to describe in this statement that the court decision or the judiciary system must offer an appropriate safeguard for fundamental human rights, and methods must be established for addressing genuine civil matters that the defendants individually seem unable to settle without excessive expense or inconvenience.^[7] The assertion of Lord Bingham is unbiased in nature, this assertion neither underscores the significance of the division nor affronts the partition of abilities in the United Kingdom. The previously mentioned assertion portrays the cross-over in the powers of the legal executive, authoritative, and the leader area of the United Kingdom parliament or government. Then again, this specific assertion additionally gives light to the detachment of legal control from the leader and official powers and power holders. The detachment of legal executive is significant in a country to keep law and control and to give valid decisions in the cases. There can be an abuse of legal powers in the event that the chief and authoritative gathering hold the force of the legal executive.

Conclusion

After the discussion on the case of DPP of Jamaica v, Mollison held in 2003 and critically evaluation of the statement made by Lord Bingham. It can be concluded that Lord Bingham’s view on the separation of the powers in the United Kingdom is to maintain the law and order in the nation and the separation of executive and legislature from the judiciary have a great impact on the judgment and the judiciary process. The statement is also intended to describe the importance of judiciary powers and the nature of justice. The statement also makes it clear that except when objective distinctions necessitate discrimination, the rules of the state should apply evenly to everybody.^[8] Government executives and public officials or legislative at all levels must utilize given abilities in good conscience, equitably, and for the purpose for which powers were granted, without abusing the scope of given authority or acting in an unreasonable manner.

References

‘Separation Of Powers In The UK’ (Lawteacher.net, 2022) <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/family-law/separation-of-powers-in-the-uk.php> accessed 13 January 2022

‘THE RULE OF LAW AND A SEPARATION OF POWERS |’ (Lawexplores.com, 2022) <https://lawexplores.com/the-rule-of-law-and-a-separation-of-powers/> accessed 13 January 2022

Beatson J, THE RULE OF LAW AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS (3rd edn, Hart Publishing 2021)

Benwell R, and Gay O, ‘The Separation Of Powers’ [2018] Parliament and Constitution Centre <https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06053/SN06053.pdf> accessed 13 January 2022

Bhadu LL, ‘Separation of Powers: A System of Checks and Balances’ [2021] SSRN Electronic Journal <https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3941187> accessed 13 January 2022

Das Y, and Das D, ‘SEPARATION OF POWERS IN ENGLAND’ (Academike, 2017) <https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/separation-of-powers-a-comparative-analysis-of-the-doctrine-india-united-states-of-america-and-england/> accessed 13 January 2022

Kaushik D, and Aggarwal V, ‘Internet Suspensions And Separation Of Powers: Changing The Equation’ (2020) 47 Commonwealth Law Bulletin

London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, ‘DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS V KURT MOLLISON (NO.2) (2003)’ (London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, 2003) <https://www.lccsa.org.uk/director-of-public-prosecutions-v-kurt-mollison-no-2-2003/> accessed 13 January 2022

Masterman R and Wheatle S, ‘Unpacking Separation of Powers: Judicial Independence, Sovereignty and Conceptual Flexibility in the United Kingdom Constitution’ 27

Taylor R, ‘Brexit, The Separation Of Powers And The Role Of The Supreme Court’ (LSE BREXIT, 2018) <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/08/14/brexit-the-separation-of-powers-and-the-role-of-the-supreme-court/> accessed 13 January 2022

Thabo M, and Odeku K, ‘SEPARATION OF POWERS, CHECKS AND BALANCES AND JUDICIAL EXERCISE OF SELF- RESTRAINT: AN ANALYSIS OF CASE LAW’ (2021) 42 Obiter

[1] Jack Beatson, THE RULE OF LAW AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS (3rd edn, Hart Publishing 2021).

[2] London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, ‘DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS V KURT MOLLISON (NO.2) (2003)’ (London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, 2003) <https://www.lccsa.org.uk/director-of-public-prosecutions-v-kurt-mollison-no-2-2003/> accessed 13 January 2022.

[3] Yashmita Das and Drishti Das, ‘SEPARATION OF POWERS IN ENGLAND’ (Academike, 2017) <https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/separation-of-powers-a-comparative-analysis-of-the-doctrine-india-united-states-of-america-and-england/> accessed 13 January 2022.

[4] ‘Separation Of Powers In The UK’ (Lawteacher.net, 2022) <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/family-law/separation-of-powers-in-the-uk.php> accessed 13 January 2022.

[5] Ros Taylor, ‘Brexit, The Separation Of Powers And The Role Of The Supreme Court’ (LSE BREXIT, 2018) <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/08/14/brexit-the-separation-of-powers-and-the-role-of-the-supreme-court/> accessed 13 January 2022.

[6] Jack Beatson, THE RULE OF LAW AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS (3rd edn, Hart Publishing 2021

[7] Lakshit Lashkar Bhadu, ‘Separation of Powers: A System of Checks and Balances’ [2021] SSRN Electronic Journal <https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3941187> accessed 13 January 2022.

[8] Jack Beatson, THE RULE OF LAW AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS (3rd edn, Hart Publishing 2021).