Turn on thread page Beta
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    What is this?/I'm confused
    Hi there. If you're confused as to what is going on here then you are probably new to this section of TSR. This is a Model House of Commons, a forum where we emulate the structure of the Real Life House of Commons as an excuse to debate politics.

    If you are seeing this and you want to get involved in the debate, please feel free. You do not need to join a party, get approval or join any group to get stuck in right away. If you enjoy it and you do want to join a party then you can do so here. If you have any questions or need any help please message me. I am the current speaker of the house and part of my role involves offering impartial advice to new members so I will always be happy to answer what questions you have. Alternatively, you can read the new members guide to get advice on a wide range of issues.

    Note: Please refrain from making comments about how we spend our free time. It is our free time to spend.


    B1351 - Judicial Dismissal Bill 2018, Vitiate, Seconded by PetrosAC, tommy1boy, cranbrook_aspie, Connor27


    A
    BILL
    TO

    Make provisions for the removal of Parliament's ability to dismiss judges through a petition in both Houses of Parliament and to allocate the powers of dismissal to the Office for Judicial Complaints.

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

    1: Power of Parliament to remove a person from judicial office
    (1) Parliament can no longer dismiss a judge through a petition passed by both Houses of Parliament.
    (2) Parliament may only recommend the removal of a person in judicial office after a petition has been passed by both Houses of Parliament by a two third majority vote.
    (a) The said two thirds must not lower than half of the number of members of each chamber.
    (i) If lower, the petition, by the rules set out in this Act, will fail.

    2: Powers of the Office for Judicial Complaints
    (1) The Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) will now handle judicial dismissal.
    (2) Even if a petition recommending the removal of a judge is passed by both Houses of Parliament, the OJC are under no obligation to follow said wishes and may act according to the evidence set out before them.
    (3) The OJC may dismiss a judge, on the advice of the Lord Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
    (a) Superior judges may hold judicial office whilst of good behaviour.
    (i) In the event that a superior judge is dismissed, the OJC will tell the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom who will be the ones to dismiss the judges.

    3: Commencement, Extent and Short Title
    (1) This Act comes into force upon Royal Assent.
    (2) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
    (3) This Act shall be known as the Judicial Dismissal Act 2018.

    Spoiler:
    Show

    This Bill moves the United Kingdom towards a more truly separated powers by removing Parliament's ability to remove judges by a petition being passed by both Houses of Parliament.

    I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that the separation of powers especially in regards to the Judiciary is something to strive for and this bill moves us further towards that by removing Parliament's ability to remove judges by petition to making it so they can merely recommend the removal of judges to the Office for Judicial Complaints, who, under the advice of the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Supreme Court will remove judges either for serious misconduct, incapacity or for any other reason specified in any other act.




    Posted by SpeakerBot
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    Will the Office for Judicial Complaints be able to dismiss judges if Parliament haven't suggested so?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    It's an aye from me. As the notes state, this is a move towards a greater separation of powers and also presents a way to further the upholding of the independence of the judiciary.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 04MR17)
    Will the Office for Judicial Complaints be able to dismiss judges if Parliament haven't suggested so?
    In terms for inferior judges, when the OJC receives a complaint about a judge, they will investigate. If they find the complaint is correct, they will, under the provisions of this act, either dismiss or reprimand the judge. However, the case should be different for superior judges where the OJC will tell the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the UKSC to dismiss the judge in question and the above stated persons will be the one to either reprimand or dismiss the judge as two of the most senior judges in the land.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Vitiate)
    In terms for inferior judges, when the OJC receives a complaint about a judge, they will investigate. If they find the complaint is correct, they will, under the provisions of this act, either dismiss or reprimand the judge. However, the case should be different for superior judges where the OJC will tell the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the UKSC to dismiss the judge in question and the above stated persons will be the one to either reprimand or dismiss the judge as two of the most senior judges in the land.
    In which case, the bill has my support.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. I do not support anything limiting the sovereignty of Parliament with a supermajority.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nay. I do not support anything limiting the sovereignty of Parliament with a supermajority.
    Hear, hear.

    This is an unnecessary piece of legislation, super majorities are unnecessary especially in this house.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedLuxemburg)
    Hear, hear.

    This is an unnecessary piece of legislation, super majorities are unnecessary especially in this house.
    So the honourable member does not support a greater separation of powers? I find this extremely disturbing.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedLuxemburg)
    Hear, hear.

    This is an unnecessary piece of legislation, super majorities are unnecessary especially in this house.
    And might I add that it was a Labour Government that introduced the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 that introduced this greater separation, is the honourable member stepping away from this?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vitiate)
    So the honourable member does not support a greater separation of powers? I find this extremely disturbing.
    The current law is robust enough and i'm confident in the independence of the judiciary besides how often does parliament dismiss a judge?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vitiate)
    And might I add that it was a Labour Government that introduced the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 that introduced this greater separation, is the honourable member stepping away from this?
    No the current law is more than adequate to ensure judicial independence.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I'm inclined to support this unless someone more knowledgeable about the situation can convince me otherwise.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RedLuxemburg)
    No the current law is more than adequate to ensure judicial independence.
    No, I disagree. The Judiciary must be completely separate in my view. It is absurd that politicians can dismiss a judge. Absolutely absurd regardless of how infrequently they use that power.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RedLuxemburg)
    The current law is robust enough and i'm confident in the independence of the judiciary besides how often does parliament dismiss a judge?
    The point is that this prevents Parliament from being able to dismiss judges in the first place. Whether the power is used often or not, the fact remains that the power is there.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CatusStarbright)
    The point is that this prevents Parliament from being able to dismiss judges in the first place. Whether the power is used often or not, the fact remains that the power is there.
    The current system works, bad judges should be removed from post and the current petition system is a fair and just way of doing it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RedLuxemburg)
    The current system works, bad judges should be removed from post and the current petition system is fair and just.
    Your first point is one that I don't think anyone would disagree with. With regards to the petition system, I'd refer to the arguments above about judicial independence and the separation of powers.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    Aye
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vitiate)
    No, I disagree. The Judiciary must be completely separate in my view. It is absurd that politicians can dismiss a judge. Absolutely absurd regardless of how infrequently they use that power.
    I don't think rigid separation of powers is necessary in our judicial system, the current system works because it balances judicial independence with parliamentary oversight.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 17, 2018

2,313

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.