The death of judicial review of sporting bodies in the commonwealth Caribbean

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Haynes
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Commonwealth Caribbean

McEwan and Others v. Attorney General of Guyana (C.C.J.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-279
Author(s):  
Salvatore Caserta
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Public Place ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
Commonwealth Caribbean ◽  
Caribbean Court Of Justice

On November 13, 2018, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) decided on an appeal coming from Guyana in the case McEwan and Others v. Attorney General of Guyana. With this decision, the CCJ declared unconstitutional Section 153(1)(xlvii) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Offences) Act of the Laws of Guyana, which made it a crime for a man to dress in female attire or for a woman to dress in male attire, in a public place, for an improper purpose. In the case, the CCJ also limited the extent to which the colonial “savings clause” present in the constitutions of the Commonwealth Caribbean countries limits the Court's judicial review powers.

Оскарження рішень, дій чи бездіяльності публічної адміністрації як вид гарантії забезпечення надання публічних послуг у судовому порядку

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
Author(s):  
О. В. Бойко
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Services ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Preliminary Stage ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Court Hearing

The scientific article identifies the peculiarities of appealing the decisions, actions or omissions of public administration subjects on the provision of public services at the stage of initiation and preparation for judicial review of an administrative case. The author substantiates the feasibility of improving the legal regulation of the procedure for holding a preliminary hearing before the court hearing of the case. In particular, it is considered expedient to set the terms of the preparatory meeting from the moment of receipt of the administrative claim, as well as to determine the cases when the parties are not reconciled.It is established that the preliminary stage of the court hearing often ends with the conclusion of the preliminary proceedings and the appointment of the case to trial in the field of public services. This is not against the law. However, it should be borne in mind that in accordance with Art. 121 of the CAS of Ukraine such a decision is delivered by the consequences of preparatory proceedings, not the previous court hearing. Obviously, preparatory proceedings are not limited to, and do not always end at, a previous court hearing. Preparation may continue after a preliminary hearing. Therefore, the decision to close the preliminary proceedings and assign the case to trial after the consequences of the previous court hearing can only be made if the judge has taken all the measures necessary to hear the case. If during a previous court hearing in the field of public services, to which all persons involved in the case have arrived, the issues necessary for its consideration have been resolved, then, with the written consent of these persons, a court hearing may be initiated on the same day. In this case, the termination order is also delivered.

The Constitutional Principle of Accountability: A Study of Contemporary South African Case Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chuks Okpaluba
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Public Procurement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Law ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Many

‘Accountability’ is one of the democratic values entrenched in the Constitution of South Africa, 1996. It is a value recognised throughout the Constitution and imposed upon the law-making organs of state, the Executive, the Judiciary and all public functionaries. This constitutional imperative is given pride of place among the other founding values: equality before the law, the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. This study therefore sets out to investigate how the courts have grappled with the interpretation and application of the principle of accountability, the starting point being the relationship between accountability and judicial review. Therefore, in the exercise of its judicial review power, a court may enquire whether the failure of a public functionary to comply with a constitutional duty of accountability renders the decision made illegal, irrational or unreasonable. One of the many facets of the principle of accountability upon which this article dwells is to ascertain how the courts have deployed that expression in making the state and its agencies liable for the delictual wrongs committed against an individual in vindication of a breach of the individual’s constitutional right in the course of performing a public duty. Here, accountability and breach of public duty; the liability of the state for detaining illegal immigrants contrary to the prescripts of the law; the vicarious liability of the state for the criminal acts of the police and other law-enforcement officers (as in police rape cases and misuse of official firearms by police officers), and the liability of the state for delictual conduct in the context of public procurement are discussed. Having carefully analysed the available case law, this article concludes that no public functionary can brush aside the duty of accountability wherever it is imposed without being in breach of a vital constitutional mandate. Further, it is the constitutional duty of the courts, when called upon, to declare such act or conduct an infringement of the Constitution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document