The Attorney General, Politics, and the Public Interest. Contributions to an Evolving Constitutional Convention

The prosecutorial independence of the Attorney General (AG) is a firmly established constitutional convention in Canada, but it is also an evolving convention, subject to ongoing contestation and debate. This article is a contribution to that debate. It defends a normative constitutional framework wherein the AG’s authority to make final decisions in matters of criminal prosecution is balanced against a corresponding duty to consult with cabinet and the prime minister on the public interest implications of prosecutorial decisions when the circumstances warrant. Within this normative framework, respectful contestation and debate amongst ministers, the prime minister, and the AG in determining the public interest merits of prosecution is welcomed, even encouraged, and if conducted with the requisite integrity, objectivity, and transparency, it is regarded not as a threat but as a valuable check and balance on AG independence and an indispensable form of quality control on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

The Attorney-General, politics and logistics – a fork in the road?

The appointment of recent Attorney-Generals for England and Wales has occasioned much comment about their experience. This paper considers whether, following the transmogrification of the Lord Chancellorship over a decade ago, the backgrounds and activities of recent leaders of the Attorney-General's Office suggest the time is now right for similar changes to the Law Officers’ roles. In doing so, it presents a range of original data on aspects of the role and on characteristics of Attorney-Generals, which suggests that unless self-restraint is exercised (by the Prime Minister and the post-holders) we may ineluctably be on the path to reform.

KONSEP DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT (DPA) DALAM PERTANGGUNG-JAWABAN PIDANA KORPORASI SEBAGAI BENTUK ALTERNATIF PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA

Corporate prosecution through formal prosecution is considered to be able to destroy the corporation. If possible, the punishment of the corporation should not cause the corporation to go bankrupt and go bankrupt. The entanglement of corporations in criminal law does not only occur in Indonesia, in the world several phenomenal big cases have disrupted the company's health, which has impacted the company to make efficient by closing several of its subsidiaries and automatically downsizing the number of employees, namely the case that happen to Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (AG) and Volks Wagen (VW). To minimize the bankruptcy of corporations as a result of being convicted, several countries apply the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. The Deferred Prosecution Agreement is an alternative form of dispute resolution carried out outside the court. The author wants to know how the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the Deferred Prosecution Agreement if it is applied in Indonesia by using a conceptual approach and a comparative approach to the application of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement in England and America, to produce the concept of implementing the Deferred Prosecution Agreement in Indonesia. The results of the author's research, the concept of setting up a Deferred Prosecution Agreement at least contains: 1) Corporate approval for cooperation, 2) Process supervision by Judges, 3) Determining the term of the agreement, 4) Standard agreement clauses, 5) Considerations for the use of deferred prosecution agreement only for certain cases. However, we also need to know the advantages and disadvantages of this Deferred Prosecution Agreement concept if applied in Indonesia. The advantages are: 1) The company's reputation and trust are maintained, 2) Minimizes corporate bankruptcy, 3) Shorten, simple and low-cost case resolution, 4) Prosecutors are given the power to regulate the contents of the agreement. Weaknesses: 1) Prone to abuse of authority, 2) Need to make special rules (Lex Specialis). The author suggests that if you apply the concept of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement to corporate crimes, the attorney general should make regulations that regulate the guidelines for the implementation of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement and the standard operating procedures of the prosecutor dealing with the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. If supervision is needed, it is necessary to make special rules regarding the Supervisory Board.

Kepimpinan Non Muslim di Malaysia Menurut Perspektif Maqāṣid Al-Sharī'ah

Islam has provided a guiding principle regarding the involvement of non-Muslims in aspects of governance and administration. In Malaysia, this right has been recognized since independence which saw the involvement of non-Muslims in the executive administration such as ministers and key administrators at the federal and state levels. The relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is one of the main themes that are often discussed in the Quran. However, the interpretation some of the verses seem to be done out of context has created confusion and misunderstanding in the society. The voting and appointment of non -Muslim candidates in several important government positions such as the Chief Justice, Attorney General of Malaysia and Federal Minister has sparked controversy in Malaysia. Thus, this study aims to analyze the concept of non-Muslim leadership in Malaysia according to the perspective of maqāṣid al-sharī’ah. The study was conducted qualitatively using the library method by analyzing the texts of the Qur’an and Hadith as well as the debates of Muslim scholars on the concept of nonMuslim leadership in an Islamic country. In addition, content analysis method was also conducted towards the provisions of the Federal Constitution and the report of the Department of Statistics Malaysia to examine the current application of non-Muslim leadership in Malaysia. Although the Federal Constitution has provided basic guidelines on the administration of the country, but some important criteria outlined by Islam need to be emphasized to preserve the sensitivity and harmony of the plural society in Malaysia, especially the Muslim community as the majority in this country.

Metoda unilateralna w prawie prywatnym międzynarodowym. Uwagi na marginesie orzeczenia TSUE w sprawie C-135/15 Republika Grecji przeciwko Grigoriosowi Nikiforidisowi

The article confronts the unilateral and multilateral methods in private international law. The author first identifies the basic differences between the two. She then moves to describe the instruments and concepts resulting from the unilateral method: the theories of the Statutists in the period between 12th to 19th centuries, the solutions offered by the so called new American school, the method of recognition of private situations crystallized in a foreign legal system, the rules governing the spatial scope of the EU provisions, including the regulations and the directives, and finally the paradigm of the overriding mandatory rules. The second part of the paper provides a comment to the Nikiforidis case. The author makes a number of critical remarks with respect to the restrictive and rigid interpretation of Article 9(3) adopted by the CJEU. The argument is made that the more flexible and functional approach proposed by the Attorney General Maciej Szpunar in his Opinion should be preferred. Finally, the author makes her own proposition regarding the Nikiforidis case. She advocates a unilateral methodology that rejects the distinction between the overriding mandatory rules of the legis fori, legis causae and these of a third country.

Tafsir Wewenang Seponering Jaksa Agung Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 29/PUU-XIV/2016

The affirmation of the attorney general's authority in the Elucidation of Article 35 letter C of the Indonesian Prosecutor's Law after the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 29/PUU-XIV/2016 still leaves problems and has the potential to cause new legal problems. This research will look at and analyze how the authority of the Attorney General after the decision is as well as how the concept of an ideal arrangement that ensures legal certainty. This research uses normative juridical research with a statutory approach and case studies which in this case are court decisions. The results showed that after Constitutional Court decision, there was a change in the meaning of the Elucidation of Article 35 letter c of the Republic of Indonesia Prosecutor's Law. Based on the results of these interpretations and decisions, the legal implications that followed were related to the conditions for setting aside cases in the public interest, namely in setting aside cases in the public interest, the Attorney General was required to 'require' first to pay attention to suggestions and opinions from state power agencies that have relationship with the problem. The concept of an ideal arrangement that can guarantee legal certainty as an indicator to measure and assess the implementation of the Attorney General's obligations can be done by clarifying the definition of "state power agencies" for which advice and opinions are requested and making criteria for the term "public interest".

Strengthening Implementation of the Justice Restorative Justice in the Perspective of Law Number 16 Year 2004 on the Judiciary and Islamic Law

Restorative Justice is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and perpetrators of crime, as well as involving the community, not to follow the principle of punishment for the perpetrators accompanied by the consideration of the judges. The principle of Restorative Justice process of the completion of the action a violation of law that occurs is done by bringing victims and offenders together talking. The act of punishment alternative to using the justice restorative should be pursued by the state so that the adhesion of unity of the nation become strong and become potential of socio economic development and politics of the country. The propriety of the imposition of a criminal through the justice restorative so the duty and responsibility of law enforcement to sharpen legal analysis and sensitive conscience of humanity. justice restorative aims to reconcile the conflicting parties. If offenders could be rehabilitated with other measures that better then the punishment should be avoided. In the penalty ta'zir, forgiveness and granting the minimum penalty is the criminal justice system of Islam that can change the penal system of retributive to restorative. This research problem is how the strengthening of restorative justice in the settlement of the criminal case according to Law Number 16 Year 2004 On the Prosecutor's office? How the actualization of the completion of the criminal case through the restorative justice perspective of Islamic Law?. The purpose of this study was to determine the strengthening of restorative justice in the settlement of the criminal case according to Law Number 16 Year 2004 On the Prosecutor's office and find out the actualization of the completion of the criminal case through the restorative justice perspective of Islamic Law. Methods this research was conducted using qualitative research a research process and understanding based on the methodology that investigates a phenomenon of social and human problems. The results of this study concluded, that the strengthening of restorative justice in the settlement of the criminal case according to Law Number 16 Year 2004 On the Prosecutor's office through a mediation that can be used in resolving a criminal case. A new breakthrough in the Indonesian criminal justice system in the completion of a criminal offence outside the court. Keywords: Strengthening of Justice, Restorative Justice, Attorney General and Islamic Law.

Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh: Lifting the veil of parliamentary privilege and parliament's response

<p>Parliament in its exclusive cognizance can legislate for anything it sees fit. However this paper finds that the New Zealand Parliament had the opportunity in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh¹ to balance political needs and respect for individual rights rather than to adopt a reactionary attitude in enacting the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014. It would be appropriate for Parliament to closely examine the efficacy of the “necessity test” in Leigh in the light of the implication of the codification of the definition of “proceedings in parliament” on the scope of parliamentary privilege as the experiences by the Australian jurisdictions showed. On the other hand, the court’s obligations under the Bill of Rights Act, 1990 might result in the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 being interpreted in ways that the lawmakers might not have intended. This paper examines the public/private dichotomy between the public interest justification for parliamentary immunity and the individual’s right to have access to remedy, in the context of the underpinning features of the “necessity” test that give precedence to basic individual rights. The test being; any claim for absolute privilege for an occasion that occurs outside absolutely privileged spheres (Parliament and its committees) that could result in depriving citizens of their basic rights, had to be necessary as in the sense of “essential” for the proper functioning of the core roles of the House. In conclusion, this paper finds that the contentious issues revolve around comity. It then attempts to address the interests of the three stakeholders in the Leigh decision; the individual citizen, the judiciary and the legislature by recommending a number of comity “best practice” reforms to the House’s Standing Orders and the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014. ¹ Attorney-General v Leigh [2011] NZSC 106, [2012] 2 NZLR 713, (Leigh).</p>

Suspension orders as a form of "constitutional dialogue"

<p>This essay argues that New Zealand’s courts, when considering constitutional matters on which there is no domestic jurisprudence, should draw upon foreign jurisprudence where the principles informing foreign judicial decisions on similar subject-matter are principles of the New Zealand legal system. This essay explores this idea with reference to the principle of “constitutional dialogue”, which legitimises judicial orders that suspend declarations of constitutional invalidity thereby giving temporary effect to unconstitutional statutes. It first explains how “constitutional dialogue” can both describe and lend legitimacy to the interactions between the executive, legislature and judiciary in New Zealand. Drawing upon the Canadian, South African and Hong Kong “suspension order” jurisprudence, it then explains how these orders facilitate a “dialogue” between the different branches of government. Finally, the essay criticises the New Zealand High Court’s decision in Spencer v Attorney General in which the Court held that the Human Rights Tribunal could not grant “suspension orders” that validated unlawful government policies. In particular, the essay focuses on the Judge’s failure to recognise “constitutional dialogue” as the principle that underlies the decision to grant these orders in foreign jurisdictions, which would have allowed her Honour to follow Canadian authority when reaching her decision.</p>

Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh: Lifting the veil of parliamentary privilege and parliament's response

<p>Parliament in its exclusive cognizance can legislate for anything it sees fit. However this paper finds that the New Zealand Parliament had the opportunity in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh¹ to balance political needs and respect for individual rights rather than to adopt a reactionary attitude in enacting the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014. It would be appropriate for Parliament to closely examine the efficacy of the “necessity test” in Leigh in the light of the implication of the codification of the definition of “proceedings in parliament” on the scope of parliamentary privilege as the experiences by the Australian jurisdictions showed. On the other hand, the court’s obligations under the Bill of Rights Act, 1990 might result in the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 being interpreted in ways that the lawmakers might not have intended. This paper examines the public/private dichotomy between the public interest justification for parliamentary immunity and the individual’s right to have access to remedy, in the context of the underpinning features of the “necessity” test that give precedence to basic individual rights. The test being; any claim for absolute privilege for an occasion that occurs outside absolutely privileged spheres (Parliament and its committees) that could result in depriving citizens of their basic rights, had to be necessary as in the sense of “essential” for the proper functioning of the core roles of the House. In conclusion, this paper finds that the contentious issues revolve around comity. It then attempts to address the interests of the three stakeholders in the Leigh decision; the individual citizen, the judiciary and the legislature by recommending a number of comity “best practice” reforms to the House’s Standing Orders and the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014. ¹ Attorney-General v Leigh [2011] NZSC 106, [2012] 2 NZLR 713, (Leigh).</p>