ASSIGNMENT ( The judiciary as a referee ) Essay

ASSIGNMENT ( The judiciary as a referee ) - try on ExampleIt plays the role of a neutral arbiter, or a referee in any contravention before it, by holding the law as it is to the facts before it. The judiciary is vested lineuph the powers to go through the law. The Supreme Court is the speak to of last resort as far as interpretation of the law is concerned. The duty of the court is to interpret the statute law from parliament, to affect the purpose and intention of the parliament. The judiciary can non make law. If the parliament is non comfortable with the way the court interprets the law, it can make law to quash the courts interpretation. As a referee, it is the judiciarys role to determine who should do what, or which state of affairs should prevail in any dispute that is presented before it, that is, it makes decisions. In essence, it arbitrates disputes that arise over facts and law. In doing so, the judiciary should apply the law, and should not let the personal opinio n of individual judges or their bias to influence the outcome of the court. Every ane should be treated equally before the law, and it should act without fear or favour. The New Zealand legal system is an adversarial one and, therefore, the judges duty is just to hear cases presented by both sides, and plays minimal role as far as evidence adducing is concerned. To add, they should not make law or policy that should be a reserve of the parliament. ... In doing so, the court can never question the validity of the Acts that have been passed by parliament. The court has jurisdiction to look into administrative decisions of world officials to ensure that they observe the law. The courts role is to ensure that the creation officers execute their mandate in good faith, without malice, and pursuant to the law. In R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings 1995 1 All ER 513, 524, stated that any action taken by a public official must be justified by a positive law. The court also has a duty to enforce and uphold personal liberty and human right wings that are enshrined in the law to wit the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Magna Carta 1215, which still applies in New Zealand. Therefore, it is the courts duty to enforce human rights and to hamper the government from abrogating human rights. In Attorney General V Chapman 2011 NZSC 110, the court held that the bill of rights does not apply to the judges in discharge of their duties. It relied on the common law protections under the judicial immunity to defer New Zealand Bill of Rights remedies available for breach of rights by the New Zealand judges nugatory. Nevertheless, the judiciary, as a referee, it should not make laws. In essence it does, through the doctrine of precedence. For instance, the court in Fitzgerald v Muldoon 1976 2 NZLR 615), do a decision that is considered to be part of the constitutional law. In this case, the court held that the Prime Minister had no powers to suspend law. He st ated that sentiments made by the Prime Minister to that effect were contrary to the bills of right of 1688 that prohibited public authorities from suspending the law.