”I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”
依家係objectively 唔合法
Both domestic and international law
1係violates Human Rights Act 1998
HRA1998係constitutional act
國會想small boats act過
就要另外立新法寫明去replace HRA
不過現實係無咩MPs支持 E.g. British bill of rights
分別喺05 07 15 19 20試過推
不過你可以話今次23有可能過到
The weight to be accorded to the judgment of Parliament depends on the circumstances and the subject matter. In the present context it should in my opinion be given great weight, for three main reasons. First, it is reasonable to expect that our democratically-elected politicians will be peculiarly sensitive to the measures necessary to safeguard the integrity of our democracy. It cannot be supposed that others, including judges, will be more so. Secondly, Parliament has resolved, uniquely since the 1998 Act came into force in October 2000, that the prohibition of political advertising on television and radio may possibly, although improbably, infringe article 10 but has nonetheless resolved to proceed under section 19(1)(b) of the Act. It has done so, while properly recognising the interpretative supremacy of the European Court, because of the importance which it attaches to maintenance of this prohibition. The judgment of Parliament on such an issue should not be lightly overridden. Thirdly, legislation cannot be framed so as to address particular cases. It must lay down general rules: James v United Kingdom (1986) 8 EHRR 123, para 68; Mellacher v Austria (1989) 12 EHRR 391, paras 52-53; R (Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] UKHL 61, [2002] 1 AC 800, para 29; Wilson v First County Trust (No 2) [2003] UKHL 40, [2004] 1 AC 816, paras 72-74; R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 37, [2006] 1 AC 173, paras 41, 91. A general rule means that a line must be drawn, and it is for Parliament to decide where. The drawing of a line inevitably means that hard cases will arise falling on the wrong side of it, but that should not be held to invalidate the rule if, judged in the round, it is beneficial.
法院案例講得好清楚, 只要兩院批准過,法院唔會輕易override 民主的議會的判斷
Ads
釣魚翁
2023-3-13 05:51:46
HRA 就係為咗賦予本地政府權力去implicate ECHR
只要Parliament 話ok 其實就ok
我意思係反對同支持都有合理理據
係咪都標籤人左膠好片面