Talk:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The article said:
- Technically, a litigant may appeal to the Privy Council with the permission of the Supreme Court of Australia. However, the Australian Supreme Court does not grant permission.
To which it was added:
- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE SUPREME COURT OF AUSTRALIA - EACH STATE HAS A SUPREME COURT AND THERE IS A FEDERAL COURT - THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA IS THE HIGHEST APPELATE COURT FOR BOTH
Which is right?
- The latter. There is no "Supreme Court of Australia", rather there is a "High Court of Australia". Under Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament, the State Parliament, and the British Parliament, there is no right of appeal to the Privy Council anymore, even if the High Court decided to grant one.
The original poster was correct, even if he got the name of the court wrong. The constitution (art. 74) still says that disputes relating to federal vs state powers can only be appealed to the PC with the permission of the High Court. This was in the days when everything else could be appealed without the permission of the High Court. Not surprisingly, the High court has stated that it is highly unlikely (read - never going to) to give permission to take to London the very matters which the constitution designed to be decided in Australia. Andrew Yong
Minor changes and updates in line with Privy Council's definitions. Also changed commonwealth realms to commonwealth, because republics are included.--garryq 23:25, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] The Persons Case
I wonder why the Persons Case is given as an example of Canadian cases heard by the JCPC. There were many, many important Canadian cases which went all the way to London. Why single out this one? HistoryBA 02:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This would likely be because this case resulted in enabling women to sit on the Canadian Senate and, therefore, was of paramount importance to the plight of women to gain equal standing in Canada — modern Canadian values would not be what they are now, if The Persons Case had not occurred. My thoughts, anyway. FiveParadox 17:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am not denying the importance of the case. By singling it out, however, we imply that it was the most important case that went from Canada to the JCPC. I don't see any evidence that "modern Canadian values" would be any different today had the lords in London ruled differently. HistoryBA 19:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Had the Lords in London ruled otherwise, then women would have continued to have been unable to sit in the Senate. Not only would this have set a considerably more conservative precedent, but it would have completely changed the composition of the Senate over the next few decades. The Governor General of Canada even issues awards named after the Persons Case, because it is seen as a defining moment in relation to gender equality. This is the most often-quoted case I have been in non-Wikipedia articles relative to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council's Canadian cases, and I would assert that such should also be the case here. FiveParadox 20:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I did not question whether women would have continued to be excluded from the Senate in the mid-1920s. I questioned whether "modern Canadian values" would be any different today had the lords in London ruled differently. What evidence is there to support your assertion? Also, what evidence is there that the composition of the Senate would not have changed for the "next few decades"? Aren't these POV statements? HistoryBA 18:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yes, I suppose you are quite correct in that. :) I was being subjective, I suppose. FiveParadox 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
The current Canadian $50 banknote's design commemorates the Persons' Case - (222.153.75.130 01:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Constitutional Reform Act 2005
Does the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 mean that this article is now out of date? -- Beland 23:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Many of the provisions in that Act are yet to be brought into effect. 130.88.52.124 23:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trinidad & Tobago
Missing from the list of Caribbean countries from which the Privy Council can be reached at appeal? (Caribbean Court not enacted yet?)
[edit] Canadian Privy Council Cases
[[Ponoka-Calmar Oils v Wakefield [1960] A.C. 18]] was the final case appealed before the Privy Council from Canada.This deserves an article in its own right. - (202.180.98.82 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC))
