Paper写作--英国议会对法院的监督

摆渡论文网（www.baydue.com）-专业留学生作业辅导中心Paper写作-英国议会对法院的监督It is well known that the British parliament was once the most powerful in the world, and is commonly known as "anything but the inability of a woman to become a man and a man to become a woman". Now that male-female interchangeability has become a reality, the British parliament is not doing everything. Sometimes, the British parliament criticizes the courts or the judges, although it is also very harsh. But, on the whole, parliament is wary of the courts. In particular, for the specific cases heard by the court, parliament would not sacrifice judicial independence for the sake of its own parliamentary supremacy system.The way the British parliament supervises the courts is, simply, to refer the king to the removal of a judge. Otherwise, in the words of the English themselves, the independence of the court became a laughingstock, and the law of succession became a pile of waste paper. Therefore, parliament and members are not allowed to say anything about pending cases before the court, and they are not allowed to comment on the conduct of judges unless they make a very important motion requiring the house to vote. If a motion is made by a member to investigate the conduct of a judge, the proceedings can only be carried out when the prima facie evidence against the judge is sufficient and, once confirmed, will lead to removal from office.This basic principle has been repeatedly emphasized in parliament over the past 300 years. In the case of judge grantham in 1906, for example, the then attorney general vehemently opposed any disciplinary measures other than removal, as the censure of parliament would leave judges in doubt and humiliated in their judicial activities. In 1959, during a parliamentary debate on a motion critical of judge Strasbourg, parliament reiterated that there could be no disciplinary measure other than removal of a judge by way of supervision. In a subsequent addendum, it was noted that, unless a motion for removal of the person concerned was made expressly, the judgment and redress of errors in the judicial proceedings of the judge should be left to the court of appeal.But since the 1960s, there has been a consensus about parliamentary oversight of the courts: that parliament can investigate judicial misconduct, pass resolutions condemning it, and even be obliged to criticize judges. Parliament criticizes a judge in the following ways: first, a motion is made on a specific matter to criticize a judge or judicial sentence. Passing the critical motion after the debate on the motion; Second, the parliament to question the government on the conduct of judges in general or specific cases, which is also a very effective means; The third is to criticize the individual judge or the whole judicial team during the discussion of the draft law involving judges.In the case of judge grantham in 1906, Henry Campbell bannerman, then prime minister, insisted that parliament should have the right to criticize judicial ACTS even when it did not use the extreme form of punishment of removal. "The proper duty of a judge is to hear a case," he said. If we believe that such conduct degrades the dignity of the judiciary and even leads to other unfortunate outcomes, we are obligated to express our condemnation of such conduct.Therefore, although the British parliament in principle forbids criticism of judges, parliament can still express its criticism of judges through these forms, because the general principle is easy to be ignored, and this principle cannot exclude the discussion of judges' behavior in some specific cases. There are two kinds of judge's behavior: judge's trial behavior and judge's private behavior. Parliament cannot touch the trial behavior of judges, but for the latter, there is no prohibition in parliament's rules. So long as the speaker does not interrupt his speech in parliament, members may comment on the judge's private conduct. Even if the speaker interrupts a member by reminding him that his speech is outside the scope of the parliamentary discussion, the speaker merely prevents him from continuing to say what he has to say, and the criticisms he has already made will still be published in the parliamentary communique and may appear in the press. And, even if the speaker does not consider a member's speech to be part of the parliamentary discussion, he can insist that he has the right to express criticism and repeat it.A motion calling for a resolution critical of a judicial act or judgment may, after debate, be adopted by parliament or may simply be a general censure of the judge in the debate and not lead to further action. In the case of judge graham mentioned earlier in 1906, almost all the members of parliament strongly criticized the judge, including those who opposed further action against him in parliament, but did not take further action against judge graham in the end. Henry Campbell bannerma