Robert, chaplain to Robert Fitzwalter Great Charter of Although the Charter of was a failure as a peace treaty, it was resurrected under the new government of the young Henry III as a way of drawing support away from the rebel faction. On his deathbed, King John appointed a council of thirteen executors to help Henry reclaim the kingdom, and requested that his son be placed into the guardianship of William Marshalone of the most famous knights in England. Inthe tensions over the status of the charters became clear in the royal courtwhen Henry's government attempted to reassert its rights over its properties and revenues in the counties, facing resistance from many communities that argued—if sometimes incorrectly—that the charters protected the new arrangements.
That understanding is not an academic construct and, especially before an audience of legislators whose task is to give practical voice to those principles, it would be quite wrong, in my view, to approach it as if it were.
It is usual for the constitution of a Commonwealth country to distribute the power of government between three branches: Put generally, this distributes and separates the powers of government such that the parliament makes laws by statute, the Ministry, assisted by the civil service, administers those laws, including by the making under statute of regulations and a judiciary, independent of both parliament and that Ministry, resolves controversies which arise in the circumstances of a particular case about the lawfulness of the actions of the other branches of government or under the general or statute law of the nation.
That the powers of government came to be distributed and separated in this way was not happenstance. Rather, the origin of that distribution and separation lies in how, in 17th and early 18th century England, great conflicts entailing civil war, military dictatorship and much suffering and loss of life, liberty and property came to be resolved.
The reason for the continued retention and wider adoption of this system lies in the realisation that the human motivations, tendencies and behaviours which led to such conflicts when the exercise of the powers of government was neither checked nor balanced are timeless.
Those great conflicts and their resolution are subjects to which I shall shortly return in depth. The experience of the ages is that this distribution and separation of the powers of government best achieves national peace, order and good government, including the promotion and protection of human rights.
In modern times, guidelines have been developed within the Commonwealth concerning practices with respect to relations between the three branches of government which best promote these ends.
They are the product of the collective wisdom and experience of Commonwealth nations large and small, developed and developing. That these guidelines have come popularly to be called the "Latimer House Principles" is because the initiative for their adoption may be traced to a conference sponsored by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Commonwealth Legal Education Association, the Commonwealth Magistrates' and Judges' Association and the Commonwealth Lawyers' Association, which was held in the United Kingdom at Latimer House, Buckinghamshire, in June The product of that meeting was considered by a working group of Law Ministers drawn from Commonwealth member countries, adopted by Commonwealth Law Ministers and then, at their meeting in Abuja, Nigeria, in Decemberendorsed by Commonwealth Heads of Government.
The text of the Latimer House Principles is readily accessible via the Commonwealth Secretariat's website.
These principles are best understood against the background of how and why, historically, legislative, executive and judicial power came to be separately distributed under our system of government.
For it was not always so. A consequence of the Norman invasion of England in was that all aspects of sovereign power, legislative, executive and judicial, came to repose in the monarch. By the early 17th century, the exercise, in practice, of that power had come to be undertaken not just by the monarch and his or her councillors but also by a parliament and by a judiciary drawn from those learned in the law.
But the view persisted under the early Stuart kings, King James I in Scotland, King James VI and his son, King Charles I that the holding of kingship was a Divine Right, which necessarily conferred monarchical supremacy such that a monarch could, if so disposed, dispense at will with either parliament or judges and govern alone.
From these times, the judiciary throughout the Commonwealth, and also in the United States of America, has cause to remember Sir Edward Coke for a series of cases decided following his appointment as Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in the reign of King James I.
InKing James purported himself to adjudicate and pronounce upon a controversy between parties. That controversy and the King's ability himself to resolve it came before Coke in the Court of Common Pleas in what is known as the Case of Prohibitions.
There he was requested to furnish a legal opinion on the subject of whether the King might, by proclamation, as opposed to Act of Parliament, prohibit new buildings in London, or the making of starch or wheat.
This subject had been referred to the King by the House of Commons as a grievance and as supposedly against law. Coke requested and was granted time to consult his fellow judges, such was the importance of the question.
Coke's answer, which represented the collective view of the judges, has come to be known as the Case of Proclamations. These and other pronouncements as to the role and independence of the judiciary did not endear Coke to King James I.
At that time, judges did not enjoy security of tenure. They served at the pleasure of the King.
That was probably because the jurisdiction of the latter court was concerned with individual rights whereas that of the former was with the rights of the Crown.
The transfer, so it was thought, gave Coke less opportunity to vex the King by his assertions of judicial independence. Incame the Case of Commendams. The name of that case is taken from the use by the King of an in commendam writ as a means of transferring income producing ecclesiastical property belonging to a bishophric to a Bishop while at the same time relieving the holder of that office from having in person to perform the duties of that office and allowing another to perform them in place of the bishop.
The writ was a convenient means of rewarding those who deferred to the King. King James used such a writ to allow one Richard Neile to hold office as the Bishop of Coventry and enjoy the income from two properties associated with that bishophric without performing personally the duties of that office.
The grant of the property to Bishop Neile by the King was contested before the Court of King's Bench by two individuals who claimed that the property in question belonged to them. The case touched on the King's prerogative to issue in commendam writs.
Coke and his fellow King's Bench judges were about to hear the case when, on behalf of King James, his Attorney-General, Francis Bacon, appeared to assert the prerogative of Rege inconsulto [that the King has the power to advise judges before they rule] and ordered them to stay the proceedings until His Majesty advised them.
Instead, the judges proceeded to hear and determine the case, holding that the in commendam writ procedure was illegal. The judges thereafter sent a letter to King James in which they stated "in case any letters come unto us contrary to law, we do nothing by such letters, but certify your Majesty thereof, and go forth to do the law notwithstanding the same".
These events occurred years ago. What relevance are they to the modern Commonwealth?
In Decemberthe Supreme Court of Zimbabwe struck down as unconstitutional the key elements of the Mugabe government's "Fast Track" land reallocation programme. Inthe High Court of Australia struck down as unlawful the Gillard Government's scheme to transfer to Malaysia, without prior assessment of their claims for refugee status, up to asylum seekers who had irregularly arrived in Australia after 25 July Unlike Australia, Malaysia was not a signatory to the Refugee Convention.
Inat the height of the Cold War and at a time when Australian troops were engaged in the United Nations defence of the Korean Government from communist forces, the Australian Parliament, in the implementation of the policy of the Menzies Government, enacted the Communist Party Dissolution Act Cth.
· The Attorney General was Sir Edward Coke. This remarka ble person, who became one of the great judges in English legal history and ultimately the judicial and Parliamentary opponent Throne: The Life and Times of Sir Edward Coke. THE TRIALregardbouddhiste.com Sir Walter Raleigh was an English explorer, soldier and writer.
At age 17, he fought with the French Huguenots and later studied at Oxford. He became a favorite of regardbouddhiste.com · Sir Edward Coke, Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, vol. II  Of all which, the Popish Recusant is the most dangerous with our English Romanists will I therefore at the first begin, The only one to be published in Coke’s life was the Entries, a pleading regardbouddhiste.com://regardbouddhiste.com · On 16 Feb.
Sir Edward Coke provided a definitive ruling, Sir Dudley Digges, This last point was one which most of the so-called ‘patriots’ did not wish to raise so early in the proceedings, which suggests that Digges was not collaborating closely with them. Later that day, he expounded at considerable length on the Habsburgs regardbouddhiste.com /digges-sir-dudley Sir Edward Coke, one of the most famous jurist and politicians in English history, was born on February 1, in Mileham, Norfolk, England.
He was educated at Norwich Grammar School and Trinity College in Cambridge, and entered the, Inner Temple or colleges in the university of law in · Sir Edward Coke said that Bacon's instructions were illegal, and refused to agree that he had to consult with James on any case.
regardbouddhiste.com English legal system included not only common law courts but church courts (of which High Commission was the most powerful) and Chancery (a regardbouddhiste.com