TRY ME!
British Protectorate Law Terms
Summary
In British protectorates, laws were often called ordinances or Queens/Kings regulations. The Bill of Rights 1688 limited the monarchys power, ensuring they couldnt refuse legislation. In the USP region, subordinate legislation can be void if inconsistent with the Constitution or earlier Acts. In England, parliamentary sovereignty means no Act can be voided by courts. The principle of necessity can justify actions during emergencies, while the de facto principle validates acts by non-legally established governments. The Solomon Islands applied New Zealand and English statutes. The Republic of Fiji v Prasad case highlighted constitutional authorization as crucial for government actions. Courts validate decisions through constitutional consistency, precedent, statutory interpretation, and judicial review.Full Conversation
Which, if any, of the following held that the courts in England could not determine the legality of the internal proceedings of a House of Parliament?
Select one:
a.
Case of Proclamations(*) * Co Rep *
b.
Bill of Rights *
c.
Burdett v Abbott(*) * East *
d.
Dr Bonham’s Case (*) * Co Rep 118a
e.
Bradlaugh v Gossett (*)* QBD *
f.
none of the foregoing
The case that held the courts in England could not determine the legality of the internal proceedings of a House of Parliament is:
e. Bradlaugh v Gossett (*) * QBD *
e. Bradlaugh v Gossett (*) * QBD *
Which if any, of the following court decisions and legislation held that the King could not refuse to assent to legislation
Select one:
a.
Case of Proclamations(*) * Co Rep *
b.
Bill of Rights *
c.
Burdett v Abbott(*) * East *
d.
Dr Bonham’s Case (*) * Co Rep 118a
e.
Bradlaugh v Gossett (*)* QBD *
f.
none of the foregoing
The correct answer is:
b. Bill of Rights *
The Bill of Rights * is significant as it established that the monarchy could not suspend laws or levy taxes without the consent of Parliament, effectively limiting the powers of the King or Queen and ensuring that they could not refuse to assent to legislation passed by Parliament.
b. Bill of Rights *
The Bill of Rights * is significant as it established that the monarchy could not suspend laws or levy taxes without the consent of Parliament, effectively limiting the powers of the King or Queen and ensuring that they could not refuse to assent to legislation passed by Parliament.
On which, if any, of the following grounds can subordinate legislation in countries of the USP region be held to be void?
Select one or more:
a.
inconsistency with the Constitution
b.
inconsistency with an earlier Act of Parliament
c.
unreasonableness
d.
unfairness
e.
inconsistency with the common law
f.
none of the foregoing
Case Rating: *
Subordinate legislation in countries of the USP region can be held void on several grounds:
- Inconsistency with the Constitution: If the legislation conflicts with constitutional provisions.
- Inconsistency with an earlier Act of Parliament: If it contradicts prior parliamentary legislation.
- Unreasonableness: If the legislation is irrational or unreasonable in nature.
- Inconsistency with the common law: If it conflicts with established common law principles.
Would you like more details on any of these points?
Subordinate legislation in countries of the USP region can be held void on several grounds:
- Inconsistency with the Constitution: If the legislation conflicts with constitutional provisions.
- Inconsistency with an earlier Act of Parliament: If it contradicts prior parliamentary legislation.
- Unreasonableness: If the legislation is irrational or unreasonable in nature.
- Inconsistency with the common law: If it conflicts with established common law principles.
Would you like more details on any of these points?
On which, if any, of the following grounds can an Act of Parliament in countries of the USP region be held to be void?
Select one:
a.
inconsistency with the Constitution
b.
inconsistency with an earlier Act of Parliament
c.
unreasonableness
d.
unfairness
e.
inconsistency with the common law
f.
none of the foregoing
Case Rating: *
In the USP region, an Act of Parliament can be held void primarily on the ground of:
- Inconsistency with the Constitution: If the Act conflicts with constitutional provisions, it can be deemed void.
Would you like to know more about how this is applied in practice?
In the USP region, an Act of Parliament can be held void primarily on the ground of:
- Inconsistency with the Constitution: If the Act conflicts with constitutional provisions, it can be deemed void.
Would you like to know more about how this is applied in practice?
On which, if any, of the following grounds can an Act of Parliament in England be held to be void and of no legal effect?
Select one:
a.
inconsistency with the Constitution
b.
inconsistency with an earlier Act
c.
unreasonableness
d.
unfairness
e.
inconsistency with the common law
f.
none of the foregoing
Case Rating: *
In England, an Act of Parliament cannot be held void on the grounds listed. The correct answer is:
f. none of the foregoing
Parliamentary sovereignty means that no court can declare an Act of Parliament void. Would you like more information on this topic?
In England, an Act of Parliament cannot be held void on the grounds listed. The correct answer is:
f. none of the foregoing
Parliamentary sovereignty means that no court can declare an Act of Parliament void. Would you like more information on this topic?
On which, if any, of the following grounds can an Act of Parliament in England be held to be void and of no legal effect?
Select one:
a.
inconsistency with the Constitution
b.
inconsistency with an earlier Act
c.
unreasonableness
d.
unfairness
e.
inconsistency with the common law
f.
none of the foregoing
Case Rating: *
In England, an Act of Parliament cannot be held void on any of the grounds listed (inconsistency with the Constitution, earlier Act, unreasonableness, unfairness, or common law). The correct answer is: f. none of the foregoing. This is due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, meaning that no court can declare an Act of Parliament void.
In England, an Act of Parliament cannot be held void on any of the grounds listed (inconsistency with the Constitution, earlier Act, unreasonableness, unfairness, or common law). The correct answer is: f. none of the foregoing. This is due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, meaning that no court can declare an Act of Parliament void.
Which, if any, of the following court decisions and legislation held that the King could not change the common law?
Select one:
a.
Case of Proclamations (*) * Co Rep *
b.
Bill of Rights *
c.
Burdett v Abbott (*) * East *
d.
Dr Bonham’s Case (*) * Co Rep 118a
e.
Bradlaugh v Gossett (*)* QBD *
f.
none of the foregoing
Case Rating: *
The court decision that held the King could not change the common law is:
a. Case of Proclamations (*) * Co Rep *
If you need further legal information or have another question, feel free to ask!
The court decision that held the King could not change the common law is:
a. Case of Proclamations (*) * Co Rep *
If you need further legal information or have another question, feel free to ask!
Suppose that in your country there was a very severe earthquake that caused buildings to collapse on people, and parts of hill sides to fall away and bury houses and people. The police commissioner ordered that all private vehicles be seized and used to transport the dead, dying and injured to hospitals and safe places of refuge. The seizure of private vehicles for these purposes is not authorized by legislation or the Constitution. On what basis, if any, could such seizure of vehicles be held by the courts to be valid?
Select one:
a.
the principle of efficacy and acquiescence
b.
the principle of necessity
c.
statutory authorization
d.
the de facto principle
e.
none of the foregoing
f.
Tuvalu
Case Rating: *
In the scenario described, the seizure of private vehicles could potentially be justified under:
- b. The principle of necessity: This principle allows for actions that are normally illegal to be considered lawful if they are necessary to prevent a greater harm, such as during a severe emergency like an earthquake.
Would you like more information on the principle of necessity or any other legal concept?
In the scenario described, the seizure of private vehicles could potentially be justified under:
- b. The principle of necessity: This principle allows for actions that are normally illegal to be considered lawful if they are necessary to prevent a greater harm, such as during a severe emergency like an earthquake.
Would you like more information on the principle of necessity or any other legal concept?
If legislation is enacted by the legislature of a country which is inconsistent with the Constitution of that country, will the courts normally hold that the legislation is
Select one:
a.
totally void
b.
void to the extent of the inconsistency
c.
valid
Case Rating: *
In general, when legislation is enacted by a legislature that is inconsistent with the Constitution, courts typically hold it as:
- b. Void to the extent of the inconsistency: Courts will invalidate only the parts of the legislation that conflict with the Constitution, while the rest may remain valid.
Would you like more details on this topic or have any other legal questions?
In general, when legislation is enacted by a legislature that is inconsistent with the Constitution, courts typically hold it as:
- b. Void to the extent of the inconsistency: Courts will invalidate only the parts of the legislation that conflict with the Constitution, while the rest may remain valid.
Would you like more details on this topic or have any other legal questions?
The Commissioner of Police remained in power for twelve months during which he issued several decrees, including one decree, the Marriage Decree, to regulate the age of marriage. The Police Commissioner’s government has now been overturned, and constitutional government has been restored in your country. On what what principle, if any, could the Marriage Decree be held by the courts to be valid legislation?
Select one:
a.
the principle of efficacy and acquiescence
b.
the principle of necessity
c.
Constitutional authorization
d.
the de facto principle
e.
none of the foregoing
Case Rating: *
In the scenario provided, the Marriage Decree issued during the Police Commissioner's rule could potentially be held valid under:
- d. the de facto principle: This principle recognizes acts by a government in power, even if not legally established, as valid to maintain order and administrative continuity.
Would you like more information on the de facto principle or have any other legal questions?
In the scenario provided, the Marriage Decree issued during the Police Commissioner's rule could potentially be held valid under:
- d. the de facto principle: This principle recognizes acts by a government in power, even if not legally established, as valid to maintain order and administrative continuity.
Would you like more information on the de facto principle or have any other legal questions?
Suppose that in your country the Commissioner of Police issued an order that he had set aside the Constitution, and had taken over control of the country from the constitutionally elected government, which had general support from the people. On what basis, if any, could this be regarded by the courts as valid?
Select one:
a.
the principle of efficacy and acquiescence
b.
the principle of necessity
c.
Constitutional authorization
d.
the de facto principle
e.
none of the foregoing
Case Rating: *
In the scenario where the Commissioner of Police sets aside the Constitution and takes over control, the courts would likely find no valid basis for this action. The correct answer is:
- e. none of the foregoing
Courts typically uphold constitutional governance and do not recognize unilateral actions that undermine constitutional authority. If you have any further questions or need more details, feel free to ask!
In the scenario where the Commissioner of Police sets aside the Constitution and takes over control, the courts would likely find no valid basis for this action. The correct answer is:
- e. none of the foregoing
Courts typically uphold constitutional governance and do not recognize unilateral actions that undermine constitutional authority. If you have any further questions or need more details, feel free to ask!
Suppose that in your country the Commissioner of Police issued an order that he had set aside the Constitution, and had taken over control of the country from the constitutionally elected government, which had general support from the people. On what basis, if any, could this be regarded by the courts as valid?
Select one:
a.
the principle of efficacy and acquiescence
b.
the principle of necessity
c.
Constitutional authorization
d.
the de facto principle
e.
none of the foregoing
Case Rating: *
In the scenario you've described, the court would likely find no valid basis for the Police Commissioner's action of setting aside the Constitution and taking control. The correct answer is:
- e. none of the foregoing
Courts generally uphold constitutional governance and do not recognize unilateral actions that undermine constitutional authority. Would you like more information on constitutional governance or have any other legal questions?
In the scenario you've described, the court would likely find no valid basis for the Police Commissioner's action of setting aside the Constitution and taking control. The correct answer is:
- e. none of the foregoing
Courts generally uphold constitutional governance and do not recognize unilateral actions that undermine constitutional authority. Would you like more information on constitutional governance or have any other legal questions?
In which, if any, of the following countries of the USP region were the statutes of general application in New Zealand applied?
Select one:
a.
Cook Islands
b.
Fiji
c.
Kiribati
d.
Marshall Islands
e.
Nauru
f.
Niue
g.
Samoa
h.
Solomon Islands
i.
Tokelau
j.
Tonga
k.
Tuvalu
l.
Vanuatu
m.
none of the foregoing
Case Rating: *
In the USP region, the statutes of general application in New Zealand were applied in:
- h. Solomon Islands
If you have any more questions or need further information on this topic, feel free to ask!
In the USP region, the statutes of general application in New Zealand were applied in:
- h. Solomon Islands
If you have any more questions or need further information on this topic, feel free to ask!
In which, if any, of the following countries of the USP region were the statutes of general application in New Zealand applied?
Select one:
a.
Cook Islands
b.
Fiji
c.
Kiribati
d.
Marshall Islands
e.
Nauru
f.
Niue
g.
Samoa
h.
Solomon Islands
i.
Tokelau
j.
Tonga
k.
Tuvalu
l.
Vanuatu
m.
none of the foregoing
Case Rating: *
The statutes of general application in New Zealand were applied in the Solomon Islands. If you have any more questions or need further information on this topic, feel free to ask!
The statutes of general application in New Zealand were applied in the Solomon Islands. If you have any more questions or need further information on this topic, feel free to ask!
In which, if any, of the following countries of the USP region were the statutes of general application in force in England in *, applied?
Select one:
a.
Cook Islands
b.
Fiji
c.
Kiribati
d.
Marshall Islands
e.
Nauru
f.
Niue
g.
Samoa
h.
Solomon Islands
i.
Tokelau
j.
Tonga
k.
Tuvalu
l.
Vanuatu
m.
none of the foregoing
Case Rating: *
In the USP region, the statutes of general application in force in England in * were applied in:
- h. Solomon Islands
If you have any more questions or need further information, feel free to ask!
In the USP region, the statutes of general application in force in England in * were applied in:
- h. Solomon Islands
If you have any more questions or need further information, feel free to ask!
In which, if any, of the following countries of the USP region were the statutes of general application in force in England in *, applied?
Select one:
a.
Cook Islands
b.
Fiji
c.
Kiribati
d.
Marshall Islands
e.
Nauru
f.
Niue
g.
Samoa
h.
Solomon Islands
i.
Tokelau
j.
Tonga
k.
Tuvalu
l.
Vanuatu
m.
none of the foregoing
Case Rating: *
In the USP region, the statutes of general application in force in England in * were applied in the Solomon Islands. If you have any more questions or need further information, feel free to ask!
In the USP region, the statutes of general application in force in England in * were applied in the Solomon Islands. If you have any more questions or need further information, feel free to ask!
In which, if any, of the following countries of the USP region were the statutes of general application in force in England in *, applied?
Select one or more:
a.
Cook Islands
b.
Fiji
c.
Kiribati
d.
Marshall Islands
e.
Nauru
f.
Niue
g.
Samoa
h.
Solomon Islands
i.
Tokelau
j.
Tonga
k.
Tuvalu
l.
Vanuatu
m.
none of the foregoing
Case Rating: *
In the USP region, the statutes of general application in force in England in * were applied in:
- Solomon Islands
If you have more questions or need further information, feel free to ask!
In the USP region, the statutes of general application in force in England in * were applied in:
- Solomon Islands
If you have more questions or need further information, feel free to ask!
In which, if any, of the following countries of the USP region were the statutes of general application in force in England in *, applied?
Select one or more:
a.
Cook Islands
b.
Fiji
c.
Kiribati
d.
Marshall Islands
e.
Nauru
f.
Niue
g.
Samoa
h.
Solomon Islands
i.
Tokelau
j.
Tonga
k.
Tuvalu
l.
Vanuatu
m.
none of the foregoing
Question *
Not yet answered
Marked out of *.*
Flag question
Question text
On what ground(s) did the Court of Appeal i
Case Rating: *
In the USP region, the statutes of general application in force in England in * were applied in:
- Solomon Islands
If you have any more questions or need further information, feel free to ask!
In the USP region, the statutes of general application in force in England in * were applied in:
- Solomon Islands
If you have any more questions or need further information, feel free to ask!
On what ground(s) did the Court of Appeal in The Republic of Fiji v Prasad [*] FJCA * hold that Commodore Bainimarama’s purported overthrow of the constitutional government of Fiji on * May * was not valid?
Select one:
a.
it was not authorized by the Constitution
b.
it was not effective
c.
it was not acquiesced in by the people of Fiji
d.
Case Rating: *
The Court of Appeal in The Republic of Fiji v Prasad [*] FJCA * held that Commodore Bainimarama's purported overthrow of the constitutional government was not valid on the ground that:
a. it was not authorized by the Constitution.
If you need more details or have further questions, feel free to ask!
The Court of Appeal in The Republic of Fiji v Prasad [*] FJCA * held that Commodore Bainimarama's purported overthrow of the constitutional government was not valid on the ground that:
a. it was not authorized by the Constitution.
If you need more details or have further questions, feel free to ask!
On what ground(s) did the Court of Appeal in The Republic of Fiji v Prasad [*] FJCA * hold that Commodore Bainimarama’s purported overthrow of the constitutional government of Fiji on * May * was not valid?
Select one:
a.
it was not authorized by the Constitution
b.
it was not effective
c.
it was not acquiesced in by the people of Fiji
d.
Case Rating: *
The Court of Appeal in The Republic of Fiji v Prasad [*] FJCA * held that Commodore Bainimarama's purported overthrow of the constitutional government was not valid because:
- a. it was not authorized by the Constitution.
If you need more details or have further questions, feel free to ask!
The Court of Appeal in The Republic of Fiji v Prasad [*] FJCA * held that Commodore Bainimarama's purported overthrow of the constitutional government was not valid because:
- a. it was not authorized by the Constitution.
If you need more details or have further questions, feel free to ask!
Explain the four principles which validate the decisions of a court;
Case Rating: *
Here are four principles that validate the decisions of a court:
*. Constitutional Consistency: Decisions must align with the constitution's provisions.
*. Precedent (Stare Decisis): Courts follow prior decisions to ensure consistency.
*. Statutory Interpretation: Courts interpret laws as written by the legislature.
*. Judicial Review: Courts can assess the validity of legislative and executive actions.
If you need more details on any of these principles, feel free to ask!
Here are four principles that validate the decisions of a court:
*. Constitutional Consistency: Decisions must align with the constitution's provisions.
*. Precedent (Stare Decisis): Courts follow prior decisions to ensure consistency.
*. Statutory Interpretation: Courts interpret laws as written by the legislature.
*. Judicial Review: Courts can assess the validity of legislative and executive actions.
If you need more details on any of these principles, feel free to ask!
Illustrate these principles using some of the cases extracted in the materials.
Case Rating: *
Here are examples illustrating the principles used in court decisions based on the cases you provided:
*. Constitutional Consistency:
- The Republic of Fiji v Prasad [*] FJCA *: The overthrow of the government was found invalid because it was not authorized by the Constitution.
*. Precedent (Stare Decisis):
- Bradlaugh v Gossett (*) * QBD *: Established a precedent that courts cannot determine the legality of internal parliamentary proceedings.
*. Statutory Interpretation:
- Bill of Rights *: Interpreted to limit the monarch's powers, ensuring they cannot refuse assent to legislation.
*. Judicial Review:
- Case of Proclamations (*) * Co Rep *: Demonstrated judicial review by ruling that the King could not change common law.
Feel free to ask if you need more details on these principles or their applications!
Here are examples illustrating the principles used in court decisions based on the cases you provided:
*. Constitutional Consistency:
- The Republic of Fiji v Prasad [*] FJCA *: The overthrow of the government was found invalid because it was not authorized by the Constitution.
*. Precedent (Stare Decisis):
- Bradlaugh v Gossett (*) * QBD *: Established a precedent that courts cannot determine the legality of internal parliamentary proceedings.
*. Statutory Interpretation:
- Bill of Rights *: Interpreted to limit the monarch's powers, ensuring they cannot refuse assent to legislation.
*. Judicial Review:
- Case of Proclamations (*) * Co Rep *: Demonstrated judicial review by ruling that the King could not change common law.
Feel free to ask if you need more details on these principles or their applications!
Start a new chat