Separation Of Powers Essay
The separation of powers is defined as a doctrine where the political system of a nation divides its governmental powers into separate institutions. In Australia, governmental powers are divided into three separate institutions. These are the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. In theory, the ideas of the separation of powers is to avoid one body of government from obtaining too much power and, hence, creating an arbitrary system of government. Furthermore, no body of government is supposed to abdicate power to another body. The separation of powers ensures the checking and balancing of each arm of government, although this is not always a harmonious relationship and can provide tensions between the arms of government. Nevertheless, the separation of powers ensures that the actions of government are in accordance with the law and the rights of the people are protected.
The legislative power, the parliament, is the principle law-making institution at both the federal and state levels. Parliament makes laws directly, known as 'statutes'. However, parliament are only able to make laws within the limits of the constitution otherwise the law can be challenged and overturned. Parliament can also delegate their law-making powers to other bodies of government including Ministers and local councils. Parliament has the power to disallow any delegated legislation it does not agree with or has not had presented within fifteen days of the legislation being gazetted by the executive. For example, the legislature has to power to disallow a regulation made by the executive if they believe that the executive has acted outside it powers delegated to them. It can abolish the regulation by a majority vote in only one house of parliament. Parliament has the constitutional convention control over the executive. This is to ensure 'responsible government' amongst the executive. It is only a member of parliament that is able to be a member of the executive government.
The legislature has the power to dismiss a judge on the grounds of disproved behaviour or incapacity within the courts by a majority vote in both houses of parliament. For example, if a judge repeatedly sentences offenders beyond their legislative power then the parliament can vote to remove that judge from the courts, although this procedure has been seldom performed and never performed in South Australia.
The executive power, the government, is formed from the political party that controls the majority of seats in the lower house of parliament. The executive has the power to enforce and administer the laws made by parliament and to make by-laws called 'delegated legislation'. Both the parliament and the judiciary, however, can subject these legislations, to scrutiny. The opposition party can, at the daily question time, cross-examine ministers on their performance and bring on debates to criticise the government. An example is when changes had been made to the 'Road Traffic...
Loading: Checking Spelling0%
The Separation of Powers in the United States Political System892 words - 4 pages The Separation of Powers in the United States Political System In the 18th Century, the French philosopher Montesquieu, who had been one of the inspirations behind the French Revolution, argued that limitation would be necessary within government within government in order to avoid tyranny. He identified the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary as the four braches of government which needed to be separated. To do...
Separation of Powers under the HK Basic Law6439 words - 26 pages Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2412448 1 Separation of Powers under the HK Basic Law By Danny Gittings Assistant Professor, College of Humanities and Law, HKU SPACE PhD Student, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong The origins of separation of powers are often traced back to the writings of...
The Separation and Balance of Powers in the UK Constitution1742 words - 7 pages The Separation and Balance of Powers in the UK Constitution “By the latter part of the 20th century the independence of the judges had come under increasing threat from interference by the executive. Recent reforms have, however, served to redress this position and ensure that a proper division of personnel and functions between these two arms of the state is restored. Discuss this statement in the context of the...
separation of powers629 words - 3 pages In the United States government there are 3 branches of government, the power given to the central government is divided among these 3 branches. Each of these branches are given powers so that they can check the powers of the other 2 branches ensuring that one branch doesn’t become to powerful One of these branches is the legislative branch this is the branch that includes congress, they are responsible for making laws. The second branch of...
The Power of Presidency: The Separation of Powers that the President has to follow823 words - 3 pages Dating back to 1690, the Framers created the system we know of today as the System of Checks and balances. This system provided the Separation of Powers for our Federal Government, in which it was created in our...
How does the separation of powers in the US constitution both facilitate good government and check tyranny?1367 words - 5 pages 4.The designers of the Constitution in the US implemented a framework of government that ensured the suppression of injustice and oppression, whereas at the same time, creating a climate ripe for good government.The fundamental basis of this system was and is federalism. In the turbulence following the Declaration of Independence in 1776, it was clear...
Federalism544 words - 2 pages Michael PaladinoUnit 1 Test EssayRichburg, R7The amount of power government can have has always been debated. In the United States, this issue has been argued multiple times. When the Articles of Confederation were created, too much power was given to state government. The creation of the Constitution was against a group of people called Anti-Federalists. These members of decision were afraid...
The War Powers Act1294 words - 5 pages The War Powers Act The farmers of our Constitution recognized the need for separate powers as well as checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This in turn helps to "provide for the common defense". Separation of powers prevents one branch from becoming excessively dominant over the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common...
The Relationship Between the Three Branches of Government1708 words - 7 pages Discuss, considering in particular Bogdanor’s argument that the separation of powers has been strengthened within the British Constitution in recent years. This essay aims to look at the Separation of Powers in the UK Constitution. The relationship between the three categories of public power-legislative, executive and the judicial. The overlaps that are present with the individuals operating in the various organs and their functions in the...
VLAD Bikie laws714 words - 3 pages Soraya Tighe 10 SmithAssessment Item 2:Non-written PresentationToday the ever expanding domination of criminal organisations are threatening the safety of our society, which has led to the revision of the 2009 COA laws and the introduction of the 2013 VLAD law. Both of these acts are similar with their objective of preventing crime throughout Queensland, however there are distinct features in both laws...
The Underlying Consequence of Separation of Power2228 words - 9 pages In Donald Robinson’s, Slavery in the Structure of the American Revolution, he eloquently articulates the original purpose of separation of power in the United States of America: to protect private interests and freedom. Considering that separation of power is viewed as a means to prevent a unitary and centralized government, the issue of slavery influenced the adoption of separation of power. While equality is a quintessential reflection of...
The Separation of Powers is a principle of the constitution rather than a legal rule applied by the courts. The Doctrine of the Separation of Powers is particularly associated with Montesquieu. The principle of the Separation of Powers is that the
three branches; the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, should be SEPARATE, UNIQUE and EQUAL. There should be a clear separation between the people and functions of the legislature, executive and judiciary, otherwise Montesquieu said there will be “tyranny”.
However this does not mean that the bodies should have no power over each other, Blackstone argued that what is required is a “check and balance” system between them, this is referred to as the theory of mixed government. If the branches were completely separate it would be unworkable, particularly as the Parliament is Supreme. There should be sufficient interplay between the branches, for example, the executive proposes legislation, Parliament debates and passes the law, and the judiciary uphold the Acts of Parliament.
In the United States there is a formal separation of powers, with a deliberate system of checks and balances.
In the UK the separation of powers is informal, but the three branches are identifiable.
In the UK the powers and people are mostly but not completely separate. In fact, both the Queen and the Lord Chancellor are in all three branches.
• The Queen appoints government ministers (the executive)
• The Queen appoints judges, and justice is dispensed in the name of the Queen.
• The Queen formally summons Parliament (the legislature) and must give the Royal Assent to a Bill to make it into Law.
• The Lord Chancellor is a senior judge and head of the judiciary. As a member of the HL appellate committee and Privy Council he will participate in decisions which affect both common law and statutory interpretation. The requirements of judicial impartiality have been questioned in McGonnell v UK (2000)
• He is also chair/speaker of the House of Lords (legislature)
• He is a member of the Government (executive) and appointed by the Prime Minister.
The position of the Lord Chancellor has been widely criticised. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 provided for the abolition of the post but this has not happened yet. The position of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has already been created and will assume many of the Lord Chancellor’s duties when it is abolished, but the current Lord Chancellor remains in all three branches.
However the post has been defended, particularly by previous Lord Chancellors. Lord Hailsham said that the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law should be defended from inside the Cabinet as well as inside Parliament.
THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY
The Lord Chancellor appoints senior judges, but the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 recommends a Judicial Appointments commission.
Judges hold office during good behaviour, and are removable only by the Queen on an address to both Houses of Parliament.
Judicial salaries are relatively high to ensure an adequate supply of candidates of sufficient calibre.
Cannot be a Member of Parliament.
Cannot adjudicate on cases where he has an interest (Dr Bonham’s Case, Dimes v Grand Junction) or bias (Re Pinochet Ugarte 1998)
Immunity from legal action in relation to their judicial functions.
The members of the government must be drawn entirely from the Houses of Parliament. To put it another way, the executive is completely made up of people who are already members of the legislature. Government Ministers continue to sit as “normal” members of the legislature in addition to their ministerial responsibilities. This is a very clear example of there being no formal separation of powers. By convention the PM must be a member of the House of Commons.
The British electoral system combined with the Party system produces a dominant executive that actually sits within the legislature.
The legislature has delegated powers to Ministers to create statutory instruments (delegated legislation). Therefore individual members of the executive can themselves actually legislate. However this is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
In ex parte Fire Brigade  the court held that it was unlawful for the Home Secretary to introduce changes to a scheme which were incompatible with an Act of Parliament.
Many of the Queen’s prerogative powers are now actually used by her Ministers. Ministers can use their prerogative powers to legislate without the consent of Parliament. However to some extent this is limited by judicial review.
Despite the lack of separation of people, many people who are already members of the “executive” such as civil servants, the police and members of the armed forces (as well as members of the judiciary) are barred from becoming an MP and joining the legislature by the House of Commons Disqualification Act . This Act also limits the number of MPs that can become ministers as a check on executive power.
CHECKS ON EXECUTIVE BY LEGISLATURE
To hold the executive to account there are several “checks” on executive power.
Every government is dependent upon parliament for its survival in office – no matter how big the majority the government has, if they lose a vote of confidence convention forces the government to resign and a general election to be called as in the Callaghan Government of 1979.
Parliamentary procedures are designed to scrutinise legislative proposals and the government will not always get its own way, PACE 1984 was substantially altered due to pressure from MPs from all sides.
Question Time, debates and select committees all ensure the accountability of government to Parliament.
The opposition gets several days per Parliamentary session to hold debates on subjects of their choosing.
The House of Lords can amend and delay most Bills for up to a year before the Parliament Acts 1911 & 1949 take effect (bypassing the Lords and going straight to the Queen for the Royal Assent). Rather than have its proposals delayed the government may prefer to compromise its proposals or accept amendments made by the House of Lords. This shows the legislature holding the executive to account.
Most prerogative powers are exercised by the government in the name of the crown. In CCSU v Minister of state for Civil Service , (the GCHQ case) the House of Lords ruled that executive power can be judicially reviewed even if it comes from a royal prerogative, but there are many subjects which judges should not review as it is for the democratically elected executive to decide. For example judges will not review the decision to go to war.
There is a convention that members of the executive should not criticise judges. This is often ignored – Mrs Thatcher criticised the light sentence given to a child molester. Also this rule only applies to members of the executive, not normal MPs. Also a judge who said a rape victim was guilty of contributory negligence was criticised in Parliament.
Judges are not chosen on party political grounds.
The pay of judges is set independently – to preserve judicial independence.
Judicial Review is designed to keep those people or bodies that have had powers delegated to them within those powers. So if a minister or a local authority exceeds the powers that Parliament has given it, the courts will nullify the decision and require that the decision maker makes a decision according to the correct procedure. As judicial review is concerned with the process of taking the decision rather than the merits of the decision itself, it could be said that the judiciary are upholding the will of Parliament in controlling the powers it has delegated.
Judicial review is paradoxical, because it could be said that the judiciary are upholding both the Rule of Law and the Supremacy of Parliament, but at the same time they are acting as a check on executive power, arguably infringing the Separation of Powers! For example if Parliament gives powers to a Minister to “act as he sees fit” to what extent is it proper for a court to question his decision-making power?
In R v SSHD ex parte Anderson  it was held that the Home Secretary exercising judicial functions in fixing the sentence of a murderer was a breach of Article 6 ECHR.
Judges are often appointed by the executive to chair official enquiries, such as into the death of David Kelly. Judicial enquiries leave judges open to criticism.
As stated above judges cannot become members of the House of Commons under the House of Commons Disqualification Act .
The Law Lords (the members of the highest court in the land), sit in the House of Lords which is part of the legislature, but by convention they do not participate in party political disputes.
Sub Judice rule – MPs cannot raise court proceedings in debate. The legislature cannot tell the judiciary how to decide a case.
To protect their independence it is extremely difficult for the legislature to dismiss a judge. S11 (3) Supreme Court Act  judges of the High Court and above who hold office during good behaviour are subject to a power of removal by the queen on an address presented by both houses of Parliament.
The judiciary accept the supremacy of Parliament – that Parliament can make any law it wants, but it insists that it has the right to interpret its meaning.
It is said that judges legislate when they decide cases and create precedent. However they will give preference to statute over case law (War Damage Act 1965 / Burmah Oil v Lord Advocate) showing that Parliament is supreme. Also the doctrine of precedent, expressed in the words stare decisis limits the discretion of the court as they have to apply the rulings of the higher courts. In Shaw v DPP, it was said that judges interpret and apply the law they do not create it.
Unlike in the USA, the judiciary cannot declare primary legislation (Acts of Parliament) unconstitutional, but they can review secondary (delegated) legislation.
The UK is becoming increasingly concerned with the Separation of Powers, particularly with Article 6 of the ECHR – The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 reforms the office of Lord Chancellor and the Law Lords will stop being in the legislature and have their own Supreme Court away from Parliament. It is trying to ensure the independence of the judiciary. But a full separation of powers is very unlikely as that would require an executive completely separate from the legislature and a new way of electing a Prime Minister, the UK is not ready for that.
The UK does have a kind of Separation of Powers, but unlike the United States it is informal. Blackstone’s theory of “mixed government” with checks and balances is more relevant to the UK.
It could be said that Judicial Review is the Separation of Powers working at its best – The JUDICIARY ensure that the EXECUTIVE do not exceed the powers that Parliament has given them, thereby upholding the will of the LEGISLATURE.
The separation of powers is not an absolute or predominant feature of the UK constitution. The three branches are not formally separated and continue to have significant overlap. However it is a concept firmly rooted in constitutional thought. It allows the judiciary to remain independent and to refrain from matters more appropriately left to the executive or legislature. Especially relating to prerogative powers and Parliamentary privilege. While the doctrine is not always respected it remains an influential body of thought that ought not to be “lightly dismissed” (Munro).