This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations .(November 2019) |
The Gaming Tribunal of New South Wales was a tribunal with jurisdiction to make declarations that premises were being used for the purposes of illegal gaming. The consequences of such a declaration were that the police could enter the premises at any time without the issue of a warrant, and may seize gambling implements, money and securities. The tribunal was abolished in 1998.
The tribunal was created because the New South Wales parliament felt that the existing process in declaring a gaming house was ineffective. The Police Minister in the New South Wales Legislative Council on 12 November 1987 said: “The current legislation which vests the Supreme Court of New South Wales with jurisdiction to declare premises as gaming houses has not proved to be as successful as had been hoped. Police have not been able to obtain speedy declarations based on a reasonable suspicion of gaming being conducted on the premises. The experience has been that the suspicion required to be shown is high and to make a declaration the Supreme Court has generally relied upon a successful raid or infiltration by the police. Therefore, before making an application to the court, the Crown Solicitor has usually required either actual evidence of gaming on the premises or significant evidence from within the premises that they are being used as gaming houses." The tribunal came into existence on 18 January 1988 and was abolished on 1998.
The tribunal was created by section 38A.of the Gaming and Betting Act 1912. That section was introduced by the Gaming and Betting (Amendment) Act 1987. The tribunal was an inferior court and established as a court of record. The tribunal was abolished in 1998 when the Local Court of New South Wales was given the jurisdiction to make declarations.
The Chief Judge of the District Court of New South Wales was the president of the tribunal. The Governor of New South Wales could appoint a deputy president. Each of the judges of the District court automatically became members of the tribunal. Chief Justice Street In Lisafa Holdings Pty Ltd V Commissioner of Police (1988) 15 NSWLR 1 criticised the automatic appointment of judges to the tribunal as it threatened the judicial independence of those judges as they were not given the choice as to whether to participate in the tribunal.
When considering an application for a declaration, the tribunal was constituted by a single member. When consider an application for recission of a declaration, the tribunal was constituted by the president and two other members.
The tribunal could make an interim declaration that premises were a gaming house. The tribunal had to consider the application for a declaration within five days. The effect of such a declaration were major. Police could search the premises at any time without warrant. Police could seize any items suspected of being used for gambling. Any person entering or leaving the premises could be arrested without warrant. They could be subject to penalties unless they could prove that they had a lawful purpose for being there. The tribunal could also make a final declaration. The effect of a final declaration was that the premises could not be used for any business purposes whatsoever. This would remain in effect until the tribunal removed the order.
The Independent Commission against Corruption of New South Wales (ICAC) in its first report on the relationship between police and criminals noted police criticisms of the tribunal. The commission noted that the means of obtaining a declaration were “technical, difficult to interpret and difficult to enforce”. The New South Wales Government abolished the tribunal in 1998 as well as the Gaming and Betting Act 1912 and replaced it with the Unlawful Gambling Act 1998 to simplify the procedure. The jurisdiction to make declarations was then given to the Local Court.
A justice of the peace (JP) is a judicial officer of a lower court, elected or appointed by means of a commission to keep the peace. In past centuries the term commissioner of the peace was often used with the same meaning. Depending on the jurisdiction, such justices dispense summary justice or merely deal with local administrative applications in common law jurisdictions. Justices of the peace are appointed or elected from the citizens of the jurisdiction in which they serve, and are usually not required to have any formal legal education in order to qualify for the office. Some jurisdictions have varying forms of training for JPs.
The term magistrate is used in a variety of systems of governments and laws to refer to a civilian officer who administers the law. In ancient Rome, a magistratus was one of the highest ranking government officers, and possessed both judicial and executive powers. In other parts of the world, such as China, magistrate is a word applied to a person responsible for administration over a particular geographic area. Today, in some jurisdictions, a magistrate is a judicial officer who hears cases in a lower court, and typically deals with more minor or preliminary matters. In other jurisdictions, magistrates are typically trained volunteers appointed to deal with criminal and civil matters in their local areas.
The separation of powers in Australia is the division of the institutions of the Australian government into legislative, executive and judicial branches. This concept is where legislature makes the laws, the executive put the laws into operation, and the judiciary interprets the laws; all independently of each other. The term, and its occurrence in Australia, is due to the text and structure of the Australian Constitution, which derives its influences from democratic concepts embedded in the Westminster system, the doctrine of "responsible government" and the United States version of the separation of powers. However, due to the conventions of the Westminster system, a strict separation of powers is not always evident in the Australian political system, with little separation between the executive and the legislature, with the executive required to be drawn from, and maintain the confidence of, the legislature; a fusion.
The District Court of New South Wales is the intermediate court in the judicial hierarchy of the Australian state of New South Wales. It is a trial court and has an appellate jurisdiction. In addition, the Judges of the Court preside over a range of tribunals. In its criminal jurisdiction, the Court may deal with all serious criminal offences except murder, treason and piracy. The Court's civil jurisdiction is generally limited to claims less than A$1,250,000.
Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.
The Victims Compensation Tribunal of New South Wales is a former tribunal of the Government of New South Wales that was established to determine the amounts that may be awarded to victims of crime for personal injury in New South Wales, a state of Australia. The tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the amount which the Victims Compensation Fund of New South Wales would pay to a victim of crime. This tribunal was unique in Australia in that it did not notify nominated defendants of tribunal hearings and therefore did not hear evidence that may exist from such persons.
The Land and Valuation Court of New South Wales was a court which had jurisdiction to deal with disputes concerning crown land in New South Wales. It replaced the Land Court of New South Wales on 10 December 1921 and itself replaced by the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales on 1 September 1980.
The Personal Injury Commission resolves disputes between people injured in motor accidents and workplaces in NSW, insurers and employers.
The Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales conciliates and arbitrates industrial disputes, sets conditions of employment and fixes wages and salaries by making industrial awards, approves enterprise agreements and decides claims of unfair dismissal in New South Wales, a state of Australia. The Commission was established with effect from 2 September 1996 pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act 1996.
The Police Tribunal of New South Wales was a tribunal established in New South Wales, a state of Australia to deal with allegations of misconduct by New South Wales Police. It was established in 1990 and abolished in 1998.
The Vice Admiralty Court was a prerogative court established in the late 18th century in the colony of New South Wales, which was to become a state of Australia. A vice admiralty court is in effect an admiralty court. The word "vice" in the name of the court denoted that the court represented the Lord Admiral of the United Kingdom. In English legal theory, the Lord Admiral, as vice-regal of the monarch, was the only person who had authority over matters relating to the sea. The Lord Admiral would authorize others as his deputies or surrogates to act. Generally, he would appoint a person as a judge to sit in the Court as his surrogate. By appointing Vice-Admirals in the colonies, and by constituting courts as Vice-Admiralty Courts, the terminology recognized that the existence and superiority of the "mother" court in the United Kingdom. Thus, the "vice" tag denoted that whilst it was a separate court, it was not equal to the "mother" court. In the case of the New South Wales court, a right of appeal lay back to the British Admiralty Court, which further reinforced this superiority. In all respects, the court was an Imperial court rather than a local Colonial court.
The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It provides for several diverse matters relating to the law, some of them being significant changes to the structure of the courts and fundamental legal procedures. Part 1 provides a scheme for radical overhaul of the tribunal system in the UK, creating a new unified structure with two new tribunals to embrace the former fragmented scheme, along with a Senior President of Tribunals. Part 2 defines new criteria for appointment as a judge, generally reducing the length of experience required with the aim of increasing diversity in the judiciary. Part 3 creates a new system of taking control of goods in order to enforce judgments and abolishes ancient common law writs and remedies such as fieri facias, replevin and distress for rent. It introduces a modern system of 'certified enforcement agents' and 'exempted enforcement agents' which includes civil servants such as court officers and County Court bailiffs, civilian enforcement officers and police officers. Part 4 makes some changes to attachment of earnings and charging orders to make recovery of debts more straightforward. Part 5 makes some changes to insolvency practice in order to provide low-cost protection for people who have previously been excluded owing to their small debts and lack of assets. Part 6 provides protection from seizure for foreign antiquities and artefacts on display in the UK and whose provenance is alleged to be broken by misappropriation. Such artefacts can only be seized on a court order that was compelled by a Community obligation or a treaty obligation.
The Community Services Appeal Tribunal was an independent tribunal established in the State of New South Wales to deal with breaches of community welfare legislation, as well as handling appeals against licensing decisions in respect of child care services, boarding houses, and foster carers. The tribunal provided the first forum in New South Wales for alternative dispute resolution in New South Wales for resolving disputes. The tribunal replaced the Community Welfare Appeals Tribunal which was known as CWAT.
The remedies available in Singapore administrative law are the prerogative orders – the mandatory order, prohibiting order (prohibition), quashing order (certiorari), and order for review of detention – and the declaration, a form of equitable remedy. In Singapore, administrative law is the branch of law that enables a person to challenge an exercise of power by the executive branch of the Government. The challenge is carried out by applying to the High Court for judicial review. The Court's power to review a law or an official act of a government official is part of its supervisory jurisdiction, and at its fullest may involve quashing an action or decision and ordering that it be redone or remade.
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) is a first-instance tribunal and superior court of record in the United Kingdom. It is primarily an inquisitorial court.
Nudd v Taylor, was a court case, decided in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 30 August 2000. The case concerned Australian Private International Law, specifically giving a Queensland authority to the application of the Moçambique rule.
An ouster clause or privative clause is, in countries with common law legal systems, a clause or provision included in a piece of legislation by a legislative body to exclude judicial review of acts and decisions of the executive by stripping the courts of their supervisory judicial function. According to the doctrine of the separation of powers, one of the important functions of the judiciary is to keep the executive in check by ensuring that its acts comply with the law, including, where applicable, the constitution. Ouster clauses prevent courts from carrying out this function, but may be justified on the ground that they preserve the powers of the executive and promote the finality of its acts and decisions.
Thint (Pty) Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others; Zuma and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others is a 2008 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the area of criminal procedure. It concerns the lawfulness of search and seizure warrants issued in terms of section 29 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, 1998 in the course of an investigation into serious economic crime. The court implemented several tests for the lawfulness of such warrants and confirmed that the state was not required to provide notice to the subjects of such warrants.
The Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) (“the Act”) is a piece of privacy legislation enacted by the Parliament of New South Wales the most populous state in Australia. It replaced the Listening Devices Act 1984 (NSW). The Act makes it an offence to record private conversations apart from in specific and defined circumstances. It makes provision for law enforcement officers to apply for warrants authorising the use of such devices and the circumstances in which judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales might issue such warrants.
Monika Schmidt was a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales from 2009 until 2019, appointed to the Common Law Division, having previously been a judge of the Industrial Court of New South Wales for 16 years.