Courts Are For Justice and Politics Is For Politicians

Sample Paper Preview #1

The Mabo case made it clear that the courts are created for the purpose of justice and not as often construed that politics may have influence in the dynamics of upholding decisions. The duty of any court lies in being to identify any previous set precedents and legal positions that justify the rights of the parties in any dispute. The position of the court does not have to lean on the pressure or influence of the public or corporations involved. Rather, the decisions is based on the merits and the laws that have been presented in a case.

Contrary to this opinion, politics works through relying on the power of the majority rather than the rights of the minority. The Mabo case, resolves this argument ascertaining the positions that courts take the positions of understanding the rights of all the parties. Despite the immense pressure from different quotas such as the corporations in the mining industry and the public as Dixon & Williams (2015) clarifies, the court decided to recognize the minority. Another position of the court in the Mabo case that takes a stand on the role of the court in delivering justice lies in being able to reverse previous cases such as witnessed in the case Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd. The court saw it appropriate to reverse this case since as per the current decision it would be in contravention of the argument held in the Mabo case that all Aboriginals tittles are recognized by law. While politics may tend to be sparing in taking decisions that do not hold public opinion, the courts still are brave to accommodate the interests of the public.

Sample Paper Preview #2

In my view, judges should not be limited by the interpretation and application of legislations of precedents, they should always be keen to adapt to the different times and the dynamics of the cases. Most cases that have been decided in the past have shown different arguments and positions that often lead to different outcomes based on the information that is presented to the judge and the time when such cases are being decided. A case such as Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd. Would better offer an argument on why the judges should always be keen to change. In the above case the defendant was favoured based on the argument that was presented at the time of the case. However, in the years that followed, other decisions and reason arguments that were presented in the commonly known as the Mabo case allowed the court to view this decision in a different light.

If the two cases are to be relied, it is clear that judges just as any human may be faced by challenges to accommodate all the positions of the two parties based on the information that is presented at the time of the case. The openness to accommodate such a case later proved that judges cannot limit themselves to relying on precedents when new arguments that elaborate of reason come up. In my view, the courts should be able to accommodate aspects such as changes in time or consider to focus on those legal positions that infringe the rights of other people or positions that are repugnant to justice. For instance, The case of Sigsworth, Re, Bedford v Bedford (1935; Ch 89) allowed the application of the golden rule allowing the court to hold a position that no one can benefit from crime even in instances of inheritance. Such an application of reason allows the court to better understand the position of the case, rather than limit themselves in future to other aspects that may develop in deciding cases.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!