百家争鸣
郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[Judicial Independence and Canadian Judges]
郭国汀律师专栏
·《国际贸易法》郭国汀、陆怡、李涛译 第七章:外国投资
***(13)《国际海事海商法》郭国汀、沈军、王崇能、冯敏译
·《国际海事海商法》郭国汀、沈军、王崇能、冯敏译 第一章:海事海商法的简明历史
·《国际海事海商法》郭国汀、沈军、王崇能、冯敏译 第五章:拖航
·《国际海事海商法》郭国汀、沈军、王崇能、冯敏译 第十章:管辖及程序
·《国际海事海商法》郭国汀、沈军、王崇能、冯敏译 第十一章:海洋污染
·《国际海事海商法》郭国汀、沈军、王崇能、冯敏译 第十二章:特别法定权利、海上留置权、抵押权及其他请求权
·《国际海事海商法》郭国汀、沈军、王崇能、冯敏译 第十三章:旅客运输
***(14)《现代提单的法律与实务》郭国汀/赖民译
·《现代提单的法律与实务》译者的话/郭国汀译
***(15)《审判的艺术》郭国汀译
·《审判的艺术》译者的话/郭国汀
***(16)《国际经济贸易法律与律师实务》郭国汀/高子才合著
·《国际经济贸易法律与律师实务》作者的话/郭国汀
***(17)《当代中国涉外经济纠纷案精析》郭国汀主编
·《当代中国涉外经济纠纷案精析》主编的话/郭国汀
***(18)《国际海商法律实务》郭国汀主编
·《国际海商法律实务》主编前言/郭国汀
***(19)《南郭独立评论》郭国汀著
·【郭國汀評論】第一集我為什麼要為法輪功辯護
·【郭国汀评论】第二集从自焚伪案看中共的邪教本质
·《郭国汀评论》第三集国际专家学者如何看待法轮功?
·【郭國汀評論】第四集:中共為何懼怕曾節明
·【郭國汀評論】第五集:憶通律師事務所遭遇停業的真正原因
·《郭国汀评论》第七集:江泽民是货真价实的汉奸卖国贼
·《郭国汀评论》第八集:从陈世忠的“第二种忠诚”看中共司法黑暗
·【郭國汀評論】第九集-苏家屯事件(盗卖法轮功学员人体器官)是中共的滑鐵盧
·《郭国汀评论》第十集:蘇家屯事件(活体盗卖法轮功学员人体器官)是中共的滑鐵盧(下集)
·《郭国汀评论》:第十二集:爱中华必须反共!
·《郭国汀评论》第十三集:为六四“反革命暴徒”抗辩
·《郭国汀评论》第十四集:什么是我们为之奋斗的民主?
·《郭国汀评论》第十五集:为邓玉娇抗辩(上)
·《郭国汀评论》第十六集 我为邓玉娇抗辩(下)
·《郭国汀评论》第十七集:强烈谴责中共暴政迫害中国人权律师
·《郭國汀評論》第十八集:中共专制暴政正在毁灭中国生态环境
·《郭国汀评论》第二十二集:论法轮功精神运动的伟大意义
·郭国汀评论:论中共政权的非法性《郭国汀评论》第23集
·郭国汀评论:论中共专制暴政下的酷刑
·郭国汀评论第二十八集:中共极权专制暴政下不可能有任何新闻自由
·中共暴政在重演萨斯疫骗局?!
·让人权恶棍无处可逃----评西班牙国家法院受理江泽民群体灭绝罪反人类罪和酷刑罪案
·论反共与反专制暴政
·论反共与反专制暴政(下)
·颠覆及煽动颠覆国家政权罪抗辩要点?
·简评刘晓波煽动颠覆国家政权案一审判决
·论冯正虎精神
·简评刘晓波煽动颠覆国家政权案一审辩护词
·郭泉博士其人其事以及颠覆国家政权案抗辩要点
·论刘晓波与郭泉案的辩护
·郭国汀评论第四十七集胡锦涛向朝鲜学习什么政治?!
·郭国汀评论第四十八集 胡锦锦向古巴学习什么样的政治?
·郭国汀评论第四十九集共产党政权全部是流氓暴政:越南及老挝共产党政权的罪孽
·郭国汀评论第五十集共产党没有一个好东西 秘鲁共产党的罪恶
·郭国汀评论第五十一集尼加拉瓜共产党政权的罪恶
·郭国汀评论第五十二集:共产党政权纯属流氓政权:安哥拉和莫桑比克共产党政权的罪恶
·郭國汀評論第五十三集埃塞俄比亞共產黨政權的罪孽
·郭國汀評論第五十四集阿富漢共產黨暴政的罪孽
·郭國汀評論第五十五集虐殺成性的柬埔寨共產黨極權暴政罪孽
·郭國汀評論第五十六集波蘭共產黨極權暴政的罪惡
·郭国汀评论第五十七集:东欧共产党政权的罪孽
·郭国汀评论第五十八集:人民為敵的蘇聯共產黨暴政的罪孽(一)
·郭国汀评论第六十二集:与人民为敌的苏联共产党暴政的罪孽
·郭国汀评论第六十三集:与人民为敌的苏联共产党暴政的罪孽
·郭国汀评论第六十四集:与人民为敌的苏联共产党暴政的罪孽
·郭国汀评论第六十五集:与人民为敌的苏联共产党暴政的滔天大罪
***(20)《陈泱潮文集选读》陈泱潮著/郭国汀编校
·大器晚成——《陈泱潮文集选读》序
·《造化故事》陈泱潮文选第一集
·铁幕惊雷《特权论》陈泱潮文选第二集
·《偃武修文重新建国纲领》陈泱潮文选第三集
·《时政评论》陈泱潮文选第四集
·《天命前定》陈泱潮文选第五集
·《上帝之道》陈泱潮文选第六集
***(21)《国际互联网自由》郭国汀译
·互联网自由至关重要:中国屈居全球互联网最不自由国家亚军
·互联网自由度的测定方法
·自由之家2008年中国互联网自由检测报告:不自由
·互联网自由日益增长的各种威胁
·国际互联网自由调查团队
·国际互联网自由评价词汇表
·国际互联网自由评价表格和图示
·国际互联网自由评价目录
·古巴互联网自由评价
·伊朗互联网自由评价
·突尼斯互联网自由评价
·俄国互联网自由评价
·马来西亚互联网自由评价
·土耳其互联网自由评定
·肯尼亚互联网自由评价
·埃及互联网自由评价
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Judicial Independence and Canadian Judges

   Judicial Independence and Canadian Judges

   

   By thomasgguo

   

   Judicial independence is the precondition of justice and rule of law. None judges belong to any political party. Judges are security of tenure, and since 1867, none judge were remove from the bench for bribe, although there are some problem exist.

   

   

   In Canada the Federal Cabinet appoint Supreme Court and federal court, as well as provincial appeal and superior courts Judges, while provincial Cabinet appoint provincial courts judges. There are about 1000 judges in each category. All must be qualified lawyers who at least practiced ten years for higher level courts,five years for provincial courts.

   

   

   Judges are security of tenure, the higher courts’ mandatory retirement age of 75, the lower one are 65 or 70. Any judges serve on good behaviour, cannot remove unless by guilty of misbehaviour.

   

   

   Judges cannot be removed merely because the government regards their decisions as error or contrary to government policy, nor ruled against the Crown. Besides security of tenure, judicial independence involving financial, administrative, and political independence; salaries and pensions are fixed cannot intimidated by government threat to reduce. Judges at all levels never cease asking for increases in pay.

   

   

   Judges must be able to function without political pressure. However, Judges increasingly feel their independence is threatened by certain interest group, political correctness, media criticism, political criticism, and even demonstrations.

   

   

   Individual judges have occasionally made outrageous sexist, racist, or other inappropriate comments from the bench. Judges are rarely promoted from provincial court to federal court, 70 percent of appeal court judges have previous judicial experience.

   

   

   Judges are denied vote in federal election and none judges belong to any political party.

   

   

   The Canadian Judicial Council, consist of all the chief-justice and associate chief-justices of courts staffed by federally appointed judges, chaired by the chief-justice of the Supreme Court. The purpose of the Council is deal with the complaints raise against judges. For example, Thomas Berger of the BC Superior court publicly criticized the 1982 Constitution Act for its omission of Quebec and virtually neglect of Aboriginals, his action was investigated by the Canadian Judicial Council, which did not punished him, he resigned protest the process employed.[1]The Supreme Court judges are giving more public speech and interviews than previously, sometime got them into hot water. “It is clearly preferable for judges to exercise restraint when speaking publicly” Judicial Council warmed.

   

   

   In 1982Supreme Court had its first female judge, and in 2004 there were four female judges in the Supreme Court; the first female chief justice is Bererley McLachlan, now one-quarter of all judges in Canada are women.

   

   The Cabinet have used judicial appointment to reward faithful party supporters; although the legal expertise has been taken into account, but it was rarely the primary criterion.[2] Political patronage raises three problems: unsuitable one for his partisan be appointed;well-qualified candidate are overlooked for lack service to governing party;partisan judge may favour his political colleague.

   

   

   Judges are removable for serious criminal acts and for reasons of infirmity or incapacity,failure to execute their duty, or bring the judicial system into disrepute. Only four judges at intermediate and district level met their fate of remove charged since 1867. In 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the removal of Judge Richard Therrien from the court of Quebec on the ground thatwhen he was appointed a judge, he failed to disclose to the authority that he had been sentenced imprisonment for one year for unlawfully giving assistance to the FLQ.[3]Not a single Superior court judges has been removed from office; however, such proceedings were initiated in several cases,but judges either died or resigned during the removal process. Jean Bienvenue of the Quebec Superior court resigned in 1997, after the Canadian Judicial Council asked the federal Parliament to remove him, for having said on the bench that women can be crueller than men, and that even Nazi exterminated Jews painlessly.[4]In 1999, Robert Flahiff of the Quebec Superior Court lost his position when he was sentenced three years in jail after being found guilty of laundering $ 1.7million in drug money when he was a practicing lawyer.[5]Justice Matlow and Justice Cosgrove of Ontario Superior court, formal council vote not removal, later council recommended removal, he resigned.

   

   

   

   

   [1] Rand Dyck, Canadian Politics Critical Approaches, sixthe ed. Nelsoneducation 2010 P.678.

   

   [2] Rand Dyck, Canadian Politics Critical Approaches, sixthe ed. Nelsoneducation 2010 P.672.

   

   [3] Rand Dyck, Canadian Politics Critical Approaches, sixthe ed. Nelsoneducation 2010 p.677.

   

   [4]see, Gall, The Canadian Legal System,P.231, 238-39; Russel, The Judiciary in Canada; p.176-79; the courts p. 94-103.

   

   [5] Rand Dyck, Canadian Politics Critical Approaches, sixthe ed. Nelsoneducation 2010 P.677.

(2012/01/16 发表)

blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场