Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
This document provides an overview of the legal principles and case law surrounding judicial and quasi-judicial acts. It explains the key differences between these types of actions, highlighting the immunity granted to judges and quasi-judicial bodies when performing their duties. The document also covers the requirements for a successful defense of judicial immunity and the characteristics of quasi-judicial bodies, including their obligation to follow the rules of natural justice. The importance of this legal doctrine in protecting the independence and impartiality of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities is emphasized, with the case law section exploring the complex issues surrounding state immunity and the potential conflict with the right of access to a court under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Typology: Summaries
1 / 5
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Judicial Acts A judge discharging his official duties or a Judicial Officer exercising his judicial function is referred to as a “judicial act.” This defence can be taken by a Judge if an action in tort is brought against him. The law says that no suit will lie against a Judge for any act done or any words spoken by him whilst doing his duty. In the case of Anderson v. Gorrie (1894), the plaintiff had accused two men of obtaining money under a false pretence. However, on the advice of his counsel, he withdrew the case. The presiding Judge of the case here remarked that the plaintiff was extorting money from the defendant by involving them in litigation. Here, no action will lie against the judge because he was discharging his duties. Also, the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 states that “no Judge, Magistrate, Collector, or any person acting judicially shall be sued in any Civil Court, for any act done by him in the discharge of his judicial duties”. The court must ensure that the following two conditions are satisfied before it allows such a defence by a Judge- a) The act must be done while doing his judicial duty. b) The judge must be acting within his jurisdiction, or at least in good faith believes himself to have jurisdiction to do the act. This rule of immunity is also available to the members of naval and military courts-martial or courts of inquiry constituted in compliance with the military law and not only to the judges of the ordinary civil courts. Also, to a limited extent, it applies to the arbitrators as well and the persons who are appointed in a position like that of the arbitrator. Quasi-Judicial Acts The word ‘quasi’ holds a Latin origin and means ‘similar to but not exactly.’ There are certain bodies and persons such as colleges, committees, institutions that exercise quasi-judicial powers and therefore are protected from civil liability. Eg- acts of a Commission like the Human Rights Commission, Tribunals like the Income Tax Tribunal, etc. These quasi-judicial bodies observe the rules of natural justice. For the purpose of effective functioning, they may create certain fair rules in consonance with statutes applicable to them and according to conventional rules. The quasi-judicial acts are not exactly court proceedings. They may seem to derive the powers and functions of some laws, but they are still not considered to be courts. They don’t usually follow any procedure of the court. Quasi-judicial is also known as a non-judicial body that can interpret law. It is an entity, which has powers and procedures that resemble a court of law or judge, and which is obliged to determine facts and draw conclusions from them to provide the basis of official action. Therefore, these
Facts:
. The claimants allege that they suffered systematic torture in the territory of the foreign state. . The second principle of international law condemns and criminalizes the official practice of torture. . The claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal against the dismissal of their claims. . The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Jones's appeal against the dismissal of his claims against the Kingdom, including his claim based on torture. . The main issues for the House to resolve are whether the English court has jurisdiction to entertain Mr. Jones's claim based on torture against the Kingdom, and whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the claims based on torture against Colonel Abdul Aziz and the four defendants. Ruling: . The Court of Appeal held that the English court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings alleging torture against foreign officials. . The Court of Appeal also held that the Kingdom is protected by state immunity. . Mr. Jones's appeal was dismissed Reasoning: · Section 1(1) of the 1978 Act provides general immunity from jurisdiction for a state. . Section 16(4) of the 1978 Act specifies that Part 1 does not apply to criminal proceedings. . The claimants argue that applying the 1978 Act to uphold the Kingdom's claim to immunity would be incompatible with their right of access to a court implied into article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. . The claimants must show that the grant of immunity to the Kingdom would deny them ac- cess to the English court. · The Convention requires all member states to assume and exercise criminal jurisdiction over alleged torturers, subject to certain conditions. . The claimants argue that the proscription of torture by international law precludes the grant of immunity to states or individuals sued for committing acts of torture.
· The claimants rely on the decision in Al-Adsani v United Kingdom, where a powerful minority of the court found a violation of the applicant's right of access to a court under article 6 of the European Convention.
. The claimants argue that the Ferrini decision, which entertained a civil claim based on war crimes, cannot be treated as an accurate statement of international law. . The claimants argue that the UN Immunity Convention of 2004 provides no exception from immunity for civil claims based on acts of torture. . The claimants contend that the lack of evidence for a torture exception to immunity means that the rule on immunity prevails. . The Court of Appeal's conclusion on the torture claims against the individual defendants cannot be sustained. . The acts of state officials acting in their capacity are not attributable to them personally but only to the state. . The reasoning of the Court of Appeal in denying immunity to individuals who are alleged to have committed acts of torture is that torture cannot constitute an official act. Disposition: . Mr. Jones's appeal is dismissed. . The Kingdom's appeal is allowed.
