Supreme Court of Nauru

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court of Nauru is the supreme court in the legal system of the island state Republic of Nauru in the Pacific Ocean .

Constitutional basis

The court was established on the basis of Part V of the Nauru Constitution , which was adopted in 1968 when Nauru gained independence from Australia . Art. 48 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as “a highest court of record ” (appellate court), with jurisdiction that is constitutionally and legally established. Art. 49 provides that the Chief Justice is appointed by the President and judges together with other judges who are also appointed by the President, the number of such judges is regulated by law. Only barristers and solicitors who have at least five years of professional experience can be appointed to the Supreme Court. Art. 50 and 51 describe that a judge of the Supreme Court resigns his / her office at the age of 65, unless the age limit is adjusted by law; or that he can be dismissed for incompetence or wrongdoing if at least two-thirds of the members of Parliament agree, or if a declaration of resignation is submitted to the President. Art. 54 states that "the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction over all other courts exclusively to resolve any question that arises under or with the inclusion of the interpretation or with the influence of any foresight of the constitution" describes that the Cabinet " should refer to the Supreme Court on constitutional questions "(" may refer questions on Constitution to the Supreme Court "), and that" the Supreme Court should state its opinion on the question in a public session "(" the Supreme Court shall pronounce in open court its opinion on the question "). The Supreme Court is thus empowered to issue an “ advisory opinion ” , even if this only takes place in response to questions from the Cabinet.

Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court has both direct jurisdiction ( original jurisdiction ) and appellate jurisdiction . The Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute records that the Supreme Court "has unlimited civil jurisdiction and, while the Courts Act of 1972 does not provide it, also has unlimited criminal jurisdiction." In addition, the Appeals Act of 1972 states that the Supreme Court The District Court also decides contradictions for both criminal justice and civil law. However, the Family Court decides separately and no appeal to the Supreme Court is possible.

Despite its name, the Supreme Court is in many cases not the highest authority. Constitutional decisions are final, but any other case may be referred to the Appellate Court of Nauru . In addition, Article 57 of the Constitution stipulates that parliament can allow a court in another country to be referred. This precaution was drawn up in an agreement between Nauru and Australia in 1976 so that the High Court of Australia can also be referred to in case of doubt .

This settlement with Australia ended on March 12, 2018 after the government of Nauru unilaterally abandoned the agreement. The Australian Law Reform Commission had previously indicated that this regulation would create difficulties with other tasks of the High Court of Australia. The move was welcomed as a further step on the way to becoming an independent nation.

Since the Nauru legal system is based on Anglo-Saxon law, precedents set by the Supreme Court become part of national law and the Supreme Court's interpretation binds the decision of the lower courts. However, such precedents can be suspended by the legislature.

decisions

The Supreme Court ruled its first case, Detamaigo v. Demaure , April 1969. It was an appeal against a decision of the Nauru Lands Committee. In a brief decision, Judge Thompson rejected the appeal because he was not authorized to make a decision on the basis of "personalty".

The first constitutionally relevant case of the Supreme Court was Jeremiah v Nauru Local Government Council in March 1971. In this case, the Nauru Jeremiah turned to the court because the Nauru Local Government Council refused to give consent when he wanted to marry a foreigner ( Births, Deaths and Marriages Ordinance 1957). The plaintiff argued that there was a violation of Article 3 of the constitution, which grants every citizen “fundamental rights and freedoms”. Judge Thompson ruled that there was no constitutional right to marry.

In October 2010, the Supreme Court had on the state of emergency by President Marcus Stephen to decide the In the Matter of the Constitution and in the Matter of the Dissolution of the Eighteenth Parliament had imposed a state of emergency because Parliament had no way a decision bring about. The lawsuit was brought by members of the opposition. Judge John von Doussa ruled in favor of the President because Article 77 of the Constitution gives the President full discretion to decide when a state of emergency may be declared.

The current Chief Justice is Filimone Jitoko , who succeeded Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi in 2017 . Jane Crulci (2014–2017) and Resident Magistrate Emma Garo (2014–2016) were the first women to be appointed to the position of judiciary in Nauru.

Chief Justices

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ "[t] he Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction to determine any question arising under or involving the interpretation or effect of any provision of th [e] Constitution"; Art. 55
  2. ^ Constitution of Nauru .
  3. ↑ Barry Connell, CJ .: Constitutional Reference; In re Dual Nationality and Other Questions. Supreme Court of Nauru 2004.
  4. ↑ a b "has unlimited original civil jurisdiction and although the Courts Act [1972] does not so specify it is assumed that it has original criminal jurisdiction". "Nauru Courts System Information," Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute.
  5. ^ Appeals Act 1972.
  6. ^ "Nauru: Courts & Judgments" , United States Department of State.
  7. ^ "Parliament may provide that an appeal lies as prescribed by law from a judgment, decree, order or sentence of the Supreme Court to a court of another country".
  8. ^ Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Nauru relating to Appeals to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of Nauru. September 6, 1976.
  9. ↑ a b Jeremy Gans: News: Court may lose Nauru appellate role . In: Opinions on High . Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne . February 20, 2018. Retrieved April 2, 2018.
  10. ↑ Melissa Clarke, Justice in Nauru curtailed as Government abolishes appeal system. ABC News , April 2, 2018
  11. ↑ Calla Wahlquist: Fears for asylum seekers as Nauru moves to cut ties to Australia's high court. In: The Guardian April 2, 2018.
  12. ^ Australian Law Reform Commission : Appeals from the Supreme Court of Nauru to the High Court . In: The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth: A Review of the Judiciary Act 1903 and Related Legislation June 30, 2001, pp. 341-346 (accessed April 2, 2018): " Recommendation 19-1. The Attorney-General should consult with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade regarding the feasibility of terminating the treaty between Australia and Nauru, which provides for certain appeals to be brought to the High Court from the Supreme Court of Nauru. If termination is considered feasible, the Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 should be repealed. "
  13. ^ Andrew Roberts: Appeals to Australia from Nauru: The High Court's Unusual Jurisdiction . In: AusPubLaw . December 4, 2017. Retrieved April 2, 2018.
  14. ↑ In a speech to parliament on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Nauru's independence, President Baron Waqa stated: "Severance of ties to Australia's highest court is a logical step towards full nationhood and an expression of confidence in Nauru's ability to determine its own destiny . " Jeremy Gans: News: Court may lose Nauru appellate role. Opinions on high. Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne. 20th February 2018.
  15. ^ Consolidation of Legislation Project. Parliament of Nauru.
  16. ^ "Appeal against a decision of the Nauru Lands Committee as to the persons beneficially entitled to the personality of the estate of a deceased Nauruan."
  17. ↑ In a very brief ruling, Chief Justice Thompson struck out the appeal, on the grounds that "this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals from the Nauru Lands Committee's determinations in respect of personalty", as such jurisdiction was not specifically provided by the Nauru Lands Committee Ordinance 1956. Detamaigo v Demaure , Supreme Court of Nauru, 1969
  18. ↑ every person in Nauru is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual.
  19. ^ In re the Constitution, Jeremiah v Nauru Local Government Council , Supreme Court of Nauru, 1971.
  20. ^ In the Matter of the Constitution and in the Matter of the Dissolution of the Eighteenth Parliament. Supreme Court of Nauru, 2010.