Дипломные работы на заказ, курсовые работы на заказ

Participation of Attorney General in Civil Procedure of Great Britain.

The Essay. 2010 г.

Introduction ………………………………………………………..……………p.3

Chapter I. The Attorney General of Great Britain

In The Historical Aspect ……….. …………………………………………..…..p.5

Chapter II. Forms of Attorney General’s Participation in Civil Procedure of Great Britain…………………………………………………………………………….p.8.

2.1. Duties & Responsibilities……………………………………………………p.8

2.2. The Role of Attorney General’s Prosecution……………………………….p.11

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………p.14

Bibliography………………………………………………………………..……p.15

Introduction

Critics claim the attorney’s current responsibilities – as legal adviser to government, independent guardian of the public interest, and minister responsible for prosecutions – are fraught with conflicts of interest. Some say a member of the government cannot be trusted to give independent and impartial advice and the job of adviser should be handed over to an outsider or an official.

The current debate about reforming the role stems from three major controversies in the last five years: advice on the legality of the Iraq invasion; BAE Systems and the decision to drop a Serious Fraud Office investigation; and cash for honours.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to recall that the well-known absence of independence of the individual members of the Public Prosecutor’s offices has for years been the subject of debate and of academic studies, noted with considerable apprehension by public opinion.

Frequently, in fact, English public opinion has had to take note, with astonishment and apprehension, of the apparent inability or of the manifest difficulty of Public Prosecutors in launching criminal proceedings against people of influence in the political and business worlds. Only too often, the activities of Public Prosecutors seem to be distinguished by a wilful inertia and a readiness to close cases.

The first problem that arises is that of the juridical nature of the Public Prosecutor’s office. A considerable part of the theory sees the Public Prosecutor’s office as an organ of the judiciary, applying to it the concept of judicial power of the Fundamental Law. This assumption allows part of the theory to deduce the independence of individual Public Prosecutors, treating them as equivalent to the category of judges. An equivalency of this kind is rejected not only by the jurisprudence but also by the majority of the theory, since the articles in question state, that judicial power is entrusted solely to the judges.  According to the jurisprudence and majority theory, the Public Prosecutor’s office is an organ of the administration and protects justice sui generis but nevertheless forms part of the executive power.

Стоимость работы: 1500 руб.