Elements of a Negotiable Instrument - Essay Example

Imaginary Laws The provisions of the Trial by Jury Act 1985 make it very clear the intentions to protect individual’s fundamental rights of choice by declaring that one bears the right to choose the kind of jury to handle ones case. In attempts to strengthen its stand, the Act clearly indicates that its provisions can only change or repealed when Members of the House Common concentrate a majority vote of 75% towards the purpose. The Act further makes it compulsory for yet another majority vote of 75% by Members of the House of Lords before repealing or changing its provisions. Attempts by the government to change the provisions and practicality of the Trail Jury Amendment Act 1985, saw the adoption of the Amendment Act 2011. This Act became effective through approval and voting by 55% of the majority of the House of Commons. In seeking approval by the House of Lords, the Amendments Act 2011 only received a majority vote to the tune of 52%. From the above analysis, I will advise Berne to pursue with the purpose of disputing and questioning the validity of Amendment Act 2011 in determining the case. The grounds for this kind of advice shall base on the fact that this Act breached the provisions of the constitutions required in repealing the Trial Jury Act 1985. In satisfying this argument, I will advice Berne to hold on the following points that indicating elements of breach of the constitution. First, the Trail Jury Act 1985 provided clear framework that required casting of a majority of 75% by Members of the House of Commons before actual repealing and adjustment. This provision at any point does not cohere with the manner in which the Amendment Act 2011 faced approval and adoption as law. Instead of the majority vote of 75% by the Members of the House of Commons, the Amendment Act 2011 passed by a majority vote of 55% by the Members of the House of Common, which is far below the threshold. Second, the Trail Jury Act 1985 exemplified that a majority vote of 75% by the Members of House of Lords was basic in attempts to amend the provisions under the Act. However, this ceased to be case when the Amendment Act 2011 got approval of a majority vote of 52% by the Members of the House of Lords. This approval was in total contrast with the provisions for amending Trial Jury Act 1985 and thus invalid for use as law to govern judicial proceedings. I will also advice Berne to call for dismissal and disregard of the provisions of the Amendment Act 2011 considering that it tended to sabotage on the fundamental human rights. While the Trial Jury Act 1985 defended individuals’ right to choose a jury to preside over individuals’ case hearing, Amend Act 2011 revoked such provisions by pointing on the certainties that security personnel can prevent. Amendment Act 2011 is also invalid for it tends to sabotage the individuals’ rights to fair and just trial by providing avenues of restricting public participation in a certain case hearing. The provisions inscribed under the 2011 Amendment tend to limit the scope of actions of the Human Rights Act 1998 considering the setting conditions and restrictions in such a way that they are in direct agreement to the provisions under Human Rights Act 1998. Reading from the provisions of Article 6 (1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, I would advise Berne to hold on the right to fair trial to challenge court’s ruling of barring public attendance to the hearing. Under the provisions, Berne has legal rights to request for the acceptance of public to participate in the case hearing. Believes held by Berne that fair and crucial evidence would only come out when public participates in the case hearing, offers substantial grounds for convincing the court to allow public attendance. Since presentation of evidence constitutes the rights of the suspects during case hearing, I would advise Berne to argue and perhaps pronounce court ruling as passed on the grounds of partiality and incompetence. Justification of this claim arises from the interpretation of fair trial that allows a suspect the rights to present evidence and witness of any kind without restriction. However, the same Article 6(1) tends to cohere with the provisions of the 2011 Amendment. Both indicate that individual’s right to fair trial is compromised when the security personal deems that the public participation proves threat to the national security. These provisions make the case and the situation appear complex than imagined. These provisions would deny Berne the right to fair hearing considering informed belief that the rightful evidence to prove her innocence relied upon the public. In this situation, I will advise Berne to seek for legal postponement of the case hearing until clear determination and harmonization of the provisions. Apart from the request for postponement of the case, I will sensitize and advice Berne of yet another legal provision that will direct for provision and validation of the claims by Home Secretary over the potential threat to national security if the public participate in the case hearing. This will translate to the Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that details individual’s rights of expression and information. Through this right, I will advice Berne to seek for court’s address over the validity and reasons that justify public restriction to participate in the case hearing. I will also direct Berne to demand for information from the Home Secretary concerning the exact details of the purported threats to national security if public participates in the hearing. I will also advice Berne to demand for information concerning the steps taken to enhance national security if the court allows public participation during the hearing of the case. Article 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998 clarifies on the individual’s rights to peaceful assembly and association. The Jury Trial Amendment Act 2011 coheres with Article 11 in legalizing breach of the assembly right when deemed to threaten national security. Despite of the provisions, there is still another avenue to challenge the declarations. This will be possible through inclusion of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the provisions of this Article, I will advise Berne to demand for information regarding how his assembly and association with the public can threaten national security. Article 5 of the Human Rights Act 1998 clearly states individual’s rights for security and liberty. Reading from this Article, I will advise Berne to request the court and Home Secretary to lift the restrictions barring public from participating in the court hearing, and instead call on the government to provide security within the courtroom and the its environs. In conclusion, the case facing Berne is somewhat complex considering the provisions under the Amendment Article 2011 structured to repeal the previous Trial Jury Amendment Act 1985. However, Berne has the legal avenues to dismiss the practicality of the Amend Act 2011 as far its approval and adoption is concerned. This loophole derives from the failure by the government to ensure concentration of a majority vote of 75% by Members of the House of Commons and those of the House of Lords. Additionally, Amendment Act 2011 refutes instead of supporting and facilitating protection of the civil liberties and basic human rights of individual suspects. Though the provisions under the Amendment Act 2011 included parts of provisions under the Human Rights Act 1998 in demarcating lines for effectiveness and scope of right to fair trial, Berne stands a chance under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to seek and demand for information validating the restrictions. In general, the Amendment Act 2011 has many weaknesses that when properly argued out may declare it totally inappropriate to consider as law to govern judicial proceedings. Read More