Talk:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Supreme Court of Australia

The article said:

Technically, a litigant may appeal to the Privy Council with the permission of the Supreme Court of Australia. However, the Australian Supreme Court does not grant permission.

To which it was added:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE SUPREME COURT OF AUSTRALIA - EACH STATE HAS A SUPREME COURT AND THERE IS A FEDERAL COURT - THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA IS THE HIGHEST APPELLATE COURT FOR BOTH

Which is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth Owen (talk • contribs) 10:17, 27 September 2002

The latter. There is no "Supreme Court of Australia", rather there is a "High Court of Australia". Under Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament, the State Parliament, and the British Parliament, there is no right of appeal to the Privy Council anymore, even if the High Court decided to grant one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.249.132 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 30 December 2002

The original poster was correct, even if he got the name of the court wrong. The constitution (art. 74) still says that disputes relating to federal vs state powers can only be appealed to the PC with the permission of the High Court. This was in the days when everything else could be appealed without the permission of the High Court. Not surprisingly, the High court has stated that it is highly unlikely (read - never going to) to give permission to take to London the very matters which the constitution designed to be decided in Australia. Andrew Yong

Andrew Yong is wrong, article 74 of the constitution say that: "No appeal shall be permitted to the Queen in Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, or as to the limits inter se of the Constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council."

You got this the wrong way around.

Also, no appeals can go to the privy council now, with the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.175.165 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 31 October 2009

Ahem - "...unless the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by Her Majesty in Council." Clearly the High Court could have so certified if it was so inclined. I agree, however, that the Australia Act 1986 (UK, if not Cth) has made this obsolete. Andrew Yong (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Minor changes and updates in line with Privy Council's definitions. Also changed commonwealth realms to commonwealth, because republics are included.--garryq 23:25, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

---

The Persons Case

I wonder why the Persons Case is given as an example of Canadian cases heard by the JCPC. There were many, many important Canadian cases which went all the way to London. Why single out this one? HistoryBA 02:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• This would likely be because this case resulted in enabling women to sit on the Canadian Senate and, therefore, was of paramount importance to the plight of women to gain equal standing in Canada — modern Canadian values would not be what they are now, if The Persons Case had not occurred. My thoughts, anyway. FiveParadox 17:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not denying the importance of the case. By singling it out, however, we imply that it was the most important case that went from Canada to the JCPC. I don't see any evidence that "modern Canadian values" would be any different today had the lords in London ruled differently. HistoryBA 19:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Had the Lords in London ruled otherwise, then women would have continued to have been unable to sit in the Senate. Not only would this have set a considerably more conservative precedent, but it would have completely changed the composition of the Senate over the next few decades. The Governor General of Canada even issues awards named after the Persons Case, because it is seen as a defining moment in relation to gender equality. This is the most often-quoted case I have been in non-Wikipedia articles relative to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council's Canadian cases, and I would assert that such should also be the case here. FiveParadox 20:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not question whether women would have continued to be excluded from the Senate in the mid-1920s. I questioned whether "modern Canadian values" would be any different today had the lords in London ruled differently. What evidence is there to support your assertion? Also, what evidence is there that the composition of the Senate would not have changed for the "next few decades"? Aren't these POV statements? HistoryBA 18:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you are quite correct in that. :) I was being subjective, I suppose. FiveParadox 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Coming much to late to this debate it appears, since the reference to the Persons Case has long since been removed. But in any event, the case was of foundational importance to Canadian constitutional law, and remains the origin of the organizing principle for the interpretation of the Canadian constitution to this day. Lord Sankey's "living tree doctrine" to describe how to interpret the Constitution through time, and without reference to the "intent of the Founders" so popular in the United States, remains the rule in Canada, and has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court of Canada in the years since, see for example, Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, [2004] 3 SCR 698, 2004 SCC 79 at para. 22.

The current Canadian $50 banknote's design commemorates the Persons' Case - (222.153.75.130 01:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

Constitutional Reform Act 2005

Does the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 mean that this article is now out of date? -- Beland 23:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Many of the provisions in that Act are yet to be brought into effect. 130.88.52.124 23:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Trinidad & Tobago

Missing from the list of Caribbean countries from which the Privy Council can be reached at appeal? (Caribbean Court not enacted yet?)

Canadian Privy Council Cases

[[Ponoka-Calmar Oils v Wakefield [1960] A.C. 18]] was the final case appealed before the Privy Council from Canada.This deserves an article in its own right. - (202.180.98.82 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

Court of Delegates

I have deleted "It replaced the Court of Delegates." There has never been a Court of Delegates in England or the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EroticAcademic (talk • contribs) 17:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I think for 300 years from 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19 until 1832, the Court of Delegates was an English ecclesisastical (civil law) court of appeal from the Court of Arches.Jezza (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

court of last resort in UK

The article states: "The judicial system of the United Kingdom is unusual in having no single highest national court..."

That's not really so unusual. In federal nations, it's not unusual to have no single court of last resort. For example, in the United States, where the Supreme Court of the United States only has jurisdiction over matters of federal constitutional and federal statute law, but not pure questions of state law. Civil law countries often have divided court streams, with separate courts of last resort: France and Germany both have separate courts of last resort for regular matters, constitutional matters, and administrative matters. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, almost a year on and no-one has commented on this point, so I went ahead and deleted this statement from the article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Image to Use in the JCPC Court case Info Box

There is a template for an info-box for articles about court cases: Template:Infobox court case. One of the fields is for an image to represent the court.

Currently, all of the British courts use an elaborate version of the Royal Arms: Template:Infobox court case/images.

Since the JCPC uses a less elaborate version of the Arms, as indicated on this page, I've suggested in the Talkpage for the images that the same image should be used for the court case infobox: Template talk:Infobox court case

If anyone wants to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox court case, please do so. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Saint Lucia

I have been sent a copy of the Constitution of Saint Lucia (Amendment) Act, 2023 (No. 2 of 2023) by the National Printing Corporation. (Text of the Bill) The Act was passed in the House of Assembly on 28 Feb, passed in the Senate on 2 Mar, assented to on 8 Mar and gazetted on 9 Mar. Is is sufficient to say that the CCJ is now Saint Lucia's final court of appeal? Mike Rohsopht (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

As soon as you can link to a reliable source, not a Facebook page, yes. News items from Saint Lucia, for instance. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)