 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 200 Interpretation of the words 'Substantial risk' of prejudice to administration of justice by Courts in UK creates problems: Section 4(2) of the U.K. Act states that a restraint order may be passed by a Court if there is 'substantial risk' of prejudice to the administration of justice. These words have come up for interpretation in a number of cases in U.K. It will be seen that the Draft Bill (2003) of New South Wales (Australia) also uses the word 'substantial risk' in Sections 7,8 & 9 follows the UK provision. It is necessary to refer to the views expressed by Courts and other commentators (A) as to the meaning of the words 'substantial risk of prejudice' and (B) as to why these words are defective.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back