翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Taylor Township, Minnesota
・ Taylor Township, Ogle County, Illinois
・ Taylor Township, Owen County, Indiana
・ Taylor Township, Pennsylvania
・ Taylor Township, Traverse County, Minnesota
・ Taylor Township, Union County, Ohio
・ Taylor Tran
・ Taylor Trensch
・ Taylor Twellman
・ Taylor University
・ Taylor University College
・ Taylor v Attorney-General
・ Taylor v Beere
・ Taylor v Caldwell
・ Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd
Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board
・ Taylor v Plumer
・ Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland
・ Taylor v. Beckham
・ Taylor v. Illinois
・ Taylor v. Louisiana
・ Taylor v. Mississippi
・ Taylor v. Standard Gas & Electric Co.
・ Taylor v. Sturgell
・ Taylor v. Taintor
・ Taylor v. United States
・ Taylor v. United States (1990)
・ Taylor Valley
・ Taylor Vancil
・ Taylor Vause


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board : ウィキペディア英語版
Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board

''Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board'' was a decision of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand concerning the right to silence and implied statutory repeal of the common law privilege against self-incrimination. The decision, about "constitutional principles as well as eggs", is important because of an obiter dictum by New Zealand's pre-eminent judge, Justice Cooke, later Lord Cooke, on the relationship between the judiciary and Parliament. Cooke forcefully states that there are some parts of the common law so fundamental that courts will not enforce laws of Parliament that seek to abrogate them.〔''Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board'' () 1 NZLR 394 at 406〕
==Background==
Mr Taylor was a poultry farmer from Greytown who went into the Wellington area in a van to deliver eggs. At the time the poultry market was heavily regulated; farmers were required to sell eggs in certain areas through the Poultry Board and the regulations were policed by the Board's agents.〔''Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board'' () 1 NZLR 394 at 397.〕
On three occasions, Mr Taylor was stopped and questioned by the New Zealand Poultry Board's Wellington manager, who in the District Court, testified that Mr Taylor's vehicle contained thousands of eggs. The Poultry Board's manager asked Taylor where the eggs were produced and to whom they belonged. Taylor's replies to these questions were described in Court as "evasive" and "childish", "such as pretending that the eggs were potatoes".〔
Regulation 57, subclause (3) allowed for agents of the Poultry Board to require people with eggs and poultry in their possession and intended for sale to, "answer any inquiries relative to the source of production of the eggs or poultry, or their ownership or their intended destination". Subclause (4) of Regulation 57 made it an offence if a person "refuses or fails to answer any inquiries put to him in accordance with this regulation, or who gives any false or misleading information in relation thereto".〔''Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board'' () 1 NZLR 394 at 396.〕 These regulations had been made by the Governor-General by Order in Council, under section 24(1) of the Poultry Board Act 1980, which allowed for: regulations requiring the provision of information to the board; and the creation of offences aimed at those failing to comply with the Act or regulations made under it.〔
Taylor was convicted in the District Court on three charges of having "failed to answer inquiries relative to the source of production and ownership (in one information production only) of eggs in his possession which were intended for sale, such inquiries being put to him in accordance with reg 57 by an officer of the New Zealand Poultry Board".〔 Taylor was fined a total of $700.〔
Taylor appealed his convictions unsuccessfully in the High Court. Justice Cooke summarised that Justice Jeffries in the High Court had declined the appeal because, "The Act and the regulations place the Board at the centre of a system designed, as the Judge put it, to replace a free market with extensive, but not complete, control over production, marketing and disposal of surplus. He thought that the intention of the legislature should not be frustrated for anything but the most compelling reasons in law; and that a reasonable authorisation to question must be part of the policing of the statutory scheme."〔''Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board'' () 1 NZLR 394 at 397-398.〕
Justice Jeffries granted Taylor leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The leave to appeal was granted on the following point of law, "Whether the Poultry Board Act 1980 authorises by sufficiently clear words the creation (contrary to the common law principle that a person cannot be forced to answer questions under threat of sanction) by reg 57 of the Poultry Board Regulations 1980 of an offence of refusing or failing to answer inquiries put to a person by the Board, its employees or agents in accordance with the regulation."〔''Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board'' () 1 NZLR 394 at 395-396.〕

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.