How does magna carta allow for fair taxation

The colonies decide to form a new nation—the United States of America. They announce this in the United States Declaration of Independence. But the Declaration was not just about independence from Britain. The Americans decide to set up a system of government that made sure that no one person could have all the power.

They create a Constitution that divided power between the three main branches, the Congress, the President and the Courts. The English bring their laws and ideas about individual rights and freedoms with them to Australia. Not that this helped many people, as most of the English arrivals are convicts and have limited rights.

The British learnt from their mistakes in America and allow the Australian colonies to set up their own parliaments and govern themselves. At the beginning on the 20th century, the colonies get together and decide they need a government for the whole country In , the six Australian colonies came together and created the Australian Constitution, a document which established Australia as an independent nation and set up a national Parliament.

But still not everyone is treated equally by the law in this new Australia. It consisted of local people who swore on oath that they believed that the accused was guilty of a crime. This was the presentment, the correctness of which was then tested in a trial, usually by ordeal or battle.

This mandated that the presentment be made to the justices or sheriffs by:. Blackstone explained that an appeal, which was still available when he wrote, was not the process of seeking, in a higher court, correction of error in a lower one [44]. Rather, an appeal instituted a private process for the punishment of public crimes.

Originally, an appeal entitled the prosecutor to claim monetary compensation for mayhem and the felonies of larceny, rape, arson, murder and manslaughter. The victim or widow or other entitled surviving relative could bring the appeal before the accused was indicted and if he or she were acquitted in the appeal, no indictment could be laid subsequently.

Trial by battle, duel or single combat appeared to have been a form of contesting an appeal [45]. Trial by ordeal was another ancient species of trial. The high rank accused either had to hold in his or her hand a piece of red hot iron weighing 1, 2 or 3 pounds [47] without being burned, or walk blindfolded over nine red hot plowshares laid lengthwise at unequal distances.

If you escaped unhurt, you were innocent. The lesser ranks were innocent if they were either uninjured after their bare arm had been plunged up to the elbow in boiling water, or sank after being cast into a river or pond of cold water.

Even here, the odds were weighted against the lesser ranks who had to drown to prove their innocence. Professor Holt explained that the Pope had written to John, instructing him that his quarrel with the barons should be determined in his court by their peers in accordance with the custom and law of the realm. The inclusion of those words would have favoured the King. And that ambiguity is the basis through which successive generations in England evolved the institution of trial by jury.

One thing c 29 did immediately ensure, was that execution or punishment could only occur after some trial process involving a judgment by men, or by God, in the case of a trial by a battle or ordeal. The other aspect of c 29, the original c 40, was the promise that justice would not be sold, deferred: i.

This spawned our concepts of, first , judicial impartiality and incorruptibility, secondly , the right of everyone to justice according to law, and, thirdly , the more controversial, right to that justice without delay. We take for granted that justice is not for sale. However, that belief is again under challenge by economists, including the Productivity Commission in its recent inquiry report, Access to Justice Arrangements [50].

I have criticised that concept publicly already [51]. Suffice to say that equality before the law is not capable of reflection in a system of user, or even rich user, pays. There is not one law for the rich, or privileged, and another for the poor. The second aspect of the promise not to deny justice is a vindication of the universal application of the law to all in our society. It reinforces the role of the Courts as one of the three arms of government as an aspect of the rule of law.

In this way, the State, through its impartial courts, authoritatively resolves public and private controversies according to law. Instead of individuals, or government officials or bodies, taking the law into their own hands, they accept that there is an impartial governmental institution, being the Courts, that can decide who is guilty or innocent, what punishment to impose, or who has or does not have an enforceable civil claim or right in respect of a matter of dispute between citizens or persons present in the jurisdiction.

By applying the law to the facts of each case, courts and juries decide a controversy once for all, but perhaps subject to appeal to a higher court, so that not just the people involved, but because of the doctrine of precedent, society generally, have an authoritative, final and enforceable answer to the previously uncertain issue.

One way in which the common law gives effect to this is when a person is arrested. The right to personal liberty is the most elementary and important of all common law rights [53]. That right cannot be impaired or taken away without lawful authority, and then only to the extent, and for the time, that the law permits.

No further delay, for example to collect further evidence, is permissible [55]. The writ of habeus corpus , and its attendant processes, reinforce the necessity of those exercising powers of detention to justify their use of those powers in a court timeously. The Court was not referred to and did not consider the Due Process Acts. Legend has it that, on hearing of his imminent incarceration, Beardmore made sure that when he was arrested he was found teaching his son about Magna Carta.

The charter was used in court to defend not only his freedom from illegal detention but also the liberty of the press. However, in reality it was not the document to which he owed his freedom of speech but the Bill of Rights. Even with the guarantee of free speech there have always been some restrictions on what can be said or written; freedom, but freedom under law. Freedom under the law guarantees rights subject to legislation whether that be libel or privacy laws, incitement or discrimination.

For over years free speech has been upheld as one of the most fundamental civil liberties, but it has, in reality always been constrained. Nineteenth century philosopher John Stuart Mills wrote extensively on the problem of authority versus liberty and concluded that an individual had the right of expression as long as he did not harm other individuals.

People have gathered there to hear orators canvassing for support, preaching, converting or just exercising their right to free speech since the middle of the 19th century when reformers held mass protests against the suppression of the rights of working people, including the right of assembly. Over the years it has not just been well-known speakers, such as Karl Marx, Lenin, William Morris and George Orwell, who have exercised this right, but members of the general public wishing to have their voice heard.

Today, as it was years ago, this liberty is amongst the most prized and most fought over of all. Without a free press governments and individuals cannot be held to account and all other liberties are therefore threatened.

However, in Britain in recent years much has been spoken about the need to regulate the press. Those in favour explain that ensuring that the press does not intrude on the civil liberties of others does not mean the press is not free. Those who defend the press argue for long held liberties. Governments and leaders across the world and throughout history have sought to censor the press, restrict knowledge and prohibit publications for the benefit of the nation.

In times of war controlling the flow of information is vital to keeping the upper hand. During both the First and the Second World Wars a Ministry of Information was established whose purpose was to ensure the enemy was ill-informed, or even misinformed, about military matters.

This inevitably meant that the British public were also kept in the dark. However, censorship also happens on a daily basis even in the most democratic societies. Song lyrics are removed, films edited, publications banned, all in the name of public interest.

In only one in seven people in the world live in a country with a free press. The countries in which journalists do enjoy these liberties are not only able to report openly as they see fit, but their safety is also guaranteed. The advent of the internet and social media may make it easier for individuals to publish their ideas, beliefs and voice their thoughts, but it is also easier for governments to monitor and control.

This brings fresh challenges in the balance between liberties and the responsibilities that come with them. Arguably the most famous clauses of Magna Carta, the clauses which have impacted most on lives of the common man and are most familiar to us years later, are 38, 39 and In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

These clauses evolved to mean that no person should be deprived of freedom without due process of law. This principle was not in fact new to Magna Carta, as it had previously been attempted almost half a century before Runnymede, but it was with the original document and subsequent reissues that this ancient prerogative began to take hold in common law. The Habeas Corpus Act established that the authority of the monarch was not in itself justification for imprisonment.

Despite being enshrined in law, in both this country and others, habeas corpus did not end forceful imprisonment as it applied to free men only. People considered as the property of others did not, therefore, feel the benefits. Slavery has existed since the ancient times when early civilizations captured their defeated enemies. In Britain, slavery had been common place during Roman occupation, and on their withdrawal it became an essential part of the feudal society.

These serfs belonged to their lords, to do with as they saw fit, and were passed on from estate owner to estate owner. However, unlike the slaves from Africa later in history, they were generally not physically abused as they were essential to the feudal economy and difficult to replace.

Serfdom remained in England until when it was finally outlawed. Slavery in Europe re-emerged with the discovery and colonisation of the New World. Plantations in America needed people to work on the land and explorations to Africa found a ready source.

Initially the slaves were exchanged for guns, with local chiefs willing to sell their enemies for new weapons. However, with time slave masters decided to forego the payment and just take the people they wanted. Slave raids became common place as this lucrative trade grew.

With an almost never-ending supply, there was no need to ensure their safe transportation. From the late 16th century until the early 19th Britain dominated the slave industry with ports such as Bristol and Liverpool benefiting from the prosperity it brought. British traders justified this trade by claiming these people were barbaric savages and therefore the law did not apply to them.

As the centuries progressed, and as the rights and liberties of British subjects became enshrined in law, reformers began to question the ethics of the slave trade. From the s until when it was finally abolished in Britain, campaigners such as Chertsey resident Charles James Fox and Yorkshire man William Wilberforce pushed to end this inhuman treatment of others.

He declared it should not be better regulated, rather it should be destroyed. He and other campaigners used Magna Carta and habeas corpus to support their assertions. Although the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was introduced in Parliament by Fox, he died six months before the Bill was passed. Whilst the trade in people was illegal in the British Empire from then onwards, it was not until the Emancipation Act of that slavery itself was outlawed. It also contained provisions forbidding bribery and official misconduct.

Widely viewed as one of the most important legal documents in the development of modern democracy, the Magna Carta was a crucial turning point in the struggle to establish freedom. There are Human Rights chapters all over the world. To join a local chapter or start your own, contact us.

Help make human rights an everyday reality with educational tools that bring them to life. A basic introduction to human rights, this booklet outlines their development through history, up to the present day. Sign up for news and updates.