What is the source for calling the panel in the JCPC &#39;the Board&#39;? For a long continuous line of case law, the panel deciding a case (or rendering advice to Her Majesty as to how to dispose of the case, technically) in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has referred to itself as 'the Board'. Yet, this word does not appear anywhere in the 1833 Act, or, so far as I know, in subsequent legislation. What is the source for this term for the deciding judges of the JCPC?
The justices of the JCPC are mostly the same people as for the UK Supreme Court (formerly the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords) but legislation directs certain appeals to the JCPC rather than the UKSC where there are constitutional sensitivities which mean that the court needs to be seen as separate from the UK - most obviously appeals from courts outside the UK. There are a number of ways in which the JCPC tries to be different so as to bring home to people that it is not a UK court pure and simple but something else with a close connection to Her Majesty the Queen. These include: The fact that JCPC is part of the Privy Council. The fact that the JCPC does not technically make &quot;judgments&quot; but rather reports its opinion to the Queen - legal effect the same but it has a different constitutional &quot;feel&quot; for a territory over which the Queen rules but which is not part of the UK. keeping the UKPC out of the Parliamentary buildings. The UKPC and UKSC now now share a newly refurbishing building on the other side of the green from Parliament but before the UKSC was created hearings of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords were held in a committee room in Parliament but UKPC hearings were never held there - they were held in Downing Street outside the UK Parliamentary buildings. I suspect - and this is just a guess on my part - that referring to the JCPC panel of justices as the &quot;board&quot; rather than as the panel is just another one of the things done to give it a different feel fromr UKSC.
I'll be referencing the "Minutes of proceedings of the Colonial Conference, 1907" throughout (600+ pg. PDF). The page numbers refer to the ones printed on the page instead of any software page number. It seems that @owjburnham's comment is essentially correct, it is mainly a shift in terminology. It came from a desire to further distinguish self-governing from non-self-governing colonies (or "Crown Colonies" as the official term seems to have been). As such, "Dominion" came to be (re)defined as "self-governing colony." During the 1907 Colonial Conference, Prime Minister Sir Joseph Ward of New Zealand opined the following [pg. 30-31]: I think the term "Colony," so far as our countries are concerned, ought to cease, and that that term ought to apply to the Crown Colonies purely, and that those of us who are not at present known as Dominions or Commonwealths, should be known as States of the Empire, or some other expressive word, so as to make a distinction as between the Crown Colonies and the self-governing Dependencies. He also stated the following [pg. 48]: I assume that in this resolution New Zealand, now known by the term "Colony," will be included in the expression "Dominion," which I think it ought to be. Awkwardly, this was right at the end of the day and no one reacted to this statement as the conference adjourned. As the participants were deciding upon the structure and participants of subsequent conferences, there is a lengthy discussion of the exact term to be used to refer to the self-governing colonies [pg. 78-90]. Near its conclusion, the chairman states the following [pg. 89]: We agreed [...] that instead of the word "Colonies" we should use the word "Dominions;" but is it sufficiently defined if we use the word "Dominions" alone throughout? [...] I would suggest that we might take what is really the official term "the Dominions beyond the seas" in the first place where it occurs [...] and any other reference to it in the course of the Resolution might very well be "Dominions." That would make it absolutely clear what we mean by the expression in the first place. Thus, the conference opted for an implicit rather than explicit definition of "Dominion". The designation of Newfoundland as a Dominion in 1907 is just a reconciliation of the fact it was a self-governing colony and the new understanding that the word "Dominion" was to mean roughly that. There was no effective change of status. An explicit definition of "Dominion" would not come until the Balfour Declaration of 1926. Ironically, Newfoundland played no role in deciding the term to be used for itself as its Prime Minister only arrived on Day 4 of the conference [pg. 87].
The Howard League for Penal Reform, who I presume are well informed about the subject, issued a press release including the following: “There remains the problem of people who have had the criminal courts charge imposed on them, many of whom will simply not be able to pay. We call on magistrates to exercise compassion and common sense when these unfortunate people are returned to court.” So the answer is yes, unless they can convince a magistrate that the charge is unaffordable when they get hauled back to court for non-payment. As the abolition of the charge was done by secondary legislation, I doubt there would be powers to act retroactively, even if this was thought desirable.
The President can nominate whomever he wants; the "advice" is formally post-nomination advice (the motion to confirm appointments is a motion "to advise and consent to" the nomination). In any event, "advice" is by definition non-binding; that's why it's not a command. However, the Senate must consent to the appointment before the officer assumes the office, so pre-nomination advice is relevant. For some nominations (like district judges), the Senators from that state can effectively sink a nomination if they're from the same party as the President and don't like the nominee; that can result in the Senators picking a short list of candidates and the President just picking someone on the list (or asking for a new list, but if he just nominates someone not on the list there's a fair chance they don't get confirmed). The Senate could decide that they will only confirm one particular person for the post. The President can nominate someone different. That's a political fight to be solved by gamesmanship and negotiation, not something that has a legal resolution.
There is a firm difference between giving advice on "what the best decision is likely to be" and "what decision to make". The former is what lawyers must do, which comes from: Conduct and Client Care Rules: Whatever legal services your lawyer is providing, he or she must— discuss with you your objectives and how they should best be achieved: give you clear information and advice: Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006: legal work includes— advice in relation to any legal or equitable rights or obligations: So, there is nothing in the law that requires lawyers to advise you on "what decision to make". Instead, they explain to you the range of possible decisions and what ramifications / implications / consequences they have. They won't make the choice for you — it's always yours. Is it legally correct that a lawyer is not permitted to provide advice on what decision to make It is not strictly true that a lawyer "is not permitted". Rather, they are not obliged to do so. And they have a damn good reason not to: there is a huge difference between being responsible for legal facts based on which you make decisions, and being responsible for decisions themselves.
When a judge decides a case there will be An order - e.g. &quot;Smith shall pay Jones £100,000&quot; Reasons for the decision - i.e. a description of the evidence, and the judge's findings of fact and legal reasoning. Sometimes a party, even though they have completely won, is nevertheless aggrieved by some things the judge has said in the Reasons (or in the way the judge has handled the trial - e.g. the judge's interventions). For example the judge may have said that the winning party was not a credible witness but they nevertheless won because of the evidence of other witnesses who were found to be credible. The rule in England and Wales is that you can only appeal orders. So if the order is completely in your favour you cannot appeal just because you don't like the reasons.
How to refer to Supreme Court cases by just one name In general, subsequent references to a decision can be the first name in the caption of that case. As an example, you will notice that in the decision Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S.Ct. 2484 (2019) the court makes an initial reference to Gill v. Whitford (at 2492), and thereafter most of the references to that decision are simply Gill (see, for instance, at 2498, 2501, 2507). Nate Elredge makes a good point in that there are exceptions. Where the general rule may result ambiguous, another main party in the caption would be mentioned. Using Nate's example of United States v. Nixon, the court's subsequent references to that case in Calley v. Callaway, 382 F.Supp. 650 (1974) is Nixon. There might be other, harder to find, instances where ambiguity persists. For instance, several unrelated decisions issued by the same court might involve the exact same parties. In those scenarios only the suffix (that is, the numbers following the caption) would distinguish among decisions.
Basically: what Flup said in his last paragraph (and so upvoted accordingly). Every one of the practitioners you named has an undergraduate degree from the UK, and an undergraduate degree from Canada. This, presumably, is because you're not permitted to practise law in most jurisdictions unless you have some kind of qualification in the law of that particular jurisdiction. The laws of each country, and moreover, the way in which cases are decided and in which each country's legal system works, varies so tremendously that you need to study the particulars for each jurisdiction before you can practice there. Regarding Canada: from this site: You must complete a Bachelor of Laws (L.L.B.) program or Juris Doctor (J.D.) program in order to qualify for bar membership in any Canadian province or territory. This generally takes three years to complete. In England and Wales, you can now take a law conversion course in place of an undergraduate law degree as a first stage towards being qualified. I suspect, however, looking at the dates of the judges you list, that the law conversion course wasn't an option at the time they got their qualifications, so their only option was a full undergraduate course. So the answer is: they each have two undergraduate qualifications, one from each jurisdiction, so that they could qualify to practise law in both jurisdictions.