Bannister et al discuss the function of judicial review in maintaining accountability in the Introduction to their text. They observe,
While judicial review is sometimes attacked as ‘undemocratic’, there are strong defences of the judiciary’s role in reviewing government action. In recent years high-profile asylum seeker cases decided by the High Court have exemplified fundamentally different views on the role of judicial review in contemporary Australia. What, for some commentators, is ‘court clogging litigation’ for others is a cause for celebration of the ‘rule of law’.*
Identify and critically evaluate the conflicting positions on the role played by judicial review in maintaining accountability.
tests. Through the relational process attributed to the tennis player, “few athletes are like Sherapova”, the author is helping readers to view participants in certain ways, in this case, as special athlete, that would admit her mistake in order “to take control of the story” (Appendix 1). The pronoun “she” is the most prevalent participants in the text by Carpenter (2016). On the other hand, the I pronoun is the most common participants in the text by Evans (2016). The pronouns are commonly employed as an actor in the material processes. Modality refers to the expression of probability. It is the grammar’s way of articulating the writer’s verdict, without making first person explicit. In the first text, modality is utilized to express his position regarding WADA decision about their chances of banning the drug. The writer says that the previous year WADA was studying the drug, and the athletes needed to take warning that the drug could be burned soon. On the other hand, on the Evans text, he writes that Sharapova that after ITF hearing, she will be allowed to play again. The “will” in this text represents the probability of her being allowed to participate in tennis game again. In both articles the themes has no personal element, which makes the texts extremely impersonalised. The main identified information providers are declaratives: “Maria Sharapova has been provisionally banned from tennis” (appendix 1), however the Carpenter article is at times empathetic towards Maria Sharapova, by comparing her with other “Most sports stars try to hide positive tests for performance-enhancing drugs, hoping news will not break until a suspension is revealed” (Appendix 1). The tone of the second article appears to be instigating adverse opinions: “Tennis ace Maria Sharapova has hit out at some media accounts of her doping scandal in a furious open letter”. (Appendix 1) APPENDIX 1 || Maria Sharapova provisionally banned from tennis || after revealing failed drugs test || || Maria Sharapova has been provisionally banned from tennis || after she revealed on Monday || she tested positive at the Australian Open for a recently banned drug [[ that she has been taking for 10 years for health reasons. ]] || || Sharapova claimed || she was prescribed meldonium by her doctor in 2006 || to deal with health issues such as an irregular heartbeat and a history of diabetes in her family. || But the substance was added to the banned list in January of this year || because Wada said || there was “evidence of its use by athletes with the intention of enhancing performance”. || || Sharapova’s announcement is almost unprecedented for a top athlete. || Most sports stars try to hide positive tests for performance-enhancing drugs, || hoping news will not break || until a suspension is revealed. || But few athletes are like Sharapova || who has made herself into the highes>