Lesley Diane McDade
posted by Lesley McDade at 6:24 pm
0 comments
posted by Lesley McDade at 1:50 pm
2 comments
posted by Lesley McDade at 12:49 pm
0 comments
A miscarriage of justice is very very difficult to do. It means a judge has acted objectively in the case, and human error or lack of evidence has occurred.
If a Judge has acted subjectively in a case, he can only do so according to the rules of equity which provides him with the ability to use his discretion.
This is a dangerous area of law, because if a judge goes outside the rules of equity then he is corrupt. A judge cannot make it up as he goes along. A judge has to "reason" and he does so "deductively", hence law is "discovered" not "created".
There is therefore a thin line between "miscarriages of justice" and "corruption". One will be inadvertent, the other deliberate.
There should therefore be two levels of compensation. One level which is capped where there has been an innocent mistake and one where there has not which should be unlimited as a means of reparation for loss.
The reason why there should be two levels is because their is a distinction between innocence and deliberate misconduct of a judge. Where a genuine miscarriage of justice occurs, there will be a need to re-investigate the evidence and to bring to justice the "real" perpetrator of the crime.
Where the issue is corruption, then methodology exists for the judge to be brought to justice which is to bring him/her before the Houses of Parliament. That is how our democracy works.
Everyone makes mistakes, but believe me, it is very difficult for a Judge doing due process and having a substantive trial to "not apply the rule of law" as it stands (which is reiteration) or as it needs to be discovered.
What is most important for a judge is that he uses his power to deal with issues of contempt of court or attempt to, conspiracy to and perversion of the course of justice where he thinks the parties are not performing correctly in his court room. A judge should be sufficiently on the ball and in control of his courtroom to deal with parties who are not prepared to do "equality before the law". It is an issue of professionalism and lawyers and barristers are not permitted to bring their profession into disrepute which is a code of conduct and ethics by the Law Society.
Issues of discovery are very important to Justice because the parties must discovery everything in their knowledge, possession and control. Where one party is avoiding or evading it is usually pointed out by the other party and / or is obvious to a judge that evidence is missing.
Currently lawyers are beastly and know they will get away with certain tricks and slights of hand.
Miscarriages of justice would be less likely if the rules of contempt of court and attempt to, conspiracy to and/or perversion of the course of justice were more strictly applied in court by a Judge being in absolute control of the court room.
He stood surrounded by his enemies. He challenged them to produce proof of any error in belief or conduct of which he had ever been guilty.
posted by Lesley McDade at 12:20 pm
0 comments
Scales of Justice
posted by Lesley McDade at 6:26 pm
2 comments
I live in the Highlands of Scotland and have worked in both Edinburgh and London law firms. I have academically exposed a fundamental flaw in the Woolf Report in law in England & Wales. The flaw is currently being replicated in the Directive on Mediation, so I am lobbying the Scottish Executive and Civil Justice Unit in Brussels to process the flaw as a "competition" model instead of "coercive regime" model. I have also done the practical to my thesis and taken two cases through the English & Welsh courts and was subjected to serious corruption and organised crime. One case in particular was most "revealing" and highlights high level corruption via a Professor Richard Susskind OBE ("Professor DisOBEdient") and others who is also the IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice and has a column in The Times. The case shows that he either perverted the course of justice, conspired and attempted to do so or he perjured himself. I would be interested to hear from people with ideas in the topic of jurisprudence and with the objective of making the UK / Europe / World a safe and just society to live in.
