Human Rights - Justice is stupid and blinkered
click here: Justice is blinkered
Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is "blinkered", ie the right to a fair trial.
The moment you issue proceedings you are supposed to get "equality before the law". It is therefore a non sequitur as the issue is therefore that either :
(1) the judge was not in control of his/her court room - the parties are doing procedural abuses, ie failing to do "discovery" correctly of material in their knowledge, possession and control, or failing to provide their witness statements by the due date or at all; THESE ARE CONTEMPT OF COURT ISSUES
and/or
(2) the judge is "deliberately" abusing Human Rights by, for example, failing to cite case/statutory citations, legal arguments and points of evidence in his/her judgment; THESE ARE PERVERSION OF THE COURSE OF JUSTICE ISSUES
Both (1) and (2) are therefore correctly issues of criminal law, not human rights legislation.
It is, in my view very very difficult for a judge to "inadvertently" get it wrong.
Abuse of Human Rights is quite different from a miscarriage of justice which is likely to arise as a consequence of lack of evidence. But whether there is a reason for the lack of evidence due to a party abusing process of law, then it is either contempt or perversion depending on intention and severity. Perversion carries a penalty of up to a life sentence.
I would like to see greater use of IT in the courts, such that, the parties MUST upload their documents onto a court computer by the date set by the judge. A cross-in-the-box system could signal to a judge that his processing orders have been complied with and if not complied with could automatically send out a reasonable fine for contempt of court for not complying (as well as notifying the Law Society of professional misconduct and an issue of training). If this was electronically controlled then it would be fairer than currently exists. Any monies collected from fines could go towards pro bono/legally aided cases etc.
Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is "blinkered", ie the right to a fair trial.
The moment you issue proceedings you are supposed to get "equality before the law". It is therefore a non sequitur as the issue is therefore that either :
(1) the judge was not in control of his/her court room - the parties are doing procedural abuses, ie failing to do "discovery" correctly of material in their knowledge, possession and control, or failing to provide their witness statements by the due date or at all; THESE ARE CONTEMPT OF COURT ISSUES
and/or
(2) the judge is "deliberately" abusing Human Rights by, for example, failing to cite case/statutory citations, legal arguments and points of evidence in his/her judgment; THESE ARE PERVERSION OF THE COURSE OF JUSTICE ISSUES
Both (1) and (2) are therefore correctly issues of criminal law, not human rights legislation.
It is, in my view very very difficult for a judge to "inadvertently" get it wrong.
Abuse of Human Rights is quite different from a miscarriage of justice which is likely to arise as a consequence of lack of evidence. But whether there is a reason for the lack of evidence due to a party abusing process of law, then it is either contempt or perversion depending on intention and severity. Perversion carries a penalty of up to a life sentence.
I would like to see greater use of IT in the courts, such that, the parties MUST upload their documents onto a court computer by the date set by the judge. A cross-in-the-box system could signal to a judge that his processing orders have been complied with and if not complied with could automatically send out a reasonable fine for contempt of court for not complying (as well as notifying the Law Society of professional misconduct and an issue of training). If this was electronically controlled then it would be fairer than currently exists. Any monies collected from fines could go towards pro bono/legally aided cases etc.
posted by Lesley McDade at 5:17 pm
0 comments
