Appeals of "General Public Importance"
"Appeals to Supreme Court to be televised"
This is an interesting article - appeals to the Supreme Court are to be televised and one of the conditions is that hearings have "general public importance".
Who decides what is "general public importance"?
I would have thought a Lawlord who was Master of the Rolls making a statement "litigation will be avoided whenever possible" in a report entitled "Access to Justice" (stop laughing) would have had the media in a tissy.
I would also have thought a court action which went to the House of Lords where the £500 cheque was cashed, prayers were said (TWICE) by the Bishops, and the 3 Lawlords, Slynn of Hadley, Hobhouse of Woodborough and Hope of Craighead, who deemed it inadmissable even although the Woolf Report was alleging "Access TO Justice" making blocking case law: Lane v Esdaile obsolete would also be in the public interest. Incidentally, I am not in the habit of paying £500 for NO service or product (judgment). Somehow the Lawlords did not quite comprehend the words "perversion of the course of justice" as Professor Richard Susskind OBE failed to deliver up a 40 man hour investigation deliberately or else he perjured himself. When you get a judgment on appeal which fails to state 5 points of law as case citations and 3 statutory references in the paperwork and 1 point of law case citation stated verbatim in court (Woolf: Skeleton Arguments) and the subsequent judgment reads like an advert for Respondents YOU KNOW YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED CORRUPTION. But Professor Susskind is only a first class law graduate from Glasgow University, Visiting Professor at Kings College and Strathclyde and IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice with a column in the Times and a couple of books WHICH I HAVEN'T READ the paperwork in my case Lesley McDade v Masons would imply he has a "Third". Somehow, it also shows that my degree and career was damaged by conduct. I appear to have been defamed.
When does the "general public importance" that obligates the media to expose corruption by discovering (not creating) the news happen. Surely there needs to be an EVALUATION of the Woolf Reforms by now!!! Either I am unique or tip of the iceberg.
This is an interesting article - appeals to the Supreme Court are to be televised and one of the conditions is that hearings have "general public importance".
Who decides what is "general public importance"?
I would have thought a Lawlord who was Master of the Rolls making a statement "litigation will be avoided whenever possible" in a report entitled "Access to Justice" (stop laughing) would have had the media in a tissy.
I would also have thought a court action which went to the House of Lords where the £500 cheque was cashed, prayers were said (TWICE) by the Bishops, and the 3 Lawlords, Slynn of Hadley, Hobhouse of Woodborough and Hope of Craighead, who deemed it inadmissable even although the Woolf Report was alleging "Access TO Justice" making blocking case law: Lane v Esdaile obsolete would also be in the public interest. Incidentally, I am not in the habit of paying £500 for NO service or product (judgment). Somehow the Lawlords did not quite comprehend the words "perversion of the course of justice" as Professor Richard Susskind OBE failed to deliver up a 40 man hour investigation deliberately or else he perjured himself. When you get a judgment on appeal which fails to state 5 points of law as case citations and 3 statutory references in the paperwork and 1 point of law case citation stated verbatim in court (Woolf: Skeleton Arguments) and the subsequent judgment reads like an advert for Respondents YOU KNOW YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED CORRUPTION. But Professor Susskind is only a first class law graduate from Glasgow University, Visiting Professor at Kings College and Strathclyde and IT Adviser to the Lord Chief Justice with a column in the Times and a couple of books WHICH I HAVEN'T READ the paperwork in my case Lesley McDade v Masons would imply he has a "Third". Somehow, it also shows that my degree and career was damaged by conduct. I appear to have been defamed.
When does the "general public importance" that obligates the media to expose corruption by discovering (not creating) the news happen. Surely there needs to be an EVALUATION of the Woolf Reforms by now!!! Either I am unique or tip of the iceberg.
posted by Lesley McDade at 12:01 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home