Judicial Intelligence - Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
There is an intelligent Judge on the bench - he is Master of the Rolls and he disagrees with the creation of the Supreme Court deeming it "FRIVOLOUS" : now we all know Judges REASON and some reason better than others! Well, I concur with that argument - it is difficult enough to reach the House of Lords (even with Lord Woolf bringing in a Statute - Access to Justice Act 1999 - which as you all know does the opposite - access FROM Justice). So only a numpty would go so far as the Supreme Court level - on a point of law no less! Are they going to make the Woolf Reforms and Access to Justice Act 1999 obsolete! or amend it somehow - into the long grass of history perhaps!
However, what is needed is a mechanism and expansion of some areas of domestic law to the "International Courts", for instance, child labour in the production process and disappearing workers being two areas which need to bypass all together the exhaustive layer of the national/domestic court levels. There is an awareness in the international human rights movement that multinationals and subsidiaries do need to have some focus upon their activities where they have an ability to do something in a society which is prohibited in another - there does now need to be an international base layer on a global scale: and the global scale is becoming smaller given the world wide web and Facebook and Google in particular!
Epolitix article 08/09/09 "New Supreme Court frivolous"(click here)
It takes a lot of courage to take a stand and even more to speak your mind. Well done Lord Neuberger.
My opinion, if folks have managed to get to the House of Lords - street justice is likely to be the way forward over the Supreme Court level.
Also the inferior level of the Tribunal courts - could usefully use a training scheme in "natural law" and the chronological bundle lists - pleadings = process / bundles = evidence - it is better to get to the substantive than bog down in the process - besides volunteers at Citizen Advice Bureau manage this in approximately 45 minutes these days !!! And Judges can and should use that weapon of the legal system "CONTEMPT OF COURT" order where the parties have not prepared their cases properly and "OBSTRUCTION" and "PERVERSION OF THE COURSE OF JUSTICE" where one or more parties are engaged in anything other than EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW! A party should not need to put into the courts a "disagreed" court bundle and an "Abstraction Chronological List" of over half their documents under a discovery process and on the premis its "in the interests of justice" YOUR HONOUR can you use your equitable discretion to enable me to place my evidence before you! and in duplicity can you use one of your weapons to deal with the otherside(s) mischief. There are three rules in the courts (a) the GOLDEN rule; (b) the LITERAL rule; and (c) the MISCHIEF rule - suggesting to the otherside "NOT TO STEAL A MARCH" is a piece of judicial mischief that needs to stop, ie effectively notifying a party to do just that! The REASON - any mischief established will be out of time sequence with the discovery process and the evidential bundles especially CAUSATION! and likely to land the parties in contempt, obstruction or perversion on APPEAL (which is a criminal offence and why would a party need to engage in criminality when CPR Rule 1 allows them to whittle the case down, process it quickly and SETTLE)! However, I digress the mischief rule is probably not meant in the above context but that the law can use REASON to do something good but mischievous, for example - Lord Denning and his equitable Darlings! where he bent over backwards to assist women so that they could keep the roof over their head by ensuring they had matrimonial rights when faced with an errant husband. Another example is a case BBC v Soutar (or it may be the otherway around) where the Race Relations Statute enabled people to be British but not Scots, English, Irish or Welsh - but the judgment so enables. Judges are supposed to discover the rule of law which is supposed to be contained in all parties bundles in the timeframe of the case per se - so the earlier they are in the better - they are not supposed to create it : but sometimes there is a "LACUNA" in the law - a gap that Judges use their reason to jump just a bit further than the law allows them to either statutorily or via case precedent howsoever OBSCURE they may need to try to go. Judges in case precedent where they are not prepared to make a quantum leap of faith where the rule of law fails to address the needs of present Society can use "obita dicta" pursuasive argument for the future direction of the law should similar/same/or like for like present itself to the court - it may take a century but it will be there when required so long as not made obsolete by codification or statutory legislation!
Using the natural process of TIME (time being of the essence) the CAUSE is located in the earliest part of the bundles AND the EFFECT is located in the later part and goes towards damages and contributory factors. There is no reason why the cases are not zipping through the courts at the first court level especially if there is a mere "reiteration" of what the law actually IS. Where, however, there is challenge as to what the law OUGHT to be then the debate must happen, the REASON must flow, universality MUST occur = PROGRESS OF SOCIETY VIA HUMAN INTELLECT AND WILL.
Judges are necessary in society : but a bunch of idiots and cowards and clever but not intelligent people do need to be dealt with and severely. Look no further than those Lord Neuberger has made a stand against in his article!Our Newspapers spent a decade highlighting “spin, spin, spin” for a reason – anyone relying on this decade NEEDS to go back to source and certainly check facts, evidence – its all about evidence!
However, what is needed is a mechanism and expansion of some areas of domestic law to the "International Courts", for instance, child labour in the production process and disappearing workers being two areas which need to bypass all together the exhaustive layer of the national/domestic court levels. There is an awareness in the international human rights movement that multinationals and subsidiaries do need to have some focus upon their activities where they have an ability to do something in a society which is prohibited in another - there does now need to be an international base layer on a global scale: and the global scale is becoming smaller given the world wide web and Facebook and Google in particular!
Epolitix article 08/09/09 "New Supreme Court frivolous"(click here)
It takes a lot of courage to take a stand and even more to speak your mind. Well done Lord Neuberger.
My opinion, if folks have managed to get to the House of Lords - street justice is likely to be the way forward over the Supreme Court level.
Also the inferior level of the Tribunal courts - could usefully use a training scheme in "natural law" and the chronological bundle lists - pleadings = process / bundles = evidence - it is better to get to the substantive than bog down in the process - besides volunteers at Citizen Advice Bureau manage this in approximately 45 minutes these days !!! And Judges can and should use that weapon of the legal system "CONTEMPT OF COURT" order where the parties have not prepared their cases properly and "OBSTRUCTION" and "PERVERSION OF THE COURSE OF JUSTICE" where one or more parties are engaged in anything other than EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW! A party should not need to put into the courts a "disagreed" court bundle and an "Abstraction Chronological List" of over half their documents under a discovery process and on the premis its "in the interests of justice" YOUR HONOUR can you use your equitable discretion to enable me to place my evidence before you! and in duplicity can you use one of your weapons to deal with the otherside(s) mischief. There are three rules in the courts (a) the GOLDEN rule; (b) the LITERAL rule; and (c) the MISCHIEF rule - suggesting to the otherside "NOT TO STEAL A MARCH" is a piece of judicial mischief that needs to stop, ie effectively notifying a party to do just that! The REASON - any mischief established will be out of time sequence with the discovery process and the evidential bundles especially CAUSATION! and likely to land the parties in contempt, obstruction or perversion on APPEAL (which is a criminal offence and why would a party need to engage in criminality when CPR Rule 1 allows them to whittle the case down, process it quickly and SETTLE)! However, I digress the mischief rule is probably not meant in the above context but that the law can use REASON to do something good but mischievous, for example - Lord Denning and his equitable Darlings! where he bent over backwards to assist women so that they could keep the roof over their head by ensuring they had matrimonial rights when faced with an errant husband. Another example is a case BBC v Soutar (or it may be the otherway around) where the Race Relations Statute enabled people to be British but not Scots, English, Irish or Welsh - but the judgment so enables. Judges are supposed to discover the rule of law which is supposed to be contained in all parties bundles in the timeframe of the case per se - so the earlier they are in the better - they are not supposed to create it : but sometimes there is a "LACUNA" in the law - a gap that Judges use their reason to jump just a bit further than the law allows them to either statutorily or via case precedent howsoever OBSCURE they may need to try to go. Judges in case precedent where they are not prepared to make a quantum leap of faith where the rule of law fails to address the needs of present Society can use "obita dicta" pursuasive argument for the future direction of the law should similar/same/or like for like present itself to the court - it may take a century but it will be there when required so long as not made obsolete by codification or statutory legislation!
Using the natural process of TIME (time being of the essence) the CAUSE is located in the earliest part of the bundles AND the EFFECT is located in the later part and goes towards damages and contributory factors. There is no reason why the cases are not zipping through the courts at the first court level especially if there is a mere "reiteration" of what the law actually IS. Where, however, there is challenge as to what the law OUGHT to be then the debate must happen, the REASON must flow, universality MUST occur = PROGRESS OF SOCIETY VIA HUMAN INTELLECT AND WILL.
Judges are necessary in society : but a bunch of idiots and cowards and clever but not intelligent people do need to be dealt with and severely. Look no further than those Lord Neuberger has made a stand against in his article!Our Newspapers spent a decade highlighting “spin, spin, spin” for a reason – anyone relying on this decade NEEDS to go back to source and certainly check facts, evidence – its all about evidence!
posted by Lesley McDade at 5:58 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home