Lord Gill and the Astonished Establishment
On 1st October 2009 'The Scotsman' notified that the Scottish Judicial System had been reformed by Lord Gill - and managed to keep ADR in the judicial system - why?
The essence of the reforms are quite simple, a downgrade of cases to the Sheriff Court by means of two mechanisms (a) threshold and a £150,000 limit to keep cases from going to the High Court and (b) jurisdiction enabling the Sheriff Court - TO DO THE WORK.
Bizarrely, I read that Lord Gill claimed the Scottish courts were "failing" that is until 30th September 2009:
"Our study has satisfied us that civil justice in Scotland is failing. It is failing to deliver justice to the citizen expeditiously, economically or efficiently. Our structures and procedures are wholly unsuited to modern conditions". He goes on ... "They inflict needless costs on the public purse, on the Scottish Legal Aid Board and on the individual litigants at every level. The system's delays are notorious and in some cases scandalous. Its procedural inefficiencies operate against the interests of Justice". I have not as yet got my hands on a copy of the 600 page report - but I rather suspect it reads just like the WOOLF REPORT - I may yet be surprised - I have noted the word "equality" is missing from the articles in the press - an oversight or do we all need to read the 600 page door stop by next weekend or before using the system via writ. (Oh an aside: Elisha Angiolini is a SOLICITOR, but not JUDGE, with Executive Powers! - who is supposed to be in power in Scotland - SNP which is referred to as "minority" Government - hmmm)
Lord Gill - could be spot on the judiciary is that badly performing - but I am not so sure about the use of these words "expeditiously, economically, efficiently and "MODERN" all in the same paragraphs - sounds ever so slightly like the Woolf Reforms INFLICTED on England - the dissimilarity based on rhetoric alone is the words "efficiency" in your system and "proportionality" in the Woolf Reforms. Modern = the system still incorporates ADR - that is not modern that is stupid - you would not want to undermine the rule of law or put it in another way : what is the criteria for a judicial person to remove a case from "access to justice"/their inherent right to Justice in the "interests of justice" - we know this is the judicial discretionary subjective equitable area of the law you see - we would not want folks to be gagged and hidden for using a "public" system of law which applies the rule of law but does not compromise it in anyway!!!. We would neither want folks to be clearly identified as engaging in a cover up or anything - you might have Journalist ambulance chasing instead of lawyer ambulancing chasing!
However, the next paragraph was informative - "Legal insiders were yesterday ASTONISHED that such a damning indictment of the system should be delivered by one of its most senior figures". Astonished, well presumably folks who have been operating in the system for years were not aware that they were processing their cases to failure - it appears it is black and white - only the Judges are not apparently accepting in any way that they are to blame for Yesterday's traditonal justice system controversy necessitating MODERNITY!. Deep joy come Monday morning 05/10/09 - Modernity - the cases are going to whizz through the system - whehey! Well lets hope there is some veritable substance in their - under competition laws we might have to set up a "Real Justice System based on Jurisprudence" - at least deductive reasoning and analysis (but not Philosophy just throw them induction and hypothesis) to deliver justice.
And Lord Gill wants a stop put to time wasting judicial reviews - well - only you know how as Judges (non sequitur anyone) - get it right in the court of first instance and there will be no need for judicial review! Try looking at the CHRONOLOGICAL LISTS AND APPLYING NATURAL LAW (Time element). So the Daily Mail picked up on this as an asylum issue because they were being objective (news) or subjective (feature) on the front page!
Well it looks good, but I am not so sure it is not the impact of the Directive on Mediation which New Labour Cathy Jamieson put in place but Kenny MacAskill did not then engage the brain to stop - I did try, by participating in the Arlene McCarthy MEP Consultation on the Subsidiary Principle (as available below) with subsequent request for arrest for misconduct in public office for failing to process democratically my response therein - did not happen to my knowledge or yet. I would love to believe that the system has improved rather than changed - time will tell.
The other changes are interesting: something to monitor as they embed in; especially the "personal injury" court that is anticipated to be created (anticipating Alison NOSY Parker and Master Leslie are not engaged in this process or anyone else associated with my case in the Royal Courts including specific named academia on this blog). There has to be a reason why my Writ issued in 2004 is still waiting to be heard in 2009 with a request for JUDICIAL REVIEW / APPEAL / CRIMINAL DIVISION before Mr Justice Hamblin and subsequently as heard before Mr Justice Mackay of the Royal Courts. It remains "stayed". Hmmm.
I anticipate there is an ongoing evaluation facility with MODERN JUSTICE ... with statistical data.
As for Tony Blair ex-PM and his being "tipped" for the EU Presidency
NO
Our newspapers spin, spin, spin - we cannot rely on them as source material for research without going behind the story
Our youth are binge drunk and in the gutter of a Friday night or to put it bluntly they are not aspiring to champagne and haute couture. Even Robbie Williams looked good in his pyjamas in Europe - and that says a lot when you look better dressed in the UK going to bed!
Our banks and finance sector have been raided but we were upto our necks in debt anyway- folks keep paying it off - it compounds down not up! Besides some of you may actually end up better off at the end of the year having learned frugality due to necessity + (value added) happier.
Our military - we imprisoned Malcolm Kendell-Smith (have we apologised yet), he only acted on conscience, the Afghans are doing remarkably well without helicoptors etc I see, you too could put a mule in front of a tank - that is not to detract from bravery.
Our judiciary are undermined - ADR or otherwise we have been "invaded": nouse would be good.
Aparently, our hospitals are unclean and we are expecting 90,000 people to hit the system with swine flu and we send a pregnant lady to Sweden because we can't cope!
Politicians - No, No, No - that is quite categorily NO. Even a group of Highland women managed to put "rotten egg", "ROTTEN EGG", "Rotten Egg" across the ballot - I wonder why, they are surely RIGHT. Expenses scandal - you are there to serve the public, not yourselves - misconduct in public office for not being seen to be "beyond reproach" should not translate a need for new legislation of fines and small sentences, ie further serving yourselves and not the public. What was needed was integrity and credibility which at least should have meant constituency elections rather than clinging onto a General Election so that you can claim your gold plated pensions! and serve yourselves again!
The lawyers are jumping off the cliff, and moreover, even if they were corporate psychopaths and not terribly clever, Agency would appear to be using the word "redundancy" to mean "on the scrap heap absolutely". Some might actually have learnt something from the recessionary process but it is an eye opener to find Agency will not locate employment for you - have experienced this one myself too - I anticipate there are no blacklists in the legal domain, just fair recruitment practises in accordance with employment law and welfare reforms etc.
Lets just call a spade a spade! We have been invaded and Tony Blair ex-PM even when notified of it substantively did diddly squit but to continue down the wrong path leading to the wrong outcome which is emblasoned across our press every day but not necessarily using the word spin these days.
And we would inflict Tony Blair - EX-PM on Europe! Can the press establish who the other candidates are that Tony Blair actually might look convincing, credible and with integrity.
PS - I might as well go the whole hog - G4 and IMF are we surprised that we are apparently being either downgraded on the global platform or sent to Coventry. Perhaps we need to take a really good look at ourselves - lets invite the world to Scotland for a Homecoming Gathering and rip the Capital's streets up (or at least bollard the lot to look credible) - is the project Phased at all - it could not have Phased round the Home Coming Gathering - should we be surprised if folks may not wish to invest in our country but elsewhere.
A highspeed 2 hour link to Heathrow from Scotland - we do have international airports in Scotland!, we also have a Millenium City with airport that needs some attention too + bridge link concerning infrastructure projects - we could redo the entire flight paths to take the traffic OFF Heathrow which only needs a new control tower, not a new terminal plus upset the local populace. Besides one huge terrorist alert would be chaos. Greens - the congestion alone would be horrendous; and you are more likely to get planning consent in the backwaters of Inverness, not London. We appear to have an inability to see ourselves outside certain egotistical areas.
Back to the drawing board on key areas would be quite a good idea really.
America - you put ADR in your judicial systems too - you might want to take a closer look and evaluate what's going on over there on issues of Justice too. I am aware it was outlawed in relation to Anti-trust but am not 100% certain of this - besides concerning law you are "disunited" states of America - you might want to look at your Jurisprudence in light of the fact you follow the English common law, as do the Russians, Israelis and other jurisdictions!
I at least aspire to a "SAFE" and "JUST" society, and I "KNOW" what is required and also "WHAT" we currently do not have ... I also know who and why, when and where etc FOR REAL - I just need an intelligent JUDGE on the Bench not oiks!
The essence of the reforms are quite simple, a downgrade of cases to the Sheriff Court by means of two mechanisms (a) threshold and a £150,000 limit to keep cases from going to the High Court and (b) jurisdiction enabling the Sheriff Court - TO DO THE WORK.
Bizarrely, I read that Lord Gill claimed the Scottish courts were "failing" that is until 30th September 2009:
"Our study has satisfied us that civil justice in Scotland is failing. It is failing to deliver justice to the citizen expeditiously, economically or efficiently. Our structures and procedures are wholly unsuited to modern conditions". He goes on ... "They inflict needless costs on the public purse, on the Scottish Legal Aid Board and on the individual litigants at every level. The system's delays are notorious and in some cases scandalous. Its procedural inefficiencies operate against the interests of Justice". I have not as yet got my hands on a copy of the 600 page report - but I rather suspect it reads just like the WOOLF REPORT - I may yet be surprised - I have noted the word "equality" is missing from the articles in the press - an oversight or do we all need to read the 600 page door stop by next weekend or before using the system via writ. (Oh an aside: Elisha Angiolini is a SOLICITOR, but not JUDGE, with Executive Powers! - who is supposed to be in power in Scotland - SNP which is referred to as "minority" Government - hmmm)
Lord Gill - could be spot on the judiciary is that badly performing - but I am not so sure about the use of these words "expeditiously, economically, efficiently and "MODERN" all in the same paragraphs - sounds ever so slightly like the Woolf Reforms INFLICTED on England - the dissimilarity based on rhetoric alone is the words "efficiency" in your system and "proportionality" in the Woolf Reforms. Modern = the system still incorporates ADR - that is not modern that is stupid - you would not want to undermine the rule of law or put it in another way : what is the criteria for a judicial person to remove a case from "access to justice"/their inherent right to Justice in the "interests of justice" - we know this is the judicial discretionary subjective equitable area of the law you see - we would not want folks to be gagged and hidden for using a "public" system of law which applies the rule of law but does not compromise it in anyway!!!. We would neither want folks to be clearly identified as engaging in a cover up or anything - you might have Journalist ambulance chasing instead of lawyer ambulancing chasing!
However, the next paragraph was informative - "Legal insiders were yesterday ASTONISHED that such a damning indictment of the system should be delivered by one of its most senior figures". Astonished, well presumably folks who have been operating in the system for years were not aware that they were processing their cases to failure - it appears it is black and white - only the Judges are not apparently accepting in any way that they are to blame for Yesterday's traditonal justice system controversy necessitating MODERNITY!. Deep joy come Monday morning 05/10/09 - Modernity - the cases are going to whizz through the system - whehey! Well lets hope there is some veritable substance in their - under competition laws we might have to set up a "Real Justice System based on Jurisprudence" - at least deductive reasoning and analysis (but not Philosophy just throw them induction and hypothesis) to deliver justice.
And Lord Gill wants a stop put to time wasting judicial reviews - well - only you know how as Judges (non sequitur anyone) - get it right in the court of first instance and there will be no need for judicial review! Try looking at the CHRONOLOGICAL LISTS AND APPLYING NATURAL LAW (Time element). So the Daily Mail picked up on this as an asylum issue because they were being objective (news) or subjective (feature) on the front page!
Well it looks good, but I am not so sure it is not the impact of the Directive on Mediation which New Labour Cathy Jamieson put in place but Kenny MacAskill did not then engage the brain to stop - I did try, by participating in the Arlene McCarthy MEP Consultation on the Subsidiary Principle (as available below) with subsequent request for arrest for misconduct in public office for failing to process democratically my response therein - did not happen to my knowledge or yet. I would love to believe that the system has improved rather than changed - time will tell.
The other changes are interesting: something to monitor as they embed in; especially the "personal injury" court that is anticipated to be created (anticipating Alison NOSY Parker and Master Leslie are not engaged in this process or anyone else associated with my case in the Royal Courts including specific named academia on this blog). There has to be a reason why my Writ issued in 2004 is still waiting to be heard in 2009 with a request for JUDICIAL REVIEW / APPEAL / CRIMINAL DIVISION before Mr Justice Hamblin and subsequently as heard before Mr Justice Mackay of the Royal Courts. It remains "stayed". Hmmm.
I anticipate there is an ongoing evaluation facility with MODERN JUSTICE ... with statistical data.
As for Tony Blair ex-PM and his being "tipped" for the EU Presidency
NO
Our newspapers spin, spin, spin - we cannot rely on them as source material for research without going behind the story
Our youth are binge drunk and in the gutter of a Friday night or to put it bluntly they are not aspiring to champagne and haute couture. Even Robbie Williams looked good in his pyjamas in Europe - and that says a lot when you look better dressed in the UK going to bed!
Our banks and finance sector have been raided but we were upto our necks in debt anyway- folks keep paying it off - it compounds down not up! Besides some of you may actually end up better off at the end of the year having learned frugality due to necessity + (value added) happier.
Our military - we imprisoned Malcolm Kendell-Smith (have we apologised yet), he only acted on conscience, the Afghans are doing remarkably well without helicoptors etc I see, you too could put a mule in front of a tank - that is not to detract from bravery.
Our judiciary are undermined - ADR or otherwise we have been "invaded": nouse would be good.
Aparently, our hospitals are unclean and we are expecting 90,000 people to hit the system with swine flu and we send a pregnant lady to Sweden because we can't cope!
Politicians - No, No, No - that is quite categorily NO. Even a group of Highland women managed to put "rotten egg", "ROTTEN EGG", "Rotten Egg" across the ballot - I wonder why, they are surely RIGHT. Expenses scandal - you are there to serve the public, not yourselves - misconduct in public office for not being seen to be "beyond reproach" should not translate a need for new legislation of fines and small sentences, ie further serving yourselves and not the public. What was needed was integrity and credibility which at least should have meant constituency elections rather than clinging onto a General Election so that you can claim your gold plated pensions! and serve yourselves again!
The lawyers are jumping off the cliff, and moreover, even if they were corporate psychopaths and not terribly clever, Agency would appear to be using the word "redundancy" to mean "on the scrap heap absolutely". Some might actually have learnt something from the recessionary process but it is an eye opener to find Agency will not locate employment for you - have experienced this one myself too - I anticipate there are no blacklists in the legal domain, just fair recruitment practises in accordance with employment law and welfare reforms etc.
Lets just call a spade a spade! We have been invaded and Tony Blair ex-PM even when notified of it substantively did diddly squit but to continue down the wrong path leading to the wrong outcome which is emblasoned across our press every day but not necessarily using the word spin these days.
And we would inflict Tony Blair - EX-PM on Europe! Can the press establish who the other candidates are that Tony Blair actually might look convincing, credible and with integrity.
PS - I might as well go the whole hog - G4 and IMF are we surprised that we are apparently being either downgraded on the global platform or sent to Coventry. Perhaps we need to take a really good look at ourselves - lets invite the world to Scotland for a Homecoming Gathering and rip the Capital's streets up (or at least bollard the lot to look credible) - is the project Phased at all - it could not have Phased round the Home Coming Gathering - should we be surprised if folks may not wish to invest in our country but elsewhere.
A highspeed 2 hour link to Heathrow from Scotland - we do have international airports in Scotland!, we also have a Millenium City with airport that needs some attention too + bridge link concerning infrastructure projects - we could redo the entire flight paths to take the traffic OFF Heathrow which only needs a new control tower, not a new terminal plus upset the local populace. Besides one huge terrorist alert would be chaos. Greens - the congestion alone would be horrendous; and you are more likely to get planning consent in the backwaters of Inverness, not London. We appear to have an inability to see ourselves outside certain egotistical areas.
Back to the drawing board on key areas would be quite a good idea really.
America - you put ADR in your judicial systems too - you might want to take a closer look and evaluate what's going on over there on issues of Justice too. I am aware it was outlawed in relation to Anti-trust but am not 100% certain of this - besides concerning law you are "disunited" states of America - you might want to look at your Jurisprudence in light of the fact you follow the English common law, as do the Russians, Israelis and other jurisdictions!
I at least aspire to a "SAFE" and "JUST" society, and I "KNOW" what is required and also "WHAT" we currently do not have ... I also know who and why, when and where etc FOR REAL - I just need an intelligent JUDGE on the Bench not oiks!
posted by Lesley McDade at 1:54 pm
2 Comments:
You have a lot to say about so much and an overwhelming desire to say it. Unfortunately, by trying to address all your concerns at once, it comes over as somewhat rambling, with a bit of ranting thrown in, and at times verges on the incoherent. You exhibit poor use of punctuation, wrong use of some words and no use at all of the spell checker.
The correct usage of the language is a skill that I would have thought to be essential in the legal world.
However, if you pick one subject at a time, write it carefully and pay attention to its composition, then I am sure that you will get a much better response when you open it to debate. You should set a time limit for replies and then move to the next subject. Multi coloured text should be avoided, as it implies that you are uncertain that normal text is sufficient to get your message across.
Thanks Anonymous - yes accept the spell checker might be appropriate from time to time. Punctuation, you may have a point there too sometimes. The words I use are deliberate - they are not therefore wrong use - I hold an LLB Hons degree and have an academic bent - what I say is therefore what I absolutely mean.
There really is no way of saying I am experiencing organised crime and corruption and how in too many different shades ... nor that the UK as a whole is also experiencing this.
I prefer the colours - this enables people who are not legally trained to understand easier the points I am making - it also is used to emphasis points too. Bear in mind, whilst people may hold contrary "opinions", I hold the evidence in my court documents which are on public display in the Royal Courts as well as I also source references to establish the point - therefore anticipate you appreciate that my "opinion is largely based on FACT" which therefore has "LEGAL EFFECT" and not coloured by emotion/subjectivity.
Post a Comment
<< Home