Being sued over a car I sold :(
Discussion
What level of Judge? The last notable coke and hookaz judge was a dude called Thornton back in the 90s. Circuit Judge level. He later reformed himself somewhat. It would probably be quite hard for a High Court Judge or above to get away with consorting with Jim the Crim. I once represented a police inspector who got slung out of the force for hanging out with a low level drug dealer, which was odd, as there was no evident benefit for either the cop or the robber, both of whom were investigated a lot, but to no effect: no bribes, no info leakage, no influence, no nothing. The copper was actually quite good at his job. The untested theory was that the two dudes were having a thing, but they couldn't own up to that for cultural reasons.
Breadvan72 said:
What level of Judge? The last notable coke and hookaz judge was a dude called Thornton back in the 90s. Circuit Judge level. He later reformed himself somewhat. It would probably be quite hard for a High Court Judge or above to get away with consorting with Jim the Crim. I once represented a police inspector who got slung out of the force for hanging out with a low level drug dealer, which was odd, as there was no evident benefit for either the cop or the robber, both of whom were investigated a lot, but to no effect: no bribes, no info leakage, no influence, no nothing. The copper was actually quite good at his job. The untested theory was that the two dudes were having a thing, but they couldn't own up to that for cultural reasons.
"Cultural reasons" ? Were they say musically incompatible? I can imagine it would be uncomfortable deciding between an ENO first night and Snoop Dog live at the O2Breadvan72 said:
What level of Judge? The last notable coke and hookaz judge was a dude called Thornton back in the 90s. Circuit Judge level. He later reformed himself somewhat. It would probably be quite hard for a High Court Judge or above to get away with consorting with Jim the Crim. I once represented a police inspector who got slung out of the force for hanging out with a low level drug dealer, which was odd, as there was no evident benefit for either the cop or the robber, both of whom were investigated a lot, but to no effect: no bribes, no info leakage, no influence, no nothing. The copper was actually quite good at his job. The untested theory was that the two dudes were having a thing, but they couldn't own up to that for cultural reasons.
Not high court but dont want to get too specific for obvious reasons. I am unaware of him doing anything untoward but could be in trouble by association. Breadvan72 said:
Dracoro said:
Breadvan72 - I assume a decent barrister can "encourage" a judge to make the correct legal decision? By that I mean, something along the lines of stating "whilst Mr X makes a heart rendering emotional case, I am sure the respected Judge will agree with me in stating that he will make his decision on legal grounds and not emotional ones". i.e. "politely" reminding the judge to do his job properly 
Also, had the judge made a decision not on correct legal grounds, can that be appealed or referred in any way?
(1) The art of the advocate (be that advocate barrister, solicitor or anyone else) is to make the decision maker feel intellectual discomfort at the prospect of finding against the position advanced by the advocate. Emotion shouldn't be a factor.Also, had the judge made a decision not on correct legal grounds, can that be appealed or referred in any way?
(2) You can appeal on issues of law and sometimes on issues of fact (depending on the type of court or tribunal in question). In many but not all situations you need the court that makes the decision or failing that the appellate court to give you permission to appeal. An appeal on a distinct point of law almost always has a better chance of success than an appeal on the facts.
Appeal courts manage to correct most errors, but sometimes an error persists all the way through the layers of appeal, and sometimes the first Judge gets it right but the appeal Judges get it wrong. The system is operated by humans, and is prone to error. It is hard to say what proportion of cases are finally decided rightly as opposed to wrongly. My own experience of many years in the civil courts is that the right answer is finally arrived at in something like eight out of ten cases. Others may have different experiences, and NB I am taking civil and not criminal. By the right answer I don't always mean the answer that my client wants, as they are not always the same thing. The trite proposition that law and justice have little in common is, in my experience, not true. I see a far bit of injustice in my work, but I would give up the job if I didn't mostly see justice.
Breadvan72 said:
The system is operated by humans, and is prone to error. It is hard to say what proportion of cases are finally decided rightly as opposed to wrongly. My own experience of many years in the civil courts is that the right answer is finally arrived at in something like eight out of ten cases.
That is a terrible statistic, judges get it wrong 20% of the time? I am not saying that. It is not a statistic. There are no statistics here. There is no way scientifically to measure right versus wrong outcomes, not least because there can be no clear definition of right or wrong outcome. Also, sometimes a case is decided wrongly and the decision could have been appealed with ease, but the parties then settle (perhaps on the basis that the decision was obviously wrong), or the losing party cannot afford to appeal, and that distorts the numbers.
I am talking impressionistically and subjectively about the coincidence between the answer arrived at by a court and my perception of what the just and fair answer should have been. It may be closer to nine out of ten cases that seem to me to end as they should end (whether my client wins or loses, as I don't always get to act for the party with justice on its side), but I don't keep count.
Sometimes a case is so complex and nuanced that there is no obviously just or unjust outcome. In some cases there are clear goodies and baddies. In some cases everyone is a goodie but there is some horrible muddle, maybe caused by bad legislation or bad government policy. In some cases everyone is a baddie and the court has to choose who is least bad.
In civil cases where there are goodies and baddies, my experience (whether I act for the goodies or the baddies) is that the goodies almost always win, but sometimes they lose.
In criminal cases, it is likely that far more people are acquitted when guilty than are convicted when innocent, but better that than the other way around.
I am talking impressionistically and subjectively about the coincidence between the answer arrived at by a court and my perception of what the just and fair answer should have been. It may be closer to nine out of ten cases that seem to me to end as they should end (whether my client wins or loses, as I don't always get to act for the party with justice on its side), but I don't keep count.
Sometimes a case is so complex and nuanced that there is no obviously just or unjust outcome. In some cases there are clear goodies and baddies. In some cases everyone is a goodie but there is some horrible muddle, maybe caused by bad legislation or bad government policy. In some cases everyone is a baddie and the court has to choose who is least bad.
In civil cases where there are goodies and baddies, my experience (whether I act for the goodies or the baddies) is that the goodies almost always win, but sometimes they lose.
In criminal cases, it is likely that far more people are acquitted when guilty than are convicted when innocent, but better that than the other way around.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 28th November 09:17
Judges are human. They sometimes get it wrong. After 20 years sitting in the "neutral seat" as Clerk of Court I saw some decisions I disagreed with, but not many.
I influenced a Sheriff once, many years ago. A criminal case, but still an indication of how a judge can get it wrong. The scenario: A man in his 40s appearing on indictment on four charges of molesting children. He was in a position of trust, as he was baby sitting the kids while there parents were on a night out. This happened on two occasions. He indicated his intention to plead guilty to both charges (a so-called Section 102 indictment) and had no previous convictions.
In chambers, as I was preparing the Sheriff (a lovely old guy, sadly long gone) for going on the bench, he remarked to me "what do you think, Alan? 18 months?" I didn't at that time have children but was a bit taken aback. "I don't know, Sheriff, isn't that a bit low?" At that time the maximum sentence available to a Sheriff was 2 years.
I went back into court and quietly primed the Fiscal about the Sheriff's thoughts. Donald the Fiscal was a lovely chap - a gay who openly lived with his boyfriend, but a damn good lawyer with a very well developed sense of justice. Also heavily into amateur dramatics - handy in a court setting as I'm sure BV72 would agree!
The case called, the accused pleaded guilty, and them the Fiscal launched into his description of the events surrounding the offences. An Oscar winning performance - I was highly impressed as he laid forth giving the full sordid details of the offences (they were sickening).
The defence solicitor did his best, but after the Fiscal's performance there wasn't much he could say.
From the bench there was a shuffling of papers then the pronouncement that I'd never heard before in a Sheriff Court "Dirty Beast (not the real name, but the same initials), you have pleaded guilty to appalling charges. Any sentence I can impose here is clearly inadequate therefore I am remitting you to the High Court for sentencing. You will be remanded in custody. Officer, take him down".
A few weeks later at the High Court in Edinburgh he was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment
I influenced a Sheriff once, many years ago. A criminal case, but still an indication of how a judge can get it wrong. The scenario: A man in his 40s appearing on indictment on four charges of molesting children. He was in a position of trust, as he was baby sitting the kids while there parents were on a night out. This happened on two occasions. He indicated his intention to plead guilty to both charges (a so-called Section 102 indictment) and had no previous convictions.
In chambers, as I was preparing the Sheriff (a lovely old guy, sadly long gone) for going on the bench, he remarked to me "what do you think, Alan? 18 months?" I didn't at that time have children but was a bit taken aback. "I don't know, Sheriff, isn't that a bit low?" At that time the maximum sentence available to a Sheriff was 2 years.
I went back into court and quietly primed the Fiscal about the Sheriff's thoughts. Donald the Fiscal was a lovely chap - a gay who openly lived with his boyfriend, but a damn good lawyer with a very well developed sense of justice. Also heavily into amateur dramatics - handy in a court setting as I'm sure BV72 would agree!
The case called, the accused pleaded guilty, and them the Fiscal launched into his description of the events surrounding the offences. An Oscar winning performance - I was highly impressed as he laid forth giving the full sordid details of the offences (they were sickening).
The defence solicitor did his best, but after the Fiscal's performance there wasn't much he could say.
From the bench there was a shuffling of papers then the pronouncement that I'd never heard before in a Sheriff Court "Dirty Beast (not the real name, but the same initials), you have pleaded guilty to appalling charges. Any sentence I can impose here is clearly inadequate therefore I am remitting you to the High Court for sentencing. You will be remanded in custody. Officer, take him down".
A few weeks later at the High Court in Edinburgh he was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment
matchmaker said:
Judges are human. They sometimes get it wrong. After 20 years sitting in the "neutral seat" as Clerk of Court I saw some decisions I disagreed with, but not many.
I influenced a Sheriff once, many years ago. A criminal case, but still an indication of how a judge can get it wrong. The scenario: A man in his 40s appearing on indictment on four charges of molesting children. He was in a position of trust, as he was baby sitting the kids while there parents were on a night out. This happened on two occasions. He indicated his intention to plead guilty to both charges (a so-called Section 102 indictment) and had no previous convictions.
In chambers, as I was preparing the Sheriff (a lovely old guy, sadly long gone) for going on the bench, he remarked to me "what do you think, Alan? 18 months?" I didn't at that time have children but was a bit taken aback. "I don't know, Sheriff, isn't that a bit low?" At that time the maximum sentence available to a Sheriff was 2 years.
I went back into court and quietly primed the Fiscal about the Sheriff's thoughts. Donald the Fiscal was a lovely chap - a gay who openly lived with his boyfriend, but a damn good lawyer with a very well developed sense of justice. Also heavily into amateur dramatics - handy in a court setting as I'm sure BV72 would agree!
The case called, the accused pleaded guilty, and them the Fiscal launched into his description of the events surrounding the offences. An Oscar winning performance - I was highly impressed as he laid forth giving the full sordid details of the offences (they were sickening).
The defence solicitor did his best, but after the Fiscal's performance there wasn't much he could say.
From the bench there was a shuffling of papers then the pronouncement that I'd never heard before in a Sheriff Court "Dirty Beast (not the real name, but the same initials), you have pleaded guilty to appalling charges. Any sentence I can impose here is clearly inadequate therefore I am remitting you to the High Court for sentencing. You will be remanded in custody. Officer, take him down".
A few weeks later at the High Court in Edinburgh he was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment
Completely irrelevant, and unhelpful to the OP - but a fascinating insight to the practical operation of the law. GreatI influenced a Sheriff once, many years ago. A criminal case, but still an indication of how a judge can get it wrong. The scenario: A man in his 40s appearing on indictment on four charges of molesting children. He was in a position of trust, as he was baby sitting the kids while there parents were on a night out. This happened on two occasions. He indicated his intention to plead guilty to both charges (a so-called Section 102 indictment) and had no previous convictions.
In chambers, as I was preparing the Sheriff (a lovely old guy, sadly long gone) for going on the bench, he remarked to me "what do you think, Alan? 18 months?" I didn't at that time have children but was a bit taken aback. "I don't know, Sheriff, isn't that a bit low?" At that time the maximum sentence available to a Sheriff was 2 years.
I went back into court and quietly primed the Fiscal about the Sheriff's thoughts. Donald the Fiscal was a lovely chap - a gay who openly lived with his boyfriend, but a damn good lawyer with a very well developed sense of justice. Also heavily into amateur dramatics - handy in a court setting as I'm sure BV72 would agree!
The case called, the accused pleaded guilty, and them the Fiscal launched into his description of the events surrounding the offences. An Oscar winning performance - I was highly impressed as he laid forth giving the full sordid details of the offences (they were sickening).
The defence solicitor did his best, but after the Fiscal's performance there wasn't much he could say.
From the bench there was a shuffling of papers then the pronouncement that I'd never heard before in a Sheriff Court "Dirty Beast (not the real name, but the same initials), you have pleaded guilty to appalling charges. Any sentence I can impose here is clearly inadequate therefore I am remitting you to the High Court for sentencing. You will be remanded in custody. Officer, take him down".
A few weeks later at the High Court in Edinburgh he was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment
Just to update you all, no response as of yet. Hoping that's that now!
Once again thanks all for your comments and reassurances and a special thanks to Breadvan again whos generous help has no doubt brought this to a close much sooner than if I'd gone it alone (or waited for my cousin!!)
Once again thanks all for your comments and reassurances and a special thanks to Breadvan again whos generous help has no doubt brought this to a close much sooner than if I'd gone it alone (or waited for my cousin!!)
QuattroDave said:
Just to update you all, no response as of yet. Hoping that's that now!
Once again thanks all for your comments and reassurances and a special thanks to Breadvan again whos generous help has no doubt brought this to a close much sooner than if I'd gone it alone (or waited for my cousin!!)
A few quid to the Salvation Army (a great charity) says you get something in the week running up to Christmas with the offer of a compromise.Once again thanks all for your comments and reassurances and a special thanks to Breadvan again whos generous help has no doubt brought this to a close much sooner than if I'd gone it alone (or waited for my cousin!!)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff