WTF is it with judges in this country?
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
So would you say that our legal system is a disgrace and should be scrapped?
We have (in the main) one of the best legal systems in the world. Sadly, because that means other countries are terrible. It is by no means perfect.However, judicial decisions which are wrong (and plainly so) can be difficult to challenge, in both time and costs. This needs to be simplified.
Judges who repeatedly make appalling decisions ought to be removed from the bench. That would take the judiciary in part policing themselves, which I believe that they are reluctant to do. That may change in the future as a more diverse bar and bench comes about (assuming it does so to a sufficient degree to make a difference).
Eady has a penchant for injunctions and a strong advocate of super injunctions. This global slant is a new one he is going to go at like mad I suspect. Despite his previous decisions being criticised and overturned by his peers he continues to not only be idling as a judge but most interestingly appointed to the cases.
Derek Smith said:
Eady is an exception. He has been criticised a number of times by other judges. He was recently demoted.
<snip>
I regard him a dangerous. It's about time the law society did something about him.
He hasn't been demoted. Tudgenhat took over as judge in charge of the jury (ie libel) list last year, but it is a Buggins turn appointment. There's no upward or downward movement in getting that job or ceasing it. <snip>
I regard him a dangerous. It's about time the law society did something about him.
As for doing something about him, bad decisions get overturned by the Court of Appeal. Rich as the celebs are who get these ser injunctions, newspapers have plenty of cash to spend on defending freedom of speech when it suits them. If this is really where the law it then it is Parliament's job to sort it out. Targeting judges whose decisions you don't like is the top of a very slippery and potentially dangerous slope.
Greg66 said:
Targeting judges whose decisions you don't like is the top of a very slippery and potentially dangerous slope.
Indeed but does question the whole basis of our political and judicial system.What does Parliament mean and is it enacted?
Oh hang on, Parliament or Courts in the UK might not be the final arbiter.
TEKNOPUG said:
maxxy5 said:
I was irked by this but then I wondered whether it is really in the defensible public interest to know about these people's private affairs, vs familial turmoil with it all over the red tops. It's not exactly watergate is it. Undecided on it.
It's a privacy law for rich people, no?Johnnie Footballers can make millions through indorsements with Mothercare and being made Father of the Year, but we, the public who are buying products based on his endorsement, aren't allowed to know that he's a serial shagger with 12 b
d children?k if they are shagging someone other than their wife, this sort of thing is neither important, or news. I'd rather not read the same old story from some dumb tart.Slightly different if its someone in a position of trust and/or authority, like a politician. Its important that we know if their actions are contrary to their persona
Greg66 said:
He hasn't been demoted. Tudgenhat took over as judge in charge of the jury (ie libel) list last year, but it is a Buggins turn appointment. There's no upward or downward movement in getting that job or ceasing it.
As for doing something about him, bad decisions get overturned by the Court of Appeal. Rich as the celebs are who get these ser injunctions, newspapers have plenty of cash to spend on defending freedom of speech when it suits them. If this is really where the law it then it is Parliament's job to sort it out. Targeting judges whose decisions you don't like is the top of a very slippery and potentially dangerous slope.
Eady was moved from a slot he liked just after he was heavily criticised by appeal court judges yet again. It was as critical as it could get.As for doing something about him, bad decisions get overturned by the Court of Appeal. Rich as the celebs are who get these ser injunctions, newspapers have plenty of cash to spend on defending freedom of speech when it suits them. If this is really where the law it then it is Parliament's job to sort it out. Targeting judges whose decisions you don't like is the top of a very slippery and potentially dangerous slope.
Targeting judges whose decisions I don't like is a slippery and dangerous slope? I think the reverse is true to an extent. The lack of real criticism of judge who have political inpsiration for their decisions is where the danger lies.
It is not a question of whether I like a judege or not it is whether the judge is doing a good job and I believe that Eady is not. He is inventing laws. Whilst this is a power judges have there must be an overwhelming reason for doing so and it should also be temporary, until the gorvernment can look into the matter. These superinjunctions, especially in that they cannot even be discussed in parliament nor can the person affected by them discuss it with their MP, is just about as unconstitutional a law as I have heard. This is outrageous.
They are an invention of judges without reference to parliament. Eady has said that he looks to extend privacy laws. That's not his job. That's parliaments. Stick to judgeing. If it is something that is needed in this country, to protect some company that is polluting vast swathes of the third world, then it is not up to Eady or any other judge to invent it.
Whichever judge makes bad law, I believe they should be open to criticism. Further, any judge who is criticised by his peers so frequently should be forced to reapply for his position.
Judges form a vital part of the safeguard for citizens of this country but it is a delicate balance. I've worked with three judges quite closely in my time and I've been impressed by them all: Wrintmore, Gower and Argyll. More than impressed: I think that their idea of service to the community is an example to us all, but one which few would even attempt to follow.
However, that does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that some struggle with the intricacies of the position. I can accept that judges will make mistakes at times. We all do. But if they continually do then something must be done. And they must be open to criticism. If not it would be a dangerous and slippery slope.
Greg66 said:
Targeting judges whose decisions you don't like is the top of a very slippery and potentially dangerous slope.
Quite to the contrary, a judicial decision which seeks to prevent an individual seeking redress of Parliament is a direct interference with the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and is dangerous, constitutionally speaking.The title should really be 'WTF is it with judges reported by the press in this country?'
Most judges decisions are acceptable, if a little soft compared to 20,30 or 40 years ago, it's just the press likes to report on the (plenty) of softer-than-soft rulings. But, often we hear it from one side, and we haven't had top lawyers persuade us that the violent rapist/paedo/murderer is really a cuddly-wuddly bundle of hugs and bunnies. This makes it seem as if all murderers are let out after 2 weeks in prison, put down to 4 days with good behaviour, and paedophiles are rehabilitated in a nursery.
Most judges decisions are acceptable, if a little soft compared to 20,30 or 40 years ago, it's just the press likes to report on the (plenty) of softer-than-soft rulings. But, often we hear it from one side, and we haven't had top lawyers persuade us that the violent rapist/paedo/murderer is really a cuddly-wuddly bundle of hugs and bunnies. This makes it seem as if all murderers are let out after 2 weeks in prison, put down to 4 days with good behaviour, and paedophiles are rehabilitated in a nursery.
F93 said:
The title should really be 'WTF is it with judges reported by the press in this country?'
Most judges decisions are acceptable, if a little soft compared to 20,30 or 40 years ago, it's just the press likes to report on the (plenty) of softer-than-soft rulings. But, often we hear it from one side, and we haven't had top lawyers persuade us that the violent rapist/paedo/murderer is really a cuddly-wuddly bundle of hugs and bunnies. This makes it seem as if all murderers are let out after 2 weeks in prison, put down to 4 days with good behaviour, and paedophiles are rehabilitated in a nursery.
Therein is part of the problem. The press report what will make a good story. Large parts of the information available to a judge is not publicly available - for example a social work report.Most judges decisions are acceptable, if a little soft compared to 20,30 or 40 years ago, it's just the press likes to report on the (plenty) of softer-than-soft rulings. But, often we hear it from one side, and we haven't had top lawyers persuade us that the violent rapist/paedo/murderer is really a cuddly-wuddly bundle of hugs and bunnies. This makes it seem as if all murderers are let out after 2 weeks in prison, put down to 4 days with good behaviour, and paedophiles are rehabilitated in a nursery.
Many years ago a sheriff I worked with was heavily criticised (for a "lenient sentence") in a letter in the local paper. The letter writer had based his comments on a newspaper report on the case. But the full facts of the case as available to the court put a completely different complexion on things.................
However, my experience is also that there are some shocking numpties on the bench!
Jasandjules said:
Quite to the contrary, a judicial decision which seeks to prevent an individual seeking redress of Parliament is a direct interference with the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and is dangerous, constitutionally speaking.
But if you set a precedent that you can ditch judges you don't like, that's also a breach of the doctrine. Parliament needs to introduce a bill about this, and quickly.carmonk said:
Judges should be elected. Many of them are bad, some are borderline insane. There should be more to being a judge than understanding ten thousand legal terms and being able to sit for three hours without falling asleep.
Considering the average person's knowledge of the law in this country could be written on the back of a fag packet, how would you suggest people would know how to elect the correct people to make judgements?
fergywales said:
carmonk said:
Judges should be elected. Many of them are bad, some are borderline insane. There should be more to being a judge than understanding ten thousand legal terms and being able to sit for three hours without falling asleep.
Considering the average person's knowledge of the law in this country could be written on the back of a fag packet, how would you suggest people would know how to elect the correct people to make judgements?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff