Amber Rudd contempt of court?
Discussion
Regrettably not so. The Government and the Courts used to have a relationship based on a degree of mutual respect. Nowadays the relationship is often suspicious and sometimes hostile. When judges upheld the Constitution last year by ruling that Parliament had to decide on Article 50, the Government briefed against the judiciary and the Mail ran its ludicrous "enemies of the people" headline. When Theresa May was Home Secretary she argued that her decisions should trump Statutes made by Parliaments. When the Courts said no to this, the Government briefed against the judges accusing them of being "activists", when in fact they were being traditionalist guardians of the Constitution against the activism of Ministers who would like to rule by decree. Henry VIII clauses, by the way, are far from new, but the thing about the GRB is that it potentially sets Government up to be more Henry VIII than anyone since, well, Henry VIII.
On costs again, if the Government has breached court orders and there are legal costs in relation to this, those costs have to be paid by the Government, and that means the taxpayer. As always, when the Government screws up taxpayers pay the bill.
If a party (any party) does not like a Court order then that party may be able to appeal against the order or apply to have it set aside on various grounds. But until the order is set aside, it has to be complied with. It's a simple rule.
On costs again, if the Government has breached court orders and there are legal costs in relation to this, those costs have to be paid by the Government, and that means the taxpayer. As always, when the Government screws up taxpayers pay the bill.
If a party (any party) does not like a Court order then that party may be able to appeal against the order or apply to have it set aside on various grounds. But until the order is set aside, it has to be complied with. It's a simple rule.
Breadvan72 said:
Regrettably not so. The Government and the Courts used to have a relationship based on a degree of mutual respect. Nowadays the relationship is often suspicious and sometimes hostile. When judges upheld the Constitution last year by ruling that Parliament had to decide on Article 50, the Government briefed against the judiciary and the Mail ran its ludicrous "enemies of the people" headline. When Theresa May was Home Secretary she argued that her decisions should trump Statutes made by Parliaments. When the Courts said no to this, the Government briefed against the judges accusing them of being "activists", when in fact they were being traditionalist guardians of the Constitution against the activism of Ministers who would like to rule by decree. Henry VIII clauses, by the way, are far from new, but the thing about the GRB is that it potentially sets Government up to be more Henry VIII than anyone since, well, Henry VIII.
On costs again, if the Government has breached court orders and there are legal costs in relation to this, those costs have to be paid by the Government, and that means the taxpayer. As always, when the Government screws up taxpayers pay the bill.
If a party (any party) does not like a Court order then that party may be able to appeal against the order or apply to have it set aside on various grounds. But until the order is set aside, it has to be complied with. It's a simple rule.
So if I may divide that into two parts & disregard the cost element for now, I understand governments may brief against judiciary & set out to grab ever more powers, all governments want more powers, so, Understood. On costs again, if the Government has breached court orders and there are legal costs in relation to this, those costs have to be paid by the Government, and that means the taxpayer. As always, when the Government screws up taxpayers pay the bill.
If a party (any party) does not like a Court order then that party may be able to appeal against the order or apply to have it set aside on various grounds. But until the order is set aside, it has to be complied with. It's a simple rule.
However, of interest is the last part - a court makes an order, binding on the parties concerned. If as in this case it's seemingly breached by the Home Sec deporting someone the courts have ordered to remain. Then what? What is the remedy for that? Since without some form of meaningful penalty, why have court orders at all? The hell with it, why not a free for all?
Edited by Eddie Strohacker on Tuesday 19th September 18:17
Breadvan72 said:
Derek Smith said:
Breadvan72 said:
Derek Smith said:
...Apart from Mrs W no one is above the law, and even she is only in principle.
If by Mrs W you mean the Queen, then you are mistaken, as she is emphatically not above the law, not even "in principle" (whatever that is supposed to mean). The Civil War established that position, and the position was re affirmed after the Revolution of 1688. The Home Secretary and other Ministers act in the name of the Queen, and they are subject to the decisions of the Courts. The fundamental basis of the rule of law is that no one is above it.Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 16th September 19:19
Edited by Thorodin on Tuesday 19th September 18:54
Well as I don't believe in God and think that Monarchy is super-daft (what next? hereditary dentists? hereditary weather girls?), I can't join in on that one, but never mind that. Responding to Eddie's question about remedies for breaching court orders, these are various. If it is shown (to the criminal standard of proof) that the breach was deliberate, then the person responsible for the breach could be jailed, or fined, or have assets seized. A corporate person can't be jailed, but can be fined or have its assets grabbed, as happened when the Court sequestered the assets of the NUM for defying orders about industrial action.
If the breach was not deliberate, or is considered to have been deliberate but not, as the Courts say, contumacious, then there may still be costs consequences. The opposing party might sometimes be awarded costs on what is called the indemnity basis instead of the standard basis, which means that the opposing party receivers a greeter percentage of costs that is usually the case (usually if you win a case you recover about 70 to 80 per cent of your costs. With an indemnity costs order you might get more like 90 per cent. In addition the guilty party might be debarred from making a claim or debarred from defending a claim. All depends on the circumstances.
If the breach was not deliberate, or is considered to have been deliberate but not, as the Courts say, contumacious, then there may still be costs consequences. The opposing party might sometimes be awarded costs on what is called the indemnity basis instead of the standard basis, which means that the opposing party receivers a greeter percentage of costs that is usually the case (usually if you win a case you recover about 70 to 80 per cent of your costs. With an indemnity costs order you might get more like 90 per cent. In addition the guilty party might be debarred from making a claim or debarred from defending a claim. All depends on the circumstances.
Right, thanks. Forgive me for persisting, but may I infer from that that in the case of a high office of state I.e. the Home office, it boils down to a risk vs reward calculation in a case like this, such that the Home secretary might conclude deporting an unwanted foreigner against the order of the court may not draw sufficient barracking/penalty to deter her? or am I over thinking it & in the real world it's usually more likely to be cock up than conspiracy?
I would suggest that cock up is more likely than conspiracy in most cases. I did one, for example, in which the duty Judge ordered late one evening that X should not be removed from the UK, but when the solicitor for X tried to send the order to the Home Office the fax number given was not attended. The contractor escorts who were taking X to an aircraft refused to believe the solicitor when he told them he had a Court order preventing removal, and X was put onto the flight. I later had to appear for the Home Office in front of a very irate Mr Justice Collins and say sorry very sorry no really sorry and we have found him and we are bringing him back.
Thereafter a better system for delivery of out of hours orders and validation of orders at the airports was set up by the HO. I also had to apologise for the rude things that the rather gooonish contractor blokes said to the solicitor ("I don't give a f
k about some fking High Court Judge, I'm in charge", and so on). Contempt proceedings in that case resulted in a big costs order, and X also sued the contractor for assault. They settled, I think, but that wasn't my gig.
In the case that sparked this thread it is possible (I say possible, not definite) that the HO has taken a decision to ignore the Court. It appears that some parts of the Government want to tap into a public mood that some of the comments on this thread may exemplify. This divided Government seems to choose to govern divisively - it seems only to care for one group of voters; a factional Government which is itself ridden by faction.
You might think that the Government always takes legal advice before doing stuff with legal implications, but it doesn't. Sometimes it goes ahead without consulting lawyers. Other times it ignores advice. That is a bit of a change. When I started doing Government work back in the 90s (I am so old that I once represented la Thatcherene herself in Court, on some nonsense, just before she was flung out by her troops), the Government almost invariably followed legal advice. From about 1997 onwards it started quite often to say "screw that" and go ahead with what it wanted to do, sometimes moaning about "Which idiot made that stupid law?" to which the reply would usually be "You did, Minister."
All this stuff about breaching orders reminds me of an order that I once got in a commercial case to prevent a somewhat twinkly Irish architect who owed a lot of money from leaving the UK pending proceedings going on in London. By the time we had the order, the dude, having spotted the PI who had been tailing him in Minogue's Bar in Islington, had legged it to Heathrow. Eventually there was a police officer out on the tarmac waving a copy of the order at the pilots of an Aer Lingus jet bound for Dublin. The Aer Lingus Captain, seeing a British copper trying to stop an Irishman from leaving Britain, and not very surprisingly in the light of history, took off (probably saying "feck that!" to his First Officer as he did so and pretending not to hear whatever ATC was saying on the radio). What the pilots did not know is that the party chasing the dude was an Irish Government Agency whose HQ building in Dublin he had screwed up, so, oops.
Thereafter a better system for delivery of out of hours orders and validation of orders at the airports was set up by the HO. I also had to apologise for the rude things that the rather gooonish contractor blokes said to the solicitor ("I don't give a f
k about some fking High Court Judge, I'm in charge", and so on). Contempt proceedings in that case resulted in a big costs order, and X also sued the contractor for assault. They settled, I think, but that wasn't my gig. In the case that sparked this thread it is possible (I say possible, not definite) that the HO has taken a decision to ignore the Court. It appears that some parts of the Government want to tap into a public mood that some of the comments on this thread may exemplify. This divided Government seems to choose to govern divisively - it seems only to care for one group of voters; a factional Government which is itself ridden by faction.
You might think that the Government always takes legal advice before doing stuff with legal implications, but it doesn't. Sometimes it goes ahead without consulting lawyers. Other times it ignores advice. That is a bit of a change. When I started doing Government work back in the 90s (I am so old that I once represented la Thatcherene herself in Court, on some nonsense, just before she was flung out by her troops), the Government almost invariably followed legal advice. From about 1997 onwards it started quite often to say "screw that" and go ahead with what it wanted to do, sometimes moaning about "Which idiot made that stupid law?" to which the reply would usually be "You did, Minister."
All this stuff about breaching orders reminds me of an order that I once got in a commercial case to prevent a somewhat twinkly Irish architect who owed a lot of money from leaving the UK pending proceedings going on in London. By the time we had the order, the dude, having spotted the PI who had been tailing him in Minogue's Bar in Islington, had legged it to Heathrow. Eventually there was a police officer out on the tarmac waving a copy of the order at the pilots of an Aer Lingus jet bound for Dublin. The Aer Lingus Captain, seeing a British copper trying to stop an Irishman from leaving Britain, and not very surprisingly in the light of history, took off (probably saying "feck that!" to his First Officer as he did so and pretending not to hear whatever ATC was saying on the radio). What the pilots did not know is that the party chasing the dude was an Irish Government Agency whose HQ building in Dublin he had screwed up, so, oops.
Kenneth Baker when Home Secretary argued that a Secretary of State could not be guilty of contempt of Court. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. As far as I know, no Minister or civil servant has been jailed for contempt in the modern era. Jail orders for contempt are very rare. They happen most frequently in family cases where people often do crazy things, and sometimes in criminal courts (eg chavs on their phones, jurors facebooking and so on).
BTW, returning to Derek's bonkers notions about the Crown being above the law, the immunities of the Crown are regulated by Statute. The idea that the Monarch is subject to the law dates back to Anglo Saxon times, was enhanced during the Magna Carta era, and was made absolutely plain by 1689 at the latest. The development of constitutional government in the UK was assisted by many, many factors, but one of these was that almost all Monarchs before Victoria were mostly skint and had to go cap in hand for funds to Lords and Commons. Victoria became personally wealthy and all British Monarchs since her have been minted.
BTW, returning to Derek's bonkers notions about the Crown being above the law, the immunities of the Crown are regulated by Statute. The idea that the Monarch is subject to the law dates back to Anglo Saxon times, was enhanced during the Magna Carta era, and was made absolutely plain by 1689 at the latest. The development of constitutional government in the UK was assisted by many, many factors, but one of these was that almost all Monarchs before Victoria were mostly skint and had to go cap in hand for funds to Lords and Commons. Victoria became personally wealthy and all British Monarchs since her have been minted.
Amber Rudd is appalling. Check out her business background. Emily Thornberry is also appalling. She's a mega-careerist - once a firm Blairite, now a firm Corbynista. In that regard she resembles Theresa May - once a Tory wet, now a captive of the Tory right, and a woman who will say and do anything for career advantage. This is the problem writ large, as so far as I can see the only person of principle and integrity in the Cabinet is Hammond. Most of the Labour pols with principles and integrity have bailed (Keir Starmer is one of the few exceptions) . We are mucho foutu. At least the vile Farron has gone but Vince Cable is probably too old and too associated with the Coalition to lead a principled centrist revival.
Breadvan72 said:
[ If interested in these things, I suggest that you read Tom Bingham's excellent short book "The Rule of Law" - a book that I suggest every thoughtful citizen should read. I would like to see a free copy of it being given out to every Sixth Former in the UK.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rule-Law-Tom-Bingham/dp/0...
As I enjoy your posts, I've taken your advice and, in part to get free delivery, added this to a book order. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rule-Law-Tom-Bingham/dp/0...
Funny this thread has come back to the front page, I've just being reading about Amber rudds mystical back door:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171004/1727133...
TL:DR leave it to the experts love.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171004/1727133...
TL:DR leave it to the experts love.
Thorodin said:
Perfectly understandable. His statement elsewhere earlier that "history does not exist" and other regrettable associated comments indicate the delusions of grandeur that prevail. The insistence on the slur (apparently intended) 'Mrs. W' is infantile rather than acerbic and indicates a revulsion for the monarchy. Heaven knows how he got around his previous employment oath.
I've just seen this. You suggest I have a revulsion for the monarchy. That conclusion seems based on one sentence. My 'previous employment' had systems in major incidents that checked against such dangerous conclusions. Edited by Thorodin on Tuesday 19th September 18:54
As for history doesn't exist; you don't need to know history, or have read a great deal, to appreciate the statement. It is simple enough. Far from delusions of grandeur (really?) it means that we can never know what went on in the past. We, rather obviously, means me, so I am pointing out that I don't know history, just like you and everyone else.
I justified the statement - although it is hardly heretical - but instead of trying to counter my arguments, you attack me.
That's your choice, but it is a poor one. It is not an argument in favour of a different point of view.
What you think happened with regards, for instance, female emancipation is wrong. I can prove it whatever your opinion by quoting historical authority. I have read a number of well researched, and well supported, books on the period between 1832 and 1928. Most, but by no means all, are written by those who teach history and/or are well regarded in historical circles. Yet in many of the basics, they disagree, and not to say fight. I have my point of view but it is as provably wrong as your pov.
There are different ways to look at history, for instance, political and religious. Don't like the conclusions of one author? Read another, one who supports your particular prejudices/experiences/beliefs. There's enough around.
As I pointed out, in 2014 the TLS published reviews of a number of books, each, in its own way, focusing on the start of WWI. Most were by academics, with one by a well known TV presenter of historical TV programmes (amongst others). They all emphasised different aspects and also contradicted one another. I've borrowed three from my library, having to pay a fee for two of them. I found them fairly readable, believable and well researched. Yet they contradicted each other.
Which was right? The problem is that there is no possible supportable answer. That, my rather rude friend, is because there is no unimpeachable history. Or, to relieve it of its pointless modifier, no history. Get used to it because it probably goes for all periods.
Someone suggested that over the years historians hone in on what actually happened, discarding the wrong ideas. This is directly opposite of what happens.
If you want to discuss the points above, I'm only too happy to. Why else would I post on an internet forum? If you want to insult and disparage then there is no point in arguing with you.
Whilst I wasn't going to, I will defend myself against one of your wild allegations.
I am a royalist. I am so because I think it is the best option for the country. I think the Queen, gods bless her, has done and is doing a very good job and all support to her. If any of her replacements do a bad job then I will consider my support. The nature of the job is that we have no choice as to who is our monarch, just whether we have one or not. When the time comes for a decision, I'll make it but until I do, I support Mrs W.
You don't know me, have no idea who I am. I'd really appreciate it if you considered that when posting.
With regard to the history matter, I posted exactly what you had said elsewhere on here. As you are aware, there are multitudes of books on the subject with opposing views of all kinds. That is history! It is there! No matter what continuing generations of students think. It exists! It is self-evident. The wealth of opinion is what supports the continuing interest and promotes further examination. Or does the record have to agree with your own version to be regarded as existing and factual? I was not rude.
With regard to the question of monarchy, I did not attack you, I challenged your thoughts and declarations as they were posted, presumably intended as genuine reflections of your opinion. The post of mine you quote refers to my suggestion that your frequent use over many posts of derogatory terms concerning Brenda, Mrs. W, Ladeee Di etc. was infantile.
These were deliberate and personal to the individuals and my inference that you were anti-monarchy was a reasonable conclusion and justified. You state you support the monarchy because, in your opinion, it is the best option for the country? And if the individuals change you might change your view? I’m sure the people concerned are grateful for your approval. Not much loyalty there though. Again, I was not rude but if you were offended I regret that and recommend you look at your post and see it from another perspective.
You do seem ultra-sensitive to criticism but my criticism (of your post only) is nothing like yours to others who have disagreed with you and drawn insulting remarks. Challenging your view does not imply rudeness.
With regard to the question of monarchy, I did not attack you, I challenged your thoughts and declarations as they were posted, presumably intended as genuine reflections of your opinion. The post of mine you quote refers to my suggestion that your frequent use over many posts of derogatory terms concerning Brenda, Mrs. W, Ladeee Di etc. was infantile.
These were deliberate and personal to the individuals and my inference that you were anti-monarchy was a reasonable conclusion and justified. You state you support the monarchy because, in your opinion, it is the best option for the country? And if the individuals change you might change your view? I’m sure the people concerned are grateful for your approval. Not much loyalty there though. Again, I was not rude but if you were offended I regret that and recommend you look at your post and see it from another perspective.
You do seem ultra-sensitive to criticism but my criticism (of your post only) is nothing like yours to others who have disagreed with you and drawn insulting remarks. Challenging your view does not imply rudeness.
Thorodin said:
Stuff
You didn’t challenge my view. That would require an argument. There was none. It was a diatribe. Just general criticism of a person and gainsaying the points raised is not an argument. You suggest that you agree with the well established argument that there is no dependable narrative of what has happened. There are no historical authorities, nor can there be. You disagree with the phrase I used of ‘history doesn’t exist’. It is hardly original, as anyone who has even a passing interest in history would know. I was exposed to the concept in my early teens.
I supported my argument but as you seem to have dismissed it, try Google with something like ‘no such thing as history’, which if it isn’t a close synonym of the phrase, is identical. I’ve been to a lunchtime lecture on ‘Debunking History’, although a better title for it would have been ‘History Doesn’t Exist’.
Mind you, remember not to accept what is written, even if the source is a professor, as, I believe I have already pointed out, there are no authorities in history.
I don’t think me saying that ‘delusions of grandeur’, ‘slur’, ‘infantile’, ‘revulsion’ and then the suggestion that I ‘got around’ my oath, ie lied, were rude can, by any stretch of the imagination be called ultra sensitive to criticism. I put the word in the middle of a sentence, a well established way of diluting emphasis, and even modified with with ‘rather’. The rest of my post was polite and I supported what I posted. The phrase 'wild accusations' was about your suggestion concerning my view of monarchy, which was way, way off beam.
I've put my point about monarchs. It is personal. If you don't like it, fair enough.
My criticism was, and is, that you went for the person and not what was posted.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff