BN66 - Round 2 (Court of Appeal)

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Just goes to show that the Supreme Court are not afraid to tackle contentious issues no matter how the public or government may feel about the matter:

BBC News - Offenders on sex register for life to get appeal right

“Mr Clegg said the government had to act on the ruling, which cannot be appealed.”

At least if we end up in front of these guys we know we’ll get a fair hearing and that they won’t bow to government/HMRC/public opinions!!

In this case, the Government previously lost in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

What was interesting though was that there were 3 judges presiding in the High Court, instead of just 1 in our case. Perhaps this was because it involved a criminal rather than civil matter.

High Court:
High Court ruling on sex offenders register | News | Garden Court North - Garden Court North Barrister Chambers

Court of Appeal:
Court of Appeal upholds sex offenders register ruling | News | Garden Court North - Garden Court North Barrister Chambers

One thing I will say is this.

Whilst we may have been sceptical of Parker's judgment in the HC, I don't think we can be as dismissive of a ruling from 3 senior Lord Justices in the CoA even if we don't like it.

Our best hope may well lie with the Supreme Court but the CoA will be a crucial barometer.

By the way, there is still no sign of an imminent judgment.

[RichardCranium]

At some point very recently, this thread reached ½ million views (currently 500,336).

[TheBarCapBoyz]

In this case, the Government previously lost in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

What was interesting though was that there were 3 judges presiding in the High Court, instead of just 1 in our case. Perhaps this was because it involved a criminal rather than civil matter.

High Court:
High Court ruling on sex offenders register | News | Garden Court North - Garden Court North Barrister Chambers

Court of Appeal:
Court of Appeal upholds sex offenders register ruling | News | Garden Court North - Garden Court North Barrister Chambers

One thing I will say is this.

Whilst we may have been sceptical of Parker's judgment in the HC, I don't think we can be as dismissive of a ruling from 3 senior Lord Justices in the CoA even if we don't like it.

Our best hope may well lie with the Supreme Court but the CoA will be a crucial barometer.

By the way, there is still no sign of an imminent judgment.

I wonder if the recent Parliament vote rejecting prisoner suffrage, symbolic though that may have been, and widely interpreted as a "V" sign to the ECHR, might mean even if we win, Parliament would be tempted to ignore the ruling, as a further attempt to reassert the sovereignty of Westminster over Europe.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

At some point very recently, this thread reached ½ million views (currently 500,336).

I wonder how many of those were HMRC.

When the day of judgment finally comes, it might go up a bit more!

[zippo]

David Cameron: UK human rights law review 'imminent'

Could this have any affect on our case ??

BBC News - David Cameron: UK human rights law review 'imminent'

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I wonder if the recent Parliament vote rejecting prisoner suffrage, symbolic though that may have been, and widely interpreted as a "V" sign to the ECHR, might mean even if we win, Parliament would be tempted to ignore the ruling, as a further attempt to reassert the sovereignty of Westminster over Europe.

This would be unlikely to happen for two reasons:

1) all Tory and LibDem MPs on the finance bill committee, including Gauke, voted against Section 58

2) the Government has gone on record as saying that this is best dealt with by the courts

Double Taxation: 24 Jun 2010: Written answers and statements (TheyWorkForYou.com)

[Slobbo]

Could this have any affect on our case ??

BBC News - David Cameron: UK human rights law review 'imminent'

This is very scary when you consider that the sitters in any parliamentary session are more or less forced to vote according to the party line. To then be told that the courts ruling is to be ignored because it is the will of parliament is worrying. Lets face it the Labour idiots didn't seem to have much idea about the background of BN66. At least if it goes to court the judges listen to the arguments and look in detail at the information available. The politicians seem to decide whether they want to sit in or not.

[swede]

Human Rights Act

Could this have any affect on our case ??

BBC News - David Cameron: UK human rights law review 'imminent'

I find it insane that my livelihood and my families future, now hinges on the same piece of ridiculous legislation that seems to uphold the rights of criminals!

- It also makes me feel kind of dirty for relying on it.

[seadog]

This is very scary when you consider that the sitters in any parliamentary session are more or less forced to vote according to the party line. To then be told that the courts ruling is to be ignored because it is the will of parliament is worrying. Lets face it the Labour idiots didn't seem to have much idea about the background of BN66. At least if it goes to court the judges listen to the arguments and look in detail at the information available. The politicians seem to decide whether they want to sit in or not.

You are correct that the parliamentary system is deeply flawed by the party whip system, but our problem is that the legal case is about very fine legal point “is it against our human rights” that is a very high hurdle to jump and in no way does it answer the question of how wrong it was of mp’s to pass bn66 and neither does it address the fact that parliament was mislead by Timms/Kennedy when this went through the house.

When I look at TV coverage of debates by mp’s and I look at how legislation is made I realise just how hard it will be to get s58 repealed.

In my opinion any independent review of HMRC/Treasury/ parliamentary behaviour over this issue would come down very heavily against the Gov, but how do we get such an overall enquiry not just limited to HR issues.

The Tax Court, HMRC arbitration and the Ombudsman seems our best option if the narrow legal route fails.

[Slobbo]

You are correct that the parliamentary system is deeply flawed by the party whip system, but our problem is that the legal case is about very fine legal point “is it against our human rights” that is a very high hurdle to jump and in no way does it answer the question of how wrong it was of mp’s to pass bn66 and neither does it address the fact that parliament was mislead by Timms/Kennedy when this went through the house.

When I look at TV coverage of debates by mp’s and I look at how legislation is made I realise just how hard it will be to get s58 repealed.

In my opinion any independent review of HMRC/Treasury/ parliamentary behaviour over this issue would come down very heavily against the Gov, but how do we get such an overall enquiry not just limited to HR issues.

The Tax Court, HMRC arbitration and the Ombudsman seems our best option if the narrow legal route fails.

I am making the point that if the sitters had considered the issue properly with all the information and did not have the party line to tow then we wouldn't be in court just now defending our human rights.