Reply to: Police Harassment

[Ardesco]

The courts like to be "seen to be independent", but when it comes to the crunch they are very rarely independent.

The mistake you are making is comparing it to everything in Russia where you obviously have a very biased view as to how bad the system is (that is not to say that the system is not indeed bad, I really don't know it so can't comment but your comments are very heavily biased either way).

maybe our court system is better than some other countries but you don't get anywhere in UK courts unless you know how to play the system.Generally speaking middle classed people who make one mistake will be pulled into court and made an example of. However your average chav scum who is in court every other week and is the sort of person who really needs to be locked up will get away scot free every time!

[AtW]

If you read Private Eye regularly this sort of thing does look pretty systemic.

Quiet. And if you read the magazine for plumbers you might get impression that every pipe is leaking.

I am not saying it does not happen, it sure does - but the degree of that is very low, though obviously it would be better if it did not happen at all.

[xoggoth]

If you read Private Eye regularly this sort of thing does look pretty systemic. Check on some law websites too, the way planning applications, harrassment etc are dealt with when one of the parties involved has connections with magistrates, police or the councils involved. Ok, what people say is not always the truth, but they are probably not all false either and give grounds for concern about a frequent lack of impartiality.

[AtW]

Ok it doesn't, but it does illustrate that the courts can be "persuaded" to give the desired result regardless of evidence presented.

That's an isolate example which does not show systemic problem.

I don't know even full details of the case to draw a good conclusion - for all I know this "on standing in court was unable to present any evidence to defend himself" actually shows he had nothing to defend himself, so clearly the accusing party must have had better evidence than him.

There is appeals process that works - if some magistrate is supposedly corrupt that there are means to fight it - contract murders to prevent such activity is not very common in this country, if exists at all.

Frankly this discussion no longer makes sense as clearly you guys have no ability to separate systemic things and occurences that do not in whole characterise the system.

[BrilloPad]

And this exactly how relates to independence of UK courts from the executive and legislative branches?

Are you trying to turn into Chico?

"Mr Monks was told 5 months before his court appearance that he would be going down and indeed on standing in court was unable to present any evidence to defend himself before being sent down."

This is against Magna Carta. If the courts cannot implement legislation then the government/executive(I agree we seem to be moving to a USA style system) should remove them. prefrably using the army.

And yes, I do know the Russia has millions of such cases etcetc.

[Platypus]

And this exactly how relates to independence of UK courts from the executive and legislative branches?

Ok it doesn't, but it does illustrate that the courts can be "persuaded" to give the desired result regardless of evidence presented.

[AtW]

er...

And this exactly how relates to independence of UK courts from the executive and legislative branches?

[Platypus]

Courts in the UK are independent of Govt, police and CPS - end of story. That's the main thing in any legal system.

er...

Geoff [Monks] has now been released from the High Security Prison at Woodhill after spending 8 weeks being banged up [as was promised would happen by an involved magistrate months before the application was heard] when he applied to have his innapropriate fine reviewed.

Geoff Monks was refused his basic visiting or telephone rights in HMP Woodhill an innocent victim of corruption at a dangerously high level in our community.

Mr Monks was told 5 months before his court appearance that he would be going down and indeed on standing in court was unable to present any evidence to defend himself before being sent down.

We have just heard [11.04.2005] that the Magistrate Mr John Hill who had sat on both of Mr Monks ‘trials’ and who was recorded of promising that we are going to jail him some months before the hearing, and indeed some months before he had even read the application, in a competitors pub to all that would listen has been ‘removed from the bench’. We will report when all is clearer put it seems this happened some while after his pronouncments were aired in Private-Eye and cited in the Landmark Crown Court abuse trial.

[sappatz]

Welcome to UK police state.

[SueEllen]

There are probably other laws that have to be taken into account - it is rare when one single law gives complete 100% clear path - there are always possible to have overrides (like Human Rights Act), I am pretty sure that the courts are making decisions on the basis of available laws or practice not because they are somehow against F4J.

Divorce laws in this country are sure carp, but this needs to be solved by the Parliament.

The laws are pretty well written they just need to be applied so they actually do take the child's welfare into account that way you won't get cases like Molly Campbell/Misbah Iram Ahmed Rana.

[AtW]

Lets stick to the child bit if that is ok? The 1989/1996 Children Act contains everything that f4j wants - but has not been implemented - who do you think I should take that up with?

There are probably other laws that have to be taken into account - it is rare when one single law gives complete 100% clear path - there are always possible to have overrides (like Human Rights Act), I am pretty sure that the courts are making decisions on the basis of available laws or practice not because they are somehow against F4J.

Divorce laws in this country are sure carp, but this needs to be solved by the Parliament.

[BrilloPad]

insofar as divorces are concerned that's the issue of laws, not courts - judges don't write laws, take your issues with unfair divorce settlements with the legislative branch, not judicial.

You gave quite a long post - I do wish you would keep to the point.

Do you understand the mechanics of divorce? There are 3 strands - the divorce, financial and child.

Lets stick to the child bit if that is ok? The 1989/1996 Children Act contains everything that f4j wants - but has not been implemented - who do you think I should take that up with?

[AtW]

Well judges are not elected. governments are. at least people get some sort of say every 5 years. even if their policies are almost identical.

What elections of the judges have got to do with the independence of the judicial branch?

In Russia the "Parliament" is elected, do you think this makes them independent? No - they are puppets of the executive branch, just like the judicial branch.

It's easy to see from decisions being made against the other branches - if you see that court cases against Govt always fail then you can be damn sure the courts are not independent.

In the UK a lot of cases go against Govt - judges critisise Govt often in their decisions, very harshly and very directly, yet those judges don't get killed or fired (as a rule) - that's why UK courts are independent.

As for miscarriages of justice and bad laws, then sure - I agree this exists here too, however on a much smaller scale and insofar as divorces are concerned that's the issue of laws, not courts - judges don't write laws, take your issues with unfair divorce settlements with the legislative branch, not judicial.

[BrilloPad]

And why you blame courts for being LEGALLY REQUIRED to apply laws passed by the Parliament?

Well judges are not elected. governments are. at least people get some sort of say every 5 years. even if their policies are almost identical.

[AtW]

Does that make it a good system?

Yes it does make a pretty damn good system.

I repeat, I hope you never get divorced in the UK...

And why you blame courts for being LEGALLY REQUIRED to apply laws passed by the Parliament? It's a very bad divorce law and the judges can't exactly judge by ignoring laws simply because they think it would be right to do so?

You guys simply don't understand what courts independence is because you never came across with non-independent courts, so since you have no clue you start extending your own view on injustices that may have happened to say the courts ain't independent.

Courts in the UK are independent of Govt, police and CPS - end of story. That's the main thing in any legal system.