View previous topic | View next topic

Brexit Liar faces Prosecution

Page 4 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

barbados
1323716.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:16 am Reply with quote

At the moment they are accountable to lords chief justice and chancellor, who in turn are ultimately accountable to the monarch.

 
GuyBarry
1323717.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:18 am Reply with quote

Well that's very democratic, isn't it?

 
barbados
1323720.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:37 am Reply with quote

Who should they be accountable to then?

 
Alexander Howard
1323723.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 4:54 am Reply with quote

Judges are appointed by the Queen after a rigorous process to ensure that they are well respected for their understanding of the law and general level-headedness. They are chosen from amongst experienced barristers and sometimes solicitors with long experience of court practice, with the result that judges are generally well deserving of their high reputation.

A circuit judge (a county court judge) may be removed by the Lord Chancellor if the Lord Chief Justice agrees. I cannot think of any occasion it has happened. A High Court judge or more senior can only be dismissed after a joint address from both Houses of Parliament - and this has only happened once (in 1830; the judge was found to have been stealing funds from vessels sold under the order of the court). This protection for judges is in the Act of Settlement of 1701, to prevent political interference of the sort King James II was wont to do (his judges were gaoling and executing political and religious opponents, and freeing those guilty of crimes the King wanted to remit but parliament would not).

Under the British system, judges are less exposed to the political field than in the United States as Parliament is sovereign.

 
GuyBarry
1323728.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:24 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Who should they be accountable to then?


The General Medical Council sets standards for registered medical practitioners and can strike them off if they fall below those standards. Why not have a General Legal Council with similar powers? The system described by AH above strikes me as somewhat archaic.

 
Alexander Howard
1323731.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:24 am Reply with quote

The General Medical Council have proven untrustworthy on occasion, and if a body is appointed with the specific job of exercising power over a group of people and to compel actions, it will be infiltrated by those who want to do just that. The judiciary has proven resilient, largely because there is no day-to-day oversight by those who can end a career with a word.

 
crissdee
1323745.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:54 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
The system described by AH above strikes me as somewhat archaic.


As a general rule of thumb, anything to do with the law or Parliament in the UK will seem archaic, usually because it is.

 
GuyBarry
1323747.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:38 am Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:
The judiciary has proven resilient, largely because there is no day-to-day oversight by those who can end a career with a word.


Great, isn't it? All other public employees in this country are subject to some form of oversight, but not judges. No High Court judge has lost their job since 1830 - can we be absolutely certain that there has been no corruption within the judiciary for nearly two centuries?

PDR asked the question "why should MPs be above the law?", which they aren't. My question, which is perhaps more pertinent, is "why should judges be above the law?"

 
barbados
1323748.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:50 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:

PDR asked the question "why should MPs be above the law?", which they aren't. My question, which is perhaps more pertinent, is "why should judges be above the law?"

Which they aren't

 
GuyBarry
1323749.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:55 am Reply with quote

If no judge has lost their job since 1830 then either they've all been saints, or the judiciary has not been subject to proper public scrutiny.

 
barbados
1323753.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:10 pm Reply with quote

Good job that's not the case then isn't it?

 
GuyBarry
1323760.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:33 pm Reply with quote

Good job what's not the case? Are you saying that a judge has lost his or her job since 1830?

Quote:
Both Houses of Parliament have the power to petition The Queen for the removal of a judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal. This power originates in the 1701 Act of Settlement and is now contained in section 11(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. It has never had to be exercised in England and Wales. It has in fact only been exercised once, when Sir Jonah Barrington was removed from office as a judge of the Irish High Court of Admiralty in 1830 for corruption: he misappropriated funds due to litigants. No English High Court or Court of Appeal judge has ever been removed from office under these powers. Circuit and District Judges can be removed by the Lord Chancellor. However, he can only do so if the Lord Chief Justice agrees.


https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/judges-and-parliament/

 
barbados
1323762.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:48 pm Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
Good job what's not the case? Are you saying that a judge has lost his or her job since 1830?


Yes

 
GuyBarry
1323763.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:01 pm Reply with quote

Then kindly stop playing silly buggers and tell me who it was. It clearly wasn't a High Court or Court of Appeal judge.

 
barbados
1323764.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:09 pm Reply with quote

Jason Dunn-Shaw, it took a 10 second search on google to find that.

 

Page 4 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group