View previous topic | View next topic

Brexit Liar faces Prosecution

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

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.

 
GuyBarry
1323765.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:18 pm Reply with quote

Thank you. It would have been rather more helpful if you'd said that in the first place.

As a result, I now learn that there's something called the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. Why hadn't I heard about that before?

 
barbados
1323766.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:33 pm Reply with quote

Why didn't you just google "judge sacked" before making a claim that they were above the law?

 
GuyBarry
1323767.  Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:51 pm Reply with quote

Because, as you know perfectly well, my original comment in post 1323747 was about High Court judges and not about judges in general. And because I omitted to repeat the words "High Court" before the word "judge" in post 1323749, you decided you were going to take my words completely literally just in order to give me the runaround. The subsequent exchange has contributed nothing of any value to the discussion.

Good night.

 
barbados
1323801.  Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:23 am Reply with quote

Oh I wouldnít say it added nothing.
Hopefully you are now aware that judges (from top high court right through to recorder) arenít above the law. You have also learned they have a disciplinary framework that should they misbehave will sanction accordingly. And hopefully, more importantly, you have realised how annoying it can be when you change the intended course of the conversation just because you donít think it fits with your own personal set of internet rules, which can only be a good thing right?

 
GuyBarry
1323807.  Sun Jun 09, 2019 10:40 am Reply with quote

Yes, it's a thoroughly good thing. I agree with you 100%, whatever you were trying to say.

Now please stop trying to pick stupid arguments, and let's get back to the substance of what AH said - that no High Court judge has been dismissed since 1830. I am really not interested in quibbling about the fact that I omitted the words "High Court" before the word "judge". I did not intend to say that no judge of any description has been dismissed since 1830, which as you point out is clearly false.

Here are AH's words again:

Quote:
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).


My question is whether this constitutes a sufficient level of public scrutiny for senior members of the judiciary. Can we be absolutely sure that no High Court judge or more senior has been guilty of any sort of misdemeanour in office since 1830, when the only means of dismissal involves a joint address to the Queen from both Houses of Parliament?

What would happen if a High Court judge was charged with "misconduct in public office"?

 
barbados
1323815.  Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:19 pm Reply with quote

Here's a decent twitter feed with all of the relevant information

 
GuyBarry
1323818.  Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:52 pm Reply with quote

That's a thread about the Boris Johnson case, not about the accountability of judges.

I mean, if you want to go back to discussing the original topic of this thread then you're perfectly welcome to do so; but to call it "relevant information" when it's completely irrelevant to either of my questions above is pretty odd.

Sometimes I wonder whether you actually read any of the posts you respond to. I don't think I'm going to bother with this thread any more.

 
barbados
1323819.  Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:54 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
That's a thread about the Boris Johnson case, not about the accountability of judges.

Funny that - so is this one.

 

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