Introduce a jury process to review Judges' decisions that ignore or are contrary to law.
This petition had 9 supporters
Judges judge you . . but who judges them? The answer is – Nobody
Parliament and the Government are accountable to the people, at least every General Election. But no accountability exists for the Judiciary. They can and do produce decisions and judgements that ignore or even contradict and effectively change Statute Law.
There is an appeal process but you have to get their permission to appeal. Even if you get that, all you get is more judges.
Self Regulation . . . we all know that does not work, they support each other, their “brother” judges, with no other check and balance on them.
Example . . . . I have used this one because it is the most frequent “brush” with the law for most people; motoring offences, usually speeding. Anyone who has tried to defend a wrongful charge of speeding will recognise the difficulty that presents.
For a conviction of a speeding charge the law requires two witnesses to the offence yet in these cases that reach the court the Magistrates/Judges, up to and including the Court of Appeal, readily accept the evidence of one single witness to convict or to deny an appeal.
Example . . . . Judges in the Court of Appeal invented a requirement that clearly does not exist in the Statute in order to deny an appeal. They changed the law as enacted by Parliament. They then went on to refuse an appeal to the Supreme Court.
That the judgement did not accord with the Statute is confirmed by Parliament moving quickly to change the words of the law to circumvent the judgement. It is to their shame that they failed to directly contradict the judgement, but that's another issue.
I have used examples that many if not most people in UK will recognise but there are many more examples of Judges who think the law is their plaything and who abuse it by making decisions and passing judgements contrary to law and reason probably to satisfy their own personal proclivities. The problem is that no-one is there to stop them.
Our UK Constitution says that Parliament makes the Law and the Judiciary interpret the Law.
Parliament does not Judge and the judiciary do not legislate.
You might believe that judges' creative interpretation of the law, like the examples above, is rare. If so you might care to consider what Lord Mackay, the then Lord Chancellor, said in 1997:-
“The duty of the judge is to apply the law as he finds it, not to seek to rectify perceived inadequacies by the use of creative interpretation.“
Why would he have said this in a public speech if judges ignoring statute to favour their “creative interpretation” were not a regular and frequent occurrence?
So what to do?
The introduction of a jury system to scrutinise judicial actions, orders and judgements will strengthen integrity and trust in our legal system. A jury system because it is more difficult to subvert.
Honest judges should welcome it because it will enhance the transparency and credibility of our legal system.
After all, if they have nothing to hide . . they have nothing to fear. Is that not what they tell us?
Want more examples of dishonest judicial decisions and judgements?
Got an example to share? I will publish a website with further examples.
Mrs May said on becoming Prime Minister that she wants to make the UK a country that works for everyone – a fair and just legal system must surely be at the heart of that.
Sign this petition and pass the word to as many people as you can.
Let's start the ball rolling towards a fairer and accountable legal system.
Today: Aitken is counting on you
Aitken Brotherston needs your help with “Theresa May MP: Introduce a jury process to review Judges' decisions that ignore or are contrary to law.”. Join Aitken and 8 supporters today.