Friday, February 16, 2007
Legal Reform Needed
The Times tells us of a garden wall dispute, which after having been taken to the law and the Court of Appeal has cost the loser some £250,000.00p in costs.
The whole this is of course simply ridiculous, but it demonstrates severe deficiencies with our legal and judicial systems. In the first instance, the dispute went to the County Court, which is quite probably an appropriate place for deciding such matters. The problem of course arises when one side doesn't accept the verdict and wishes to appeal, as the county court which is so suitable for the likes of small claims etc has it's appeal route is through the other courts of our legal system and hence this case was heard by the Court Of Appeal.
The Court Of Appeal was pretty brutal in dismissing the appeal, but that could well be because it had no merit, but if it had no merit, then surely if the parties were both advised, it should never have got there? Equally importantly, it seems strange that the country court procedure for small and minor claims, designed to be cheap and relatively quick, has no corresponding appeals procedure, this claim has taken five years.
I think justice would be best served especially in small cases such as these if there were some kind of summary procedure with a cut-off that would automatically apply. In principle something along the lines that if the costs of both parties (calculated with reference to standard market rates) looked likely to exceed 50% of the value of the claim then it should be barred from proceeding further. Of course any claim should be allowed one judgement, but after that there should be limits, there's just no point in this degree of litigation happening. The procedure itself could change with the addition of a small claims appeals procedure, that could perhaps allow a small claims judge to request a reference from a higher court if they wanted a matter of law clarifying, but other than that to keep the matters outside the ambit of the far more expensive litigation.
Most cases would of course only be allowed one hearing, but that would at least be an end to the matter, and in small claims cases (by there very nature) even if you lose, you are subjected more to inconvenience as opposed to a major issue. Take this wall, what did it matter that the brickwork extended, by 2 or three courses above a conservatory? If you lose such a case, even if you're in the right, with no appeal, you'll just accept it and move on. Raise the height of your conservatory if it bothers you that much, it'll be much cheaper.
Imagine the position of the losing party, if he couldn't stand the wall so much, he could have sold and added £250,000.00p plus to his capital and purchased a far superior property. Would not his condition be far happier than that in which he finds himself today?
The whole this is of course simply ridiculous, but it demonstrates severe deficiencies with our legal and judicial systems. In the first instance, the dispute went to the County Court, which is quite probably an appropriate place for deciding such matters. The problem of course arises when one side doesn't accept the verdict and wishes to appeal, as the county court which is so suitable for the likes of small claims etc has it's appeal route is through the other courts of our legal system and hence this case was heard by the Court Of Appeal.
The Court Of Appeal was pretty brutal in dismissing the appeal, but that could well be because it had no merit, but if it had no merit, then surely if the parties were both advised, it should never have got there? Equally importantly, it seems strange that the country court procedure for small and minor claims, designed to be cheap and relatively quick, has no corresponding appeals procedure, this claim has taken five years.
I think justice would be best served especially in small cases such as these if there were some kind of summary procedure with a cut-off that would automatically apply. In principle something along the lines that if the costs of both parties (calculated with reference to standard market rates) looked likely to exceed 50% of the value of the claim then it should be barred from proceeding further. Of course any claim should be allowed one judgement, but after that there should be limits, there's just no point in this degree of litigation happening. The procedure itself could change with the addition of a small claims appeals procedure, that could perhaps allow a small claims judge to request a reference from a higher court if they wanted a matter of law clarifying, but other than that to keep the matters outside the ambit of the far more expensive litigation.
Most cases would of course only be allowed one hearing, but that would at least be an end to the matter, and in small claims cases (by there very nature) even if you lose, you are subjected more to inconvenience as opposed to a major issue. Take this wall, what did it matter that the brickwork extended, by 2 or three courses above a conservatory? If you lose such a case, even if you're in the right, with no appeal, you'll just accept it and move on. Raise the height of your conservatory if it bothers you that much, it'll be much cheaper.
Imagine the position of the losing party, if he couldn't stand the wall so much, he could have sold and added £250,000.00p plus to his capital and purchased a far superior property. Would not his condition be far happier than that in which he finds himself today?
Labels: justice, legal system
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
18 months. Same sentence, different crimes?
Last night on Panorama a programme broadcast by the chief purveyor of Bolshevism the BBC, we had the subject of standing up to anti-social (which in reality means minor criminal) and criminal behaviour.
We had a tale from Sunderland, where a Mr Noble (I think it was) "challenged" a "youth" who appeared to be the ringleader of a group beating up a girl. This "youth" retreated and no doubt thinking it all over, Mr Noble turned his back and walked away. The said youth approached from behind and landed a blow to the rear of the head/neck of Mr Noble killing him. Now you have a blow struck from behind and a blow to an area of the body where a high risk of serious injury/death exists.
The killer got three years for manslaughter and was freed after 18 months. As an aside I can't help remarking on the similarity between this and Tony Martin, this is clearly worse, but we have a blow from behind, and this blow was far more deadly than the shots fired by Mr Martin. So why wasn't this youth charged with murder? He didn't have even the semblance of a self-defence defence.
Anyway I digress. On the same programme we had an example from Kent, a man having to put up with quite a strong degree of intimidation addressed both at him, his family, and racial provocation towards a shopkeeper, I need not point out that successive calls to the police have received the usual modern-English police response (nothing). One night him and the shopkeeper give chase to the youths. They find one hiding in some bushes, (no they didn't set the bushes alight) they confronted him and the youth offers to come and apologise, which he does in a halfhearted manner. The following day the youth surprisingly not a choirboy, but with a long history of minor criminality goes to the police and complains of kidnap. Our man from Kent ends up serving 18 months for kidnapping.
Of course this "kidnapping" was no crime at all so some might say our man from Kent should have approached the youth from behind and given him a vary strong blow to the back of the head. At least he'd have got good value for his 18 months.
Now let us be sure and clear about this, this isn't down to incompetence or stupidity on the part of the government and its agencies. It all forms part of deliberate actions designed to ensure the law-abiding citizen stays oppressed. If you stand up for yourself against a criminal, the government will get you. If a criminal oppresses and kills you, he'll get a slap on the wrist, and you'll be dead.
The power relationship between the government and the governed needs redefinition. The government should be our servants and it should be their role to assist us in our protection. The primary responsibility for the our protection, both of life and limb, and property should be with the citizen, the role of the police being to supplement the citizen if required. If the government want to protect the criminals then fine, but let us start to realise that the government form part of the problem and in this case, the greater part.
We had a tale from Sunderland, where a Mr Noble (I think it was) "challenged" a "youth" who appeared to be the ringleader of a group beating up a girl. This "youth" retreated and no doubt thinking it all over, Mr Noble turned his back and walked away. The said youth approached from behind and landed a blow to the rear of the head/neck of Mr Noble killing him. Now you have a blow struck from behind and a blow to an area of the body where a high risk of serious injury/death exists.
The killer got three years for manslaughter and was freed after 18 months. As an aside I can't help remarking on the similarity between this and Tony Martin, this is clearly worse, but we have a blow from behind, and this blow was far more deadly than the shots fired by Mr Martin. So why wasn't this youth charged with murder? He didn't have even the semblance of a self-defence defence.
Anyway I digress. On the same programme we had an example from Kent, a man having to put up with quite a strong degree of intimidation addressed both at him, his family, and racial provocation towards a shopkeeper, I need not point out that successive calls to the police have received the usual modern-English police response (nothing). One night him and the shopkeeper give chase to the youths. They find one hiding in some bushes, (no they didn't set the bushes alight) they confronted him and the youth offers to come and apologise, which he does in a halfhearted manner. The following day the youth surprisingly not a choirboy, but with a long history of minor criminality goes to the police and complains of kidnap. Our man from Kent ends up serving 18 months for kidnapping.
Of course this "kidnapping" was no crime at all so some might say our man from Kent should have approached the youth from behind and given him a vary strong blow to the back of the head. At least he'd have got good value for his 18 months.
Now let us be sure and clear about this, this isn't down to incompetence or stupidity on the part of the government and its agencies. It all forms part of deliberate actions designed to ensure the law-abiding citizen stays oppressed. If you stand up for yourself against a criminal, the government will get you. If a criminal oppresses and kills you, he'll get a slap on the wrist, and you'll be dead.
The power relationship between the government and the governed needs redefinition. The government should be our servants and it should be their role to assist us in our protection. The primary responsibility for the our protection, both of life and limb, and property should be with the citizen, the role of the police being to supplement the citizen if required. If the government want to protect the criminals then fine, but let us start to realise that the government form part of the problem and in this case, the greater part.
Labels: justice, self-defence
Monday, February 05, 2007
Bi-centenary of the abolition of the slave trade
The local "newspaper" informs us of a "walk-tribute" to William Wilberforce, who of course was instrumental in the abolition of the slave trade.
I couldn't help noticing that William Wilberforce was also MP for Hull in his day and I wonder what his views would be on the present incumbent.
Anyway I digress, when discussing the slave trade, it is all too easy to forget the part played by England and Britain in the abolition of the same. Whilst it is true that the abolition doesn't cancel out all that was done, it is also true that the actions taken for abolition shouldn't be ignored.
It was in England that indignation about this trade caused people to campaign against it and ultimately outlaw it. It will be interesting to see just how widely this anniversary is marked. The actions of William Wilberforce and his contemporaries should be a source of pride and honour for the whole nation, I hope to see this reflected in the breadth of the commemorations of this event.
I couldn't help noticing that William Wilberforce was also MP for Hull in his day and I wonder what his views would be on the present incumbent.
Anyway I digress, when discussing the slave trade, it is all too easy to forget the part played by England and Britain in the abolition of the same. Whilst it is true that the abolition doesn't cancel out all that was done, it is also true that the actions taken for abolition shouldn't be ignored.
It was in England that indignation about this trade caused people to campaign against it and ultimately outlaw it. It will be interesting to see just how widely this anniversary is marked. The actions of William Wilberforce and his contemporaries should be a source of pride and honour for the whole nation, I hope to see this reflected in the breadth of the commemorations of this event.
Tags: justice, liberty, rights, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
