Supreme Court (uk)

[Agrajag]

It is currently a proposal, which will almost certainly go through, that the UK is to have a Supreme Court. The proposal will see the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor. There will now be a Supreme Court of Justices, whose appointment will be in the gift of the Prime Minister.

The Supreme Court will take over the role of the House of Lords, as the Highest Court of appeal in the England and Wales and will hear civil appeals from Scotland. It will also be the final Arbiter in matters of devolution.

It would however appear that the people putting this in place have forgotten that Scotland has an entirely different legal system in place and has done so since the Act of Union. Many of the procedures in Scotland are different as are the status of the judges etc. Indeed since devolution, when Law and Order became an entirely devolved matter, the systems have moved further apart.

If I may quote fromThe Scotsman

"In a strongly worded paper, the Commons constitutional affairs committee expresses astonishment that when announcing the constitutional changes, the government failed to take into account that Scotland has a distinct legal identity."

"Lambasting the government for its lack of consultation, the MPs give a detailed list of the ways the proposals were put forward without regard for the separate Scots legal system.

The report says: "The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over Scottish appeals and any changes will require legislation or a resolution of the Scottish Parliament. These issues are significant to the maintenance of Scottish law as a distinct entity.

"They were not addressed when the government first announced its proposals and the timetable for decisions on the Supreme Court needs to allow for proper resolution and discussion of them in the Scottish Parliament."

The committee says the plans, which have been derided by the Conservative Party as a "hotch-potch", have created "anxieties" among senior members of the judiciary. It says it should be made clear that the Supreme Court recognises the three distinct jurisdictions of the United Kingdom - Scottish, Northern Irish, and English and Welsh - and is not overtly sided towards the English legal system.

"The legislation establishing the new court will need to make clear the jurisdiction of the court. It will need to establish the extent to which it is a United Kingdom court as opposed to a final court of appeal serving each of the United Kingdom’s three jurisdictions," it says."

How wonderful it is, to live in an oversight.

[Rat Faced]

Blaire should have asked his missus, she's a far better Barraster than him... well most are, arent they? :lol: :lol:


They also announced a new Law Enforcement Agency, based upon the FBI...which has been slated by the Police Forces and the Legal Community....and also didnt take into account the seperate legal systems.

You'd think they would test the waters before making these blunders wouldnt you?


Edit:

Originally said slammed by Police Forces and Legal Community...it wasnt. They're just wary....my bad for just looking on one site before i post :P

[mogadishu]

I don't know enough about the situation between the different parts of the UK, but an appointed Supreme Court is not a good way to go. It would be better to have 7 elected by the people. That way what happened in our 2000 election woulnd't happen.. The judges would have been elected by the people, not by a republican or democratic president. The only downfall is the first year.. the public would have to elect 7 that year.

[Biggles]

The proposals were also treated to a raised eyebrow in The Herald.

I believe the revised suggestion is it should sit with two Scottish Judges. The Scottish legal system want three to give a majority for our legal system and for the thing to sit in Scotland should they ever decide to refer anything to it. There has (I believe) been some indication that it may be prepared to sit in Scotland. The problem is most of the English barristers are unaware of just how different our legal system is.

[Agrajag]

Biggles

True, having dealt with English Barristers and QCs their knowledge of Scots law is appaling. They have no interest in it whatsoever. Which makes the idea of it sitting in Scotland a bit of a fop. Yes geographically they would be in Scotland, however 75% of those sitting are not aware of the system. Though to be fair, one likes to think they would take the lead from the Scottish Judges and also be able to interpret the appropriate Acts.

Mogadishu

Actually we have no particular problem with appointments. The Lord Advocate is the top prosecutor in Scotland. Indeed all criminal cases are in his name. The Crown Office and Procurators Fiscal act on his behalf and prosecute all cases in Scotland. He is a political appointment made by the First Minister, previously it was the Secretary of State for Scotland I believe. The current Lord Advocate is Colin Boyd, I believe he is also a Scottish Minister, it goes with the job.

Rat Faced

With regard to the "UK FBI" thing, your facts are a bit muddled. The new body SOCA (working title) will not replace the current situation is Scotland. The SDEA will not be part of it and the 8 Chief Constables will retain their autonomy, reporting to the Justice Minister. It will have a presence in Scotland but that is all. As Law enforcement is a devolved matter, any changes in Scotland would have to be by the Scottish Executive. Short of repealing devolution the Westminster Government has no choice in this. Hence the broohaha in relation to the subject of this thread.

Contrary to what you say, my information is that the law enforcement community welcome it. This includes the NCS, NCIS and Customs Investigation, which it will replace, for serious and organised crime (non fiscal).

All

I think this is the point. Devolution in relation to certain key areas has happened. This includes Law & Order, Education, Health and another couple. Mr McConnell has made it clear that he has no interest in the English policies on these matters. He will not (currently) introduce tuition fees. He will not accept the new SOCA taking policing duties in Scotland. Sometimes the legislators at Westminster forget these things and just plough on.

[Rat Faced]

The information i have is that they would welcome the new Agency if they are assured there will be no US style arguments on Jurestiction; ie: "Fed" and local police...something that the Government havent yet done (they didnt think of that...), although it may well be that local police make most arrests and they concentrate on intelligence, which would overcome this problem.

Except for the Metropolitan Police who welcome it with open arms, due to their major Organised Crime problems...which of course is one of the reasons behind the Agencies creation.

My appologise to yourself and Mr Blair over the presence in Scotland...I knew there would be a presence and added 2+2 to make 5 :P



I may try to transfer across to this Agency when it comes in, sounds a hell of a lot more interesting than what im doing at the moment B)

[billyfridge]

Please correct me if i&#39;m wrong. if TonyBlair gets rid of the Lord Chanceller, and the house of lords. wouldn&#39;t he be getting rid of the only people who can police him and his government. <_<

[Rat Faced]

This isnt about getting rid of the House of Lords&#39; political reason for existance (although that will probably be reformed)

Its about the Law Lords.. which is currently the highest Court of Appeal in England (im not sure about Scotland)



Or have i read it wrong....? :blink:

[lynx]

Originally posted by billyfridge@11 February 2004 - 00:04
Please correct me if i&#39;m wrong. if TonyBlair gets rid of the Lord Chanceller, and the house of lords. wouldn&#39;t he be getting rid of the only people who can police him and his government. <_<
This, along with other deplorable proposals by this corrupt government, is exactly how countries proceed down the road towards dictatorship.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by lynx@11 February 2004 - 11:14
This, along with other deplorable proposals by this corrupt government, is exactly how countries proceed down the road towards dictatorship.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by lynx+11 February 2004 - 02:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 11 February 2004 - 02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-billyfridge@11 February 2004 - 00:04
Please correct me if i&#39;m wrong. if TonyBlair gets rid of the Lord Chanceller, and the house of lords. wouldn&#39;t he be getting rid of the only people who can police him and his government. <_<
This, along with other deplorable proposals by this corrupt government, is exactly how countries proceed down the road towards dictatorship. [/b][/quote]
The House of Lords is not being abolished, at least not yet. The Law Lords are currently the highest Court of Appeal, that situation is being replaced by the Supreme Court. If the House of Lords ever goes and I suspect it will, it will almost certainly be replaced by an upper house which is elected by the people. That would be my preferred option.

Someone will probably correct me on this, but I think the Lord Chancelor is a political post, as such not a great problem for the person who elects him. I am not sure about this though. I&#39;ll get back to you.

[lynx]

This "Supreme Court" will be comprised of judges who are primarily political appointees. Sounds more like a return to the old Star Chamber to me.

Other current or recent proposals: A "super police task force" with powers of arrest for doing just about anything they care to think of.
Changes to the requirements for conviction to reduce the "burden of proof" - reasonable doubt will not be a reason for a jury to produce a "not guilty" verdict.
Removal of the right to trial by jury for many offences.
These proposals would not have been out of place had they come from the KGB. Perhaps the British Labour Party is further left than we all imagined.

Edit: typo

[Agrajag]

What is the new Super Police Task Force ? I have not heard about that one. If you are talking about the SOCA then the offences it will investigate will be very limited. If you are talking about something else I would be very interested to hear about it.

With regard to the political appointees, is that not the case just now for the senior legal positions ? It certainly is in Scotland. I am happier with that situation than for example the House of Lords having veto over the House of commons. They (some of them) are there because of an accident of birth. Others are appointed there, some are from the Church of England and they can over-rule the elected Government. That to me is a problem. We need an elected upper house in my opinion.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by mogadishu@10 February 2004 - 15:43
I don&#39;t know enough about the situation between the different parts of the UK, but an appointed Supreme Court is not a good way to go. It would be better to have 7 elected by the people. That way what happened in our 2000 election woulnd&#39;t happen.. The judges would have been elected by the people, not by a republican or democratic president. The only downfall is the first year.. the public would have to elect 7 that year.
but then the judges&#39; elections would be tampered with by state officials and the vote-counting machinery, and depending upon which states the candidates campaign first we&#39;d end up with either jesse ventura or gary coleman in "office."

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+12 February 2004 - 19:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 12 February 2004 - 19:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-mogadishu@10 February 2004 - 15:43
I don&#39;t know enough about the situation between the different parts of the UK, but an appointed Supreme Court is not a good way to go. It would be better to have 7 elected by the people. That way what happened in our 2000 election woulnd&#39;t happen.. The judges would have been elected by the people, not by a republican or democratic president. The only downfall is the first year.. the public would have to elect 7 that year.
but then the judges&#39; elections would be tampered with by state officials and the vote-counting machinery, and depending upon which states the candidates campaign first we&#39;d end up with either jesse ventura or gary coleman in "office." [/b][/quote]
:lol:

Or Stallone "I am the Law"

[lynx]

Originally posted by Agrajag@12 February 2004 - 18:21
What is the new Super Police Task Force ? I have not heard about that one. If you are talking about the SOCA then the offences it will investigate will be very limited. If you are talking about something else I would be very interested to hear about it.
What makes you think it&#39;s powers would be limited?

Woolly thinking comes from sheep.

[Billy_Dean]

Woolly thinking comes from sheep.

So do wooly jumpers come from kangaroos then? :rolleyes:


:)

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by lynx+14 February 2004 - 04:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 14 February 2004 - 04:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@12 February 2004 - 18:21
What is the new Super Police Task Force ? I have not heard about that one. If you are talking about the SOCA then the offences it will investigate will be very limited. If you are talking about something else I would be very interested to hear about it.
What makes you think it&#39;s powers would be limited?

Woolly thinking comes from sheep. [/b][/quote]
I am not entirely sure what you mean when you say "Woolly thinking comes from sheep", however I did not actually say that their powers would be limited. Since it is only a proposal just now nobody actually knows what their powers will be, so nobody is in a position to say how limited or far reaching they wil be.

What I did say was "the offences they will investigate will be limited" that is an entirely different thing. That was as a response to your contention that there was going to be "a super police task force with powers of arrest for doing just about anything they care to think of." I don&#39;t think this is the case, it is proposed they will only deal with serious and organised crime. Even then it will only be in relation to specific offences like drug trafficking and laundering the proceeds of drug trafficking.

Sorry for any confusion caused.

[lynx]

My point is that the police and/or customs & excise already have more than enough powers to deal with organised crime and drug trafficking, but perhaps not the correct resources. We are told repeatedly "these new powers will not be used other than for ...(fill in the appropriate words)" but inevitably they end up being used for things which are contrary to their stated purpose. You need look no further than the anti-terror laws which were recently (ab)used to prevent demonstrations in London.

The meaning of my comment is that those who automatically believe the statements of the politicians who come up with these schemes are being led like sheep. If the police don&#39;t need extra powers then they shouldn&#39;t be given them, any other point of view is woolly thinking. Just my opinion.

With regard to there being an elected upper house, you may well be right, but don&#39;t expect anything like that from the current government. The current situation is that they are trying to take as many powers away from the House of Lords as possible, and to give the impression that they lack credibility. An elected upper house would totally undermine that, so it isn&#39;t likely to happen soon.

[Agrajag]

I take your points. I will wait to see just what powers are given to them and if there are any new powers. It may just be a new organisation, which is given the same powers as the Police, NCIS and Customs already have. It is considered to be an entirely new body, unlike the National Crime Squad which it replaces along with NCIS and parts of Customs. NCS get their staff from the Police Forces as do NCIS in part. This Agency will recruit and train it&#39;s own people, it will then only work on the highest levels of crime. Taking up your point on resources, the idea is to put more resources into the highest level of crime, that makes sense to me.