Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Supreme Court (uk)

  1. #1
    Agrajag's Avatar Just Lame
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,006
    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.

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    Rat Faced's Avatar Broken
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Newcasil
    Age
    52
    Posts
    9,076
    Blaire should have asked his missus, she's a far better Barraster than him... well most are, arent they?


    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

    An It Harm None, Do What You Will

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    mogadishu's Avatar {}"_++()_><.,{}}[":+
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    2,759
    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.
    signature removed, check the boardrules.

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    Biggles's Avatar Looking for loopholes
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Scotland
    Age
    60
    Posts
    8,804
    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.
    Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum


  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    Agrajag's Avatar Just Lame
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,006
    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.

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    Rat Faced's Avatar Broken
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Newcasil
    Age
    52
    Posts
    9,076
    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



    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)

    An It Harm None, Do What You Will

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    171
    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.
    Man U fer eva

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #8
    Rat Faced's Avatar Broken
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Newcasil
    Age
    52
    Posts
    9,076
    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....?

    An It Harm None, Do What You Will

  9. The Drawing Room   -   #9
    lynx's Avatar .
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Yorkshire, England
    Posts
    9,810
    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.
    .
    Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

  10. The Drawing Room   -   #10
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Cairns, Queensland.
    Posts
    2,005
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •