Skip to main content

Hoffman on the European Court

Lord Hoffman has criticised the decisions and processes of the Strasbourg Court. Where I am positive about the Strasbourg Court is that it is independent of the cosy consensus that exists in the legal establishment in the UK.

Someone who expresses the views that I express in public would be unable to make a living as a barrister in England simply because the judges would take against him (or her). This has been confirmed to me by barristers who support (some of) those things I say, but are unwilling to say them in public.

Lord Hoffman's detailed speech I hope to upload onto the JFF website as the only available copy is in Word which is not that good.

I would like to look at the three issues that he raises. These are the Sanders Case and self-incrimination. A case involving Hearsay and a third case about flights in Heathrow and Judicial Review.

Dealing with them in reverse order. Judicial review is a very difficult procedure to succeed with in England and involves major risks being taken by anyone with average wealth. From that perspective, therefore, it is not an "adequate remedy". I, therefore, agree with the European Court when "the Court nevertheless held by 16 votes to 1 (that being Sir Brian Kerr, the UK ad hoc judge) that judicial review had been an inadequate remedy."

It is not surprising that the UK judge felt that it was OK and it shows the strength of an external perspective. The concept of adequate remedies is an important concept otherwise people are powerless against the state.

The second one was where hearsay evidence was admitted in a criminal trial. I am concerned about the deontological versus consequentialist approach that has driven legal culture in recent years. On one side we have the treatment by the state of a defendant and the use of unreliable evidence. On the other side we have the consequence of someone guilty going unpunished. He cites a case where hearsay evidence was admitted. There is actually a good argument for a retrial in this situation - a retrial in which the hearsay evidence is not allowed. I do think we really need to take a look at the extent to which justice in England and Wales has been polluted by both unreliable expert opinion (something the law commission have noticed recently) and hearsay evidence.

The third case was the Sanders case. Someone has turned up to my advice bureau now so I will hope to comment on this later.

Comments

neil craig said…
When you look at how Lords May & Bonomy behaved in the Milosevic show "trial" & the way the rest of the UK legal "profession" kept quiet about it it is clear our courts are wholly corrupt.

I see that even the BBC have admitted that the illegal war the LibDems so enthusiasticaly supported was fought not to prevent genocide but to promote it, together with child sex slavery & the the kidnap, dissection while alive & sale in parts to our hospitals of thousnads of Serbs.

Your party & all its remaining members have proved themselves to be obscene Nazi war criminals guilty of atrocities worse than Hitler's. Every single murderer should be brought to trial & hung.
john said…
Sounds like paranoid nonsense to me.

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…