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

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…