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 Hemming said…
Sounds like paranoid nonsense to me.

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express. Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25). I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting. Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong. It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk cra

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here . This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in