Skip to main content

Freedom of Speech and the rule of law

I quote from the linked post.

First, I will take the elements of the rule of law as sketched by the late Law Lord, Tom Bingham, in his final book The Rule of Law (Allen Lane, 2010):

  1. The law must be accessible, and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable (p37
  2. Questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not by the exercise of discretion (p48)
  3. The laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation (p55)
  4. Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers[,] and not unreasonably (p60)
  5. The law must afford adequate protection of fundamental rights (p66)
  6. Means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve (p85)
  7. Adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair (p90)
  8. The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law (p110).


It is worth reading the original post, but the question has to be asked as to how many of these tests are failed by the family courts.

Comments

Jerry said…
Without sounding too abrupt here all of the 8 test points are missed within the closed family courts arena.

What the late Law Lord, Tom Bingham has written sounds more like common sense and what all UK citizens should be entitled to, sadly as you know John this is hardly ever the case.

I don't know if you have read the recent article in the telegraph regarding Expert Evidence scrutiny. It seems to go some way to help a majority of people in these matter however I bet it falls short to include closed family court matters.

The article:-

The Law Commission, the Government’s adviser on legal reform, warned expert witnesses are used “too freely” and cases of “junk science” can result in innocent people being wrongly convicted or the guilty being freed.
In future, under the proposed changes, a judge would have the power to assess the credibility of the expert evidence in advance of a trial.
The appropriate defence or prosecution teams would then be able to challenge it before the judge decides whether it can be put before the jury.
There were more than 8,500 experts witnesses used in the courts in 2009 and the Law Commission estimates one in 20 would be ruled inadmissible under its proposed system.
It says evidence that helped convict the likes of Sally Clark would not have passed the test.
Solicitor Mrs Clark was wrongly jailed in 1999 for killing her 11-week-old son Christopher and eight-week-old son Harry after an expert witness, Professor Sir Roy Meadow, controversially testified that the probability of two natural unexplained cot deaths in a family was 73 million to one.
But Mrs Clark's conviction was overturned in 2003 and Prof Meadow was struck off by the General Medical Council after it ruled his evidence was both "erroneous" and "misleading".
Professor David Ormerod, the leading law commissioner on the project, said: "Action is long overdue. As far back as 2005 a House of Commons select committee called for a gatekeeping test for expert evidence.
"Our test will go a long way to ensuring that, in future, the expert evidence used in criminal trials is safe, and the potential for miscarriages of justice greatly reduced."

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 crash/stol…

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 pa…