Skip to main content

Secrecy, injunctions and the rule of law

Court secrecy and injunctions act to undermine the rule of law.

What is interesting in the courts at the moment is the revelation that many of the injunctions that were granted should not, in fact, been granted. A number of these were granted on the basis of allegations that were untrue and have not been substantiated.

One of the problems with secret hearings (and we have still been having some unlisted hearings - something that is not supposed to happen) is that the judge cannot him or herself have confidence that the judge has heard all the evidence that is relevant to the case.

One sided hearings (ex parte hearings) which are held in secret are perhaps the most unreliable forum in which decisions are made. One side puts their case. No-one else (other than the judge and the one side to the case) knows that it is happening. The judge then makes a decision.

It was the case for many interim injunctions that a one sided secret hearing was all that happened and things then stopped.

The other problem I see is when court orders are used to prevent evidence being adduced in other fora.

Hence in a simplistic manner the following of a court order in one case acts to undermine the rule of law in other cases.

I have been quite surprised at the number of processes that have been used to undermine the rule of law. Court orders, secret unlisted and ex parte hearings, contracts, Public Interest Immunity certificates. All of these have been used in a way which has undermined the rule of law.

The rule of law does not mean a Kritarchy. The system has to function in a realistic manner with proper accountability. What that means for the UK is a lot less secrecy.

Comments

Jake Maverick said…
so how can you be a part of it then? if that is what you really think....? don't tell me, Joint Enterprise law doesn't apply to you either.....I bet you get paid as well don't you? you commit every crime imagineable with imunity....you even break your own laws (which isn't the same thing, anothr common mistake made by trully,truly stupd people-----thatis why there are two different words, if they meant the same there wuld only be one....)
Jean Charles, Harry Stanley got of pretty easy I tink....you do far worse than that to people! and looks like I'm starting to goblind now......different tactic to stop me posting rather than just killing or incarcerating/ torturing me? nothing you do even makes any kind of discernible sense!
Andrew said…
Jake are you sane? Your ramblings indicate to me you are not.

I can't even see how your comment is relevant at all to the blog post.

I wasn't even going to respond until I read that drivel.

But whilst I am at it I would agree with John's posting entirely, the rule of law needs to be fair, balanced and based on evidence.
moira said…
So how can you change the system when we can't even tell our stories of malpractice,bullying and corrupt social workers who will try and lose you your child if they take a dislike to you.This is stated by lawyers also.that is is often down to if the social worker likes you as to whether the family stays together.Baby Peters social worker said her mother was lovely and "not to worry you wont lose Peter" Now they are working again thanks to the totally incompetent General social care council who do not deal with serious malpractice.

Social workers now think they are unaccountable gods because no-one can publish their stories.
Jake Maverick said…
you never mentioned there was a bloody word limit! guess massive repeat myself and multi post attempt then!
Jake Maverick said…
Andrew.... i very nearly didn't bother to respond to you either, but you really ought to look at in context.....

you dnt really know until you been on the receiving end for years....(over ten now for me) no sane person can disagree when people like John state the 'blatantly obvious'....but i tried stating the blatantly obvious once and you oughta try reading what they did to me....

it's the hypocrisy of it that is the most galling thing...part of me very tempted to test the suposition....if i put on a disguise, creeped up bhind you and shot you rpeatedly in the head I do doubt that I will end up with a promotion to royal protction squad....what do u think? and is this not the same Big Dick that has been put in charge of this 'phone hacking scandle'? you not heard of the RIPA laws either? the govt bugged all enemy MPs (allegedly) including the likes of David Davis (?)....so how were the other power ssupposd to counter that....? think about it.....why so much reluctance to open an inquiry into that one....?
and then there was that cold calling 'votes' thing...Cons and Lab did it....soon as Lib dems did it in order to compete they stopped and the Lib dems were the only onesproscuted for it....? now u in bed with the ******?

do you ever think the Raoull Moat tapes will be released? you dnt go to all the touble of decking your whole place out with secret cameras without a good reason...

context is eveything. I say it's a bit 'wrong' to go aaround twatting people around the heads with basball bats, stabbing them, killing them....but if they just attacked you in the street/ broke into your hous and attacked you and your family whilst stark bollock naked in your own bed surely you have the right to defend yourself? threats dnt come much bigger than that.....surely no sane person wd disagree? justifiable homicide? what about when they murder you dog. other family members, my fellow country man? but no, you must think that anybody does that must automatically be a schizo, chemical labotomy and then puppet ssolicitor/ trial by kangaroo....(if you're lucky....)
why has the population in menatl institutions been growing by 40% per year for the last ten years or so? do you believe that the CIA is still going around putting LSD in people's breads? and u dnt consider that an act of war either, presumably?
Jake Maverick said…
but no, presumably you must subscribe to the state religion that any delusional yob that claims to be a non physicl entity after the fact can do no wrong....it's not SCIENCE that is the new religion.......
it's not an delsuion or even an opinion....the only wway to get aa name out of a suspected govt employee iss to kill one in self defence? so how u supposed to verify/ see some ID/ the warraant? abduct and torture them for a change? get real man...

the only reason i give my time here is that, strangely, John does let me post here ssometimes (understands the concept of freedom of speech, apparently...to a point nyway....maybe hope ffor him? at best he's doing what i think i wd be trying to if i hadn't been through what i had/ had that option/ didn't know better now....).....i wd have thought an MPS blog wd get more traffic somehow....and after cyer stalking the guy for a while i do see we have plenty in common...he may have a few years on me but earl life we were on the same path in a sense....

and have you notice that the only 'people' that wear body armour are the same one's that also carry weapons and are amongst the most violent and sadistic m***** *******?

until people ae held accountable for what people do regadless of hair colour, eye colou, whether they have a penis or not or who their employer allegeclyy iss, it's not 'rule by law', common or otherwise.....what do you call that?

do you think you are sane? what's the difference between belie and knowing? do u believe in God or the Tooth fairy? i believe the most violent bully always wins...its called evolution! if u dnt escen to their level u just become extinct...

surprisn what is allowed here and what isn't but that was probably a waste of my time! ;-) and yes i drink too much these days...i was virtually tee total before they totured me!

ra ra, ra ra, rarrrgggGHHHHH!!!
TotallyConfused said…
So why do you ignore the story of Operation Ore? You have admitted to me that miscarriages of justice have occurred, but are yet to speak out? If you are so much for 'justice for families' then why do you not speak out?


TC
moira said…
I suppose totally confused that he has only got so many hours in the day. He can't cover every issue known to families as there is so many awful things happened in this so called family justice system.
We need more MP's and people speaking out. Its cos its vulnerable people that ss attack and not their families on the line.

Hope you are well TC. (Ollie)
Jake Maverick said…
http://www.democracydefined.org/democracydefinedcampaign2.htm#intervention
Andrew said…
I agree with some of the things you say Jake and yes there are many real 'conspiracies'.

But don't you think you are rambling just a bit?

And why? what is your problem with John exactly is it because he is works in the gov?
Jake Maverick said…
um, since when has John been a member of the govt anyway? must admit i dnt watch MSM that much these days, haven't one ffor years....it's all bull****, but i suspect you may be confusing being an MPwith being part of the govt/ cabinet.....admittedly it is common mistake mad by truly, truly stupid peopl all over the universe.....;-)
did you read the whole blog (of mine)? how far did you get....? many have tried, most fail....(to get to the end)
and what makes you think i have a problem with John personally? never even met the geezer.....fact he is the only g-man i ever heard of that i may ctually be persuadable to have a convo wih.....without having to torture me again first! at least i dnt have to kill that guy in self defence to get a nme out of him....
at best he's very choosy what he 'choose' top speak out about...at least under the thumb...at best he's only 'allowed' to say much and i suspect he's smart enough to say that....and it's the hypocrissy is the most galling thing, he's dependn on the terrorists for his own security...and you can't be one o them and not be one of them at the same time...that's also the law apparently and i'm not going through the nrembourg trials again with ya....
and on the subject o hypocrist it's beyond bizarre what he doe and doen't censor on here.....
one bit of good news though
http://rt.com/usa/news/seychelles-drone-us-iran-711/
bet things rally going to kick off end of this/ bginning of next year....
what bits dnt you agree with? and why so interested anyway? i'm still praing for a quick death here (as in expression, i dnt believe in any of that God twaddle) and expecting far worse/ continuation...
Jake Maverick said…
um, have you extende the word count?

Popular posts from this blog

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

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…

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…