Judges and Lawyers have proved that what they are in the Post office case - (clearly innocent people convicted with no /concealed evidence or worse told to perjure themselves and plead guilty) until some of these are sacked, fined or imprisoned we dont have justice in this country. `and who was the head of prosecutions during this time? ... Lawyers rack up costs to stop justice. the law is not equal nor do they want it to be. Lawyers and judges should be made to take lie-detector tests
They can legislate to their heart’s content. But what it comes down to is whether judges are prepared to apply the law WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Seems to me we have two tier judgements just like two tiered policing. And what is the point of ‘reforming’ contempt if there is no inclination to address perjury? As things stand there are no effective repercussions for lying in court and this is making trial by jury meaningless.
A lawyer told me a terrible miscarriage of justice hundreds of years ago was a Catholic priest who was tried by Protestants in Ireland who went with their consciences and found him not guilty. The powers that be didn't like that so they tried him again in England and he was executed. I am unhappy with contempt law wielded against those who say it's a jury's right to acquit according to their conscience, because it is, and has been so for a very long time.
Juries acquitting according to conscience will deny justice towards the victims, especially if there is discrimination or if a there was a big news story about a similar case recently.
@@888SpinR The executed priest was conducting a Mass. Who were the victims? In the recent cases it was protesters. I'm not talking murders, armed robbery or anything.
My experience is its rife and is seldom dealt with especially when its by lawyers and the police. The whole courts and justice system's credibility depends on how it deals with this problem. That credibility is wavering. I have no doubt that the lack of prison rooms and shortage of court/probation staff have a part to play in determination which is simply unjust.Just think of how much of the courts time is wasted on litigation based on false witness. Many thanks for the alert i look forward to the consultation.
Unless a jury and all who work in the courts are locked away from society so they do not here the tittle tattle on the news, in the pub or on the streets then most juries and people who work in courts will be influenced from what they hear. If you have a habitual thief and he is being tried and no one knows he is a habitual thief in the jury but they hear it from the news will that influence their decision. I bet it does.
Good morning to you. Thank you for the heads-up about this. I do feel a responsibility to my society to be as interactive as I can. This does fit the bill it seems. And mud flats and low water are lovely to look at too. Thank you. 😊.
@siukcnc Get used to it as it ain't going to get any better. I pray for the time when AI takes over, so long as the programs are written properly, and justice will prevail without fear or favor, as mankind has become corrupt.
@@wjf0ne I on the other hand wish to see the end of AI other than as a novelty! AI would make it 10 times worse, it is already corrupt! It suffers from the bias of it's programmers. Restoring justice is simple enough, it just takes the right Govt, unfortunately that mechanism is also corrupt and won't change.
I really enjoy your vid, Alan, and the surroundings too. You make distinctions well, as here. I'm sure Joshua would feel privileged. I do not feel happy about the proposals in many ways but look forward to your expansion on this. I relation to the notions of contempt say no, no, no. i was expecting better of this government....
This sounds like on line safety bill stuff. Closing us down. I only get 9 views average on my posts. Two if I tweet myself. I could get more views if I shouted what I had to say in a cake shop.
Off topic, I read Devon and Cornwall police are taking civil proceedings to freeze the bank accounts of the Tate brothers. I don’t understand why civil , I would expect the police to take only criminal proceedings and not be involved in civil. I will have a look at the consultation but as you explain the nuances are almost endless.
Interesting, but I have lost faith in the integrity of the legal system since it seems if you have enough money you can 'mis-remember' events or 'mislay' evidence with no come-back. If you don't like a verdict then appeal, appeal and appeal until you get the decision you want. Freedom of speech? Went down the Swanee years ago. Try putting the feelings of the 51% adult human female community before the 1% trans community into words in public. Conclusion: make millions and do as you please, no questionaire will stop you.
Thank you for your very thoughtful comment. It does seems to me that the legal process needs to urgently first bring many of us back ‘into the fold’ by resolving so many obvious legal escape routes (precisely as you say) that wealth, parliament, power and criminality has created. The basic principle of “the rule of law” has been variously under attack and undermined for years now and in some cases (such as the many political & PO fraud scandals, individual historic rights, and Grenville tower) downright trodden over bringing feudalism to mind. This consultation may or may not be needed but it seems to me to be not the most important issue by a long mark, just moving the Titanic deck chairs around again. There are more urgent basic needs to resolve in the whole legal process first.
Unless the court publishes what evidence was not included then how do people who speak on court cases know that? What happens to freedom of speech? Can people be protected if they illustate that its an opinion piece? Or can they just qualify everything "allegedly". It definitely needs looking at but it could encroach on other rights people have.
Here is a question, since 2020 private contractors execute 100% of arrest warrant for the courts for fines and breaches. I wonder if they are going to be given obstruction powers in this act? Also bears the question “can a private company employ court officers, if contracted by HMCTS?”
You mentioned the Attorney General. On another video, i think it was about being the duty lawyer for a newspaper, you mentioned the Solicitor General. Are these different terms for the same person, or completely different entities?
Different people. The Solicitor General is a member of the Attorney General's office. Essentially, the Attorney General is a cabinet minister and the Solicitor General is a junior minister in their department.
I'd be interested to hear @BlackBeltBarrister comments on this in relation to Tommy Robinson's various court cases. He has been prosecuted for publishing re an active case and also by the Attorney General. Both of these scenarios were mentioned in this video.
Recording in court is potentially a contempt of court offence, is this still relevant in the digital age? it is only there because it allows the court to do what it wants and be uncountable to the public and this must stop!
Audio recordings can be selectively edited, changing the nuances of the original presentation, and then disseminated causing misunderstanding and confusion - so, IMHO, think it wise that the status quo be maintained
@@barrieshepherd7694 so your preference is just to argue over who said what and for the defendant to have no rights whatsoever. Maybe you should ask the high court to ban video recording in case someone edits that
@@Eatcrow As far as I know video recording is also banned in courts so I don't follow your observation. Anything said in court goes into the transcript. The only recording that I'm aware of that is permitted is in higher Courts of the Judge giving his sentence.. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your issue and why the defendant has their rights denied
@@barrieshepherd7694 the point is this, when the court pulls and unlawful stunt ( which they regularly do ) you have record of it and the issue then just becomes a he said she said and the onus is on you to prove otherwise and this is what they rely on to twist the facts to suit themselves which in effect disadvantages the public. Its about accountability at the end of the day, nothing to hide and all that
I think they need to get a grip on the wider justice system first. Certainly John Timpson's appointment in Prisons is a Rowntree step forwards, but the population remains so psychologically scarred as to make it improbable. It might be worth examining the equivalent Napoleonic Code concept of Prosecution Rights, Droits de l'Instruction.
Morning, it would be interesting to see if they post the most useful comments as the consultation rolls on, last week black belt barrister interviewed Tommy Robinson, who will no doubt want a say. Just picking up on one of the links, came back with the following. Many social media users may be unaware of reporting restrictions and of what would constitute a breach of an anonymity order or contempt of court;. It would bee a good starting point to make it very plain and simple moving forward what constitutes a breach of anonymity for example? For example, Right to a Fair Trial, will always Trump freedom of speech, because once the trial is over freedom of speech will prevail, and if this freedom of speech brings new evidence, that's what re trials are for, and if no new trial guilty as charged. The end result of this consultation should be taught in schools. Given our education system is broken for want of a better word. And may 🐝 get AI involved as well? Something for me to ponder over the next couple of months. Best of health Peter and lucky the Boxer dog
It seems to me that the very concept of contempt of court is absurd, I have absolute contempt for courts and rightly so. It also seems to me that if there is equality under the law I should be able to say to the judge I hold you and this court in contempt of my person.
