Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Set Up Your Own Bank - nobody cares

All matters involving criminal law

Re: Set Up Your Own Bank - nobody cares

Postby Spankymonkey » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:24 am

Maz JP wrote:It's not only too much, it's against the judicial oath. Reaching decisions on the basis of how they might be viewed in the Daily Mail is not exactly justice.


I said nothing of the Daily Mail, the article was in the Telegraph, but thanks for the rather insulting innuendo. But while you are on the subject of news reports, just how do magistrates think justice is seen to be done these days? By half the general public piling into the public gallery? Do they honestly think if no-one is there to witness it in the courtroom as it unfolds, then justice was never seen, so can’t be known if it was done? Like it or not, the public's perception of the effectiveness of justice is primarily served by the media, and to wilfully ignore that is out of touch and reckless.

Maz JP wrote:It's not only too much, it's against the judicial oath.

The same judicial oath the magistrates ignored by discharging these criminals from having to answer to their crimes? Two crimes in fact, as refusing to identify themselves was a contempt of court. But for whatever reason the magistrates found these socialist terrorists and their justice dodging ways endearing enough to warrant release. If the pair had been a couple of back street drunks refusing to give their details, I doubt the magistrates would have courted so much favour.

Maz JP wrote:I may not agree with their decision that does not mean it does not follow the law.

You may not agree but you seem quite ready to defend their stupidity, or at least defer it to the Justice's clerk.

Maz JP wrote:What is it makes you think otherwise?


The bail act. And perhaps a bit of plain old fashioned common sense, that in all likelihood, the defendants wouldn't be coming back.
Spankymonkey
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:42 am

Re: Set Up Your Own Bank - nobody cares

Postby Maz JP » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:02 pm

Spankymonkey wrote:I said nothing of the Daily Mail, the article was in the Telegraph, but thanks for the rather insulting innuendo. But while you are on the subject of news reports, just how do magistrates think justice is seen to be done these days? By half the general public piling into the public gallery? Do they honestly think if no-one is there to witness it in the courtroom as it unfolds, then justice was never seen, so can’t be known if it was done? Like it or not, the public's perception of the effectiveness of justice is primarily served by the media, and to wilfully ignore that is out of touch and reckless.

You seem to have come in with guns blazing. I have no idea why the aggression, and certainly no insulting innuendo was intended. "How the readers of the Daily Mail/The Sun will view things" is a quite common discussion topic in legal circles, and it is meant to be read as it is.

That said, whether or not public perception of justice is fed by the media is not relevant to what justice is or should be. It is for parliament to create the laws, and the judiciary to enact them ; there is absolutely no role for the media in this, other than perhaps influencing parliament. And whilst the popular press continue reporting complex legal matters in this sort of way - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3903436/Enemies-people-Fury-touch-judges-defied-17-4m-Brexit-voters-trigger-constitutional-crisis.html- that's perhaps all for the best that the media have no role.

But I can tell you with all sincerity that if I felt any of my colleagues was allowing their decision-making to be effected by how the press might view them, I would view that as a serious matter that required action.

Spankymonkey wrote:But for whatever reason the magistrates found these socialist terrorists and their justice dodging ways endearing enough to warrant release. If the pair had been a couple of back street drunks refusing to give their details, I doubt the magistrates would have courted so much favour.

You may not agree but you seem quite ready to defend their stupidity, or at least defer it to the Justice's clerk.

I said I may not agree with their decision but also qualified it by noting that not all the facts are known. So neither you nor I can truly know whether it was 'stupidity' or in fact an excellent decision. I tend towards the latter, but then I would of course. For example, it is entirely possible (and here I hypothesise) that the Bench took the view that since the defendants had already spent 48 hours in custody, then this was already sufficient punishment for any offences that they may or may not have committed in the light of the evidence available, and the Bench therefore decided that a 'common sense' approach (which you laud elsewhere) might be to exercise therefore some leniency. I don't know; and nor do you.

Spankymonkey wrote:The bail act. And perhaps a bit of plain old fashioned common sense, that in all likelihood, the defendants wouldn't be coming back.

You originally stated that the Justices were not "abiding by the conditions of the Bail Act". And so I asked you in what way this could be true. Your answer above is not an answer, it is a mere repetition. So I'll repeat the question - how did they not follow the Act?
Maz JP
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:51 pm

Previous

Return to Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron