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.