←back to thread

630 points xbryanx | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
mrkramer ◴[] No.44531464[source]
I thought British legal system and computer forensics were serious but this case is just a travesty of justice.
replies(3): >>44531515 #>>44532159 #>>44532686 #
closewith ◴[] No.44531515[source]
The British legal system is and always has been a litany of injustices dressed up in formal attire. To be avoided at all costs.
replies(5): >>44531659 #>>44531827 #>>44531957 #>>44531964 #>>44532150 #
mathiaspoint ◴[] No.44531659[source]
That mess inspired the American legal system though, which is probably one of if not the best in the world.

IMO common law is still better than case law at least.

replies(3): >>44531738 #>>44531806 #>>44534471 #
1. zapzupnz ◴[] No.44531806[source]
I’m curious to know how American legal system is better than any other country’s. From the outside looking in, it looks just as broken if not worse.

You may have been kidding, but I’m sure someone will genuinely think so and have some decent arguments for it.

replies(1): >>44532142 #
2. tialaramex ◴[] No.44532142[source]
My favourite inspiration goes the opposite direction. The United States has this Supreme Court, a final Court of Appeal, politically independent and empowered even to decide that the government's actions are illegal. Sounds great.

The UK had this rather antique thing called the "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" aka "Law Lords" who were in theory just some Lords (ie people who are arbitrarily in the upper chamber of the Parliament, maybe because their dad was) but served the same purpose as a final court of appeal in practice and so had for a very long time all been Judges because duh, of course they should be judges, that's a job for a judge, just make some judges Lords and forget about it. They met in some committee room in the Palace of Westminster, because they're Lords and that's where the Lords are, right? So, there was practical independence, but the appearance was not here.

About 15 years ago now, the dusty Law Lords were in the way of an attempted reform of parliament. A Supreme Court sounds like a good idea, so the UK got a Supreme Court. It fixed up a nice building nearby, gave the exact same people a new job title and sent them over the road. Done.

But the UK version does what it says on the tin. It said on the tin they're politically independent. In the US of course this "independence" is bullshit, but in the UK since there's already a politically independent process to pick judges the same process continues for the Supreme Court. So a Prime Minister might hate the supreme court but they can't pick the judges.

replies(2): >>44532350 #>>44533913 #
3. PaulRobinson ◴[] No.44532350[source]
The Prime Minister can influence earlier in the chain though: they get to approve appointments to the Lords as a whole. Who then gets appointed to positions within the Lords is none of their business, but they can tip the scale if they need to.

It's actually for this reason that for hundreds of years until the early 21st century there was real concern about having a Catholic prime minister. There was even hand-wringing over PMs of other denominations, but the history of Catholicism in the UK in particular raised concern. Why? The PM has final approval of the Lords Spiritual - the bishops from the Church of England who are there to provide a protestant spiritual dimension to all debates before that House.

It's allegedly for this reason that Tony Blair (married to a Catholic) waited until after he left office to convert. I think it was either Brown or Cameron who then got the law explicitly changed to not bar Catholics and other religions to serve as PM.

replies(1): >>44533831 #
4. tialaramex ◴[] No.44533831{3}[source]
The Prime Minister could, in principle, instruct the Queen (this whole arrangement was abolished before Brian got his mum's old job as we'll see shortly) not to issue the Letters Patent for a new Lord, but Parliament has explicitly laid out the rules for this, so, he is in contempt of Parliament. This seems like an unwise course of action as of course he serves only at their pleasure and even Sir Keir, who has an unusually large majority, has discovered that if they don't like what he proposes they can just ignore him.

None of this matters for the Supreme Court, and thus for about 15 years now. It's true that the Supreme Court's justices are made life peers (its original members were of course already peers having previously constituted the Law Lords, but new members are granted a peerage) - however that's merely a convention, if you don't make them a life peer it makes no difference to their job on the court, it just makes you look petty. I don't even think it's contempt now, because the law saying they should be elevated was repealed - unless the new law also says they must be given a peerage when they get the job, I glanced through it and didn't find that, but it's a huge law because making a Supreme Court was not its main purpose.

5. penguin_booze ◴[] No.44533913[source]
Politically independent?! Between an extremely dry sense of humour and sarcasm, I can't tell which.
replies(1): >>44536048 #
6. tialaramex ◴[] No.44536048{3}[source]
I know I'm long winded, but, you did see there's a lot more text right?

The US Supreme Court says it's politically independent. And so the UK's Supreme Court just did that. It wasn't difficult, unlike the US the rest of our court system, including the predecessor "Law Lords" were in fact chosen by an independent non-political process already, the law making a Supreme Court more or less says "Oh, when we need more Supreme Court justices do the thing for judges again, only more so"