|
FOR THE FIRST TIME in her long history, England, the senior partner in what is commonly known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has a SUPREME COURT at last and the said Court opens its door for business today, October 1 2009. The question is this: Would the creation of a Supreme Court make any difference?
The hallmark of the English legal "system" [ if one could indeed describe the disjointed pieces of knots and bolts welded together as one “whole thing” ] as a “system” is its capacity to accommodate miscarriages of justice, and a disinclination to accept that human beings do not create themselves and that we are not here on earth because we choose to be born.
A SUPREME POWER, unseen, untouched, put each and every one of us on this planet and that SUPREME POWER would take each and everyone of us back, back to the womb of the earth when the time is up.
A word in edgeways
Serious mistakes are made every working day throughout the Courts and Tribunals in the country but because of the so-called “inherent jurisdiction of the court”, the word “sorry” never features in the legal dictionary of the United Kingdom, because, of course, judges and justices do not feel that the society has a right to call upon them to say "sorry" when they do a wrong.
This down-to-earth article is about one man, who starts work today, as one of the 11 Justices of the new Supreme Court. His name is SIMON BROWN. He is listed as “Lord” Brown. As a Christian of Baptist faith, I believe that the word “Lord” in describing a human being is blasphemous. But I shall deal with the issues referable to Simon Brown in a second instalment tomorrow. By the way, Simon Brown is about 6 years or so older than me. In other words, there is no difference in his or my power of reasoning.
What are Courts for?
The panegyrists of English Law, Practice and Procedures would argue that the Courts “are the final arbiter between the citizen and the State”. I do not believe that that is strictly correct.
Firstly, the United Kingdom has no Constitution. England, being the senior partner, in the Union, is the leading force in the propagation of “common law” doctrine in countries with a bond of attachment to the United Kingdom; Commonwealth countries, for example.
What are Courts for? There is no point in answering that question unless one knows the answer to the question: What is common law? But why not uncommon law, for a change?
There is nothing “Common” about the English law and herein lies the problem. Those who are involved in the administration of justice at national level, studied in Cambridge or Oxford University in England, St Andrews in Scotland or, Queen’s in Belfast.
Historically, the First Division Civil Servants in the UK – people who are, for real, running and managing the affairs of the United Kingdom, are chosen mostly from those four universities. And people from those four Universities are usually in charge of the Courts and Tribunals in the country.
Having regard to the foregoing matters, the arrival of a SUPREME COURT would make no difference to the way that Judges and Justices carry themselves in the mainstream society. They will continue to make rules, rules which would make no sense to any of us; rules that are meant to bamboozle. Pride, prejudice, intolerance, and reluctance to embrace change and total rejection of opinions, views or reasoning of those of us are looking in from outside, would continue to prevail in the corridors of the Royal Courts of Justice, including, the Middlesex Guildhall.
Law, Class, and Race
In 1979, I published a book titled – RACE, CLASS WAR, AND THE BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT” I talked about classical conditioning – "Pavlov's Theory of salivating dog" and "Class" based on "Symbolism of Racial Categorisation".
In August 1999 I made a representation on behalf of the Public Law Centre and Public Defender Service to the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs, The Lord Chancellor, The Judiciary, The Law Commission, Attorney General, Solicitor General, The Bar Council, The Law Society, Head of main Chambers, Society of Black Lawyers, Representatives of the American Bar Association. " The said Representation was “PROPOSAL FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF ALTERNATIVE LEGAL PROFESSION INTO THE ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM”
In the PROPOSAL we dealt with the two-tier system and what a rip-off it is. We also dealt with advocacy in the courtroom and why most lawyers prefer prosecution to defence work. The destruction or demolition of an edifice is an enjoyable thing to do for those in possession of schadenfreude mentality.
Those countries which follow the so-called "common law" doctrine should weigh up the pros and cons of a “system” that divides and rules; that creates a dichotomy where none existed previously. "Common law" doctrine and practitioners expect the citizen to accept whatever the judiciary throws at him or her. Children are meant to be seen but not to be heard.
Can there be a separation of powers
It has been said that the Supreme Court has been established to emphasise the separation of powers as between the UK Parliament and Judiciary. It is the thought that counts in this equation but I do not believe that British Judges and Justices are ready to do justice to the rule of law that they profess to venerate. I say this with a heavy heart. I would rather not say these things but I have had to put up with a lot of knocks and nastiness from some highly placed Judges and Justices, some of whom are dead, but I am sorry that they have left this world.
But I would hope that, Judges and Justices of the standing of Bingham, Michael Goodman, Donald Cryan, Bathurst-Norman, Kennedy, Hooper, Newman, Simon Brown, and Hallet would look back at themselves and ask – Could we or Would we have done things differently if we were not passing judgments on other citizens?
One area of concern to me and I am sure, to many in the mainstream society ; is the laid-back attitude of mind on the part of Judges and Justices; their readiness to judge a book by its cover, to believe everything that police officers tell them, or their failure to look behind affidavits and statements of information presented to them, before jumping to conclusions, which often turn out to be erroneous.
It does not matter what the new Supreme Court promises, Judges and Justices will continue to re-write the rules, to meet standards created by them for themselves. The society is in a no-win situation. As of now Judges and Justices see themselves as the legitimate upholders of the rule of law. I do not belief that they are.
Many of them are running businesses. Many of them make applications regularly to foreign governments for donation, for all sorts of business ventures. Often, and because they are "Lord Justice" this or "Lord Justice that", millions of pounds are paid into their bank accounts.
But citizens are not allowed to question the propriety of such conduct on the part of the Judges and Justices. Yet, when I wrote a letter in 1996 to Burnley Council if they would support the Public Law Centre, I was accused of “attempt”.
Second instalment – Is Simon Brown a fit and proper person to sit in the Supreme Court?
AJS/01/10/09
Andre John-Salakov Leader,PLC Party euoffice@plcparty.com Tel 0044 (0)20 8133 7447
|
