Archive for the 'trials' Category

The Supreme Court and the passing of the old order

Published on 30 July 2009 in politics and trials. 8 Comments Tags: , .

The House of Lords heard its last case and delivered it’s verdict. The case was a important on on suicide. One wag on Twitter described this as ‘amusingly ironic’. Geeklawyer feels less like laughing than thrusting a spear between the ribs of the nearest Neo-Labour Minister.

It’s all so fucking pointless. The theory is, as the government Ministry of Truth-Think says on its webpage, that we need this so very very badly. It wrings its hands:

There have, in recent years, been mounting calls for the creation of a new free standing Supreme Court separating the highest appeal court from the second house of Parliament, and removing the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary from the legislature. On 12 June 2003 the Government announced its intention to do so.

…

As members of the House of Lords, this means that they not only sit judicially, but are also able to become involved in the debate and subsequent enactment of Government legislation (although, in practice, they rarely do so). Creating a new Supreme Court will mean that the most senior judges will be entirely separate from the Parliamentary process.

Self serving dissembling bollocks.

Geeklawyer make no bones about the fact that constitutional law is a subject through whose molasses like impedance he wades merely to get to the nearest pub in the shortest time possible and with the most amount of his punters money in his pocket. Does he love it? Only so far as it is likewise possible to love a very rich girl with zits bad breathe and saggy tits. Yes, Judicial Review and that sort of stuff. He has done them, then woken the following morning, rolled over in bed, screamed silently and slunk out the front door quietly, while the Gorgon snores.

Thus, Geeklawyer admits to having a less than surgeon-like knowledge of the anatomy and detail of constitutional law. It does nonetheless seem to him to be a matter about which only constitutional theorists would, alone, become excitable and swap blows in pubs. The ‘separation of powers’ issue seems not to have had a significant consequences in the UK. Has the presence of judges in the Upper Chamber ever resulted in screwed up & bad legislation? Not really. Is it potentially a problem? maybe, perhaps in Zimbabwe or the US it would be an issue but it never seems to have a been a significant problem here. Does the highest court sitting in the same building as MPs cause a problem? Apart from the stench of corruption wafting through the court doors Geeklawyer imagines not.

Instead we are spunking £70 Million on refurbishing a building and making the new Supreme court vulnerable to the penny pinching maulings of the Treasury now they will be institutionally separate from Parliament. So from a situation that has worked for centuries without a problem to one which is expensive flawed and soon to be underfunded, and thereby impeding justice. We have achieved what then, by this, precisely?

So why did it all happen? Easy. That sleazy fuckwit Tony Bliar. His ‘everything must be new & shiny’ to show how radical and wonderful he was, how revolutionary and pioneering his vision for a new Albion. It really is all JUST about that. As usual with that prick he wrecked centuries of tradition for a Daily Mail headline and a shot at a legacy.

Judges round-up

Published on 23 April 2009 in copyright and trials. 5 Comments Tags: , , , , .

Rupert White of the Law Society Gazette tips off Geeklawyer to the judge who slammed Solicitor-Inadequates. Apparently 3 out of 4 Solicitor-Inadequates were totally crap. Indeed the judge, Gledhill QC, nearly discharged the jury on the basis that the defence executed by one hapless failed barrister/SI was so woefully inept that his defendant might not be able to have a fair trial. He said:

One solicitor ‘addressed the jury directly’ on two occasions in cross examination, another ‘clearly had no idea what the rules of re-examination were’ and the jury was ‘misled about one of the defendants’ bad ­character’. ‘The list goes on and on,’ he said.

He also alleged that the London firms, Bullivant & Partners and McCormacks, may have kept the advocacy skills in-house to raise their billable hours. They deny this. Whiny Bullivant snivelled:

“its advocates ‘refute the accusations of incompetence’ and accused the judge of creating an ‘intimidating atmosphere’ for the advocates. The statement quotes Roxburgh as saying the judge’s hostility ‘was conveyed by facial expression and vocal intonation… he referred to us innumerable times as “solicitors” in tones of contempt’. In contrast, it said, the judge treated the only barrister in the case – the prosecuting counsel – ‘with perfectly proper courtesy’.”

Their inexperience and naivete is to complain about being savaged by the judge: for fuck sake that’s the only entertainment the poor bastards get at work. A barrister would know this: pretend barristers don’t, not even if they are wearing a wig like the real lawyers do.

In another case the judge clearly forgot that he had a conflict of interest. In the PirateBay trial judge Thomas Norström omitted that he was a member of the same pro-copyright groups as several entertainment industry reps in the case. As if that wasn’t bad enough he’s part of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (Svenska föreningen för industriellt rättsskydd), which is lobbying for tougher copyright laws. Oops. What is Swedish for ‘Conflict of Interest’? “intressekonflikt”?

update:
Ouch. A district judge, Judge Margaret Short, has been sacked for being rude to solicitors: the last time this happened was in 1983. Being rude to solicitors is of course much less acceptable than to Solicitor Inadequates.

Looniest Judge *ever* Award: nice try — no pie, Peter.

Published on 19 April 2008 in human failings, legal profession and trials. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Having also been on the wrong end of a major bollocking recently Geeklawyer has not a little sympathy for Mr Justice Peter Smith. Pete was referred to the Office for Naughty Judges (OJC) last year after showing “undoubted animosity” towards one of the parties in a case before him.

At least that’s the polite version. Geeklawyer told it as it really was last year: it seems law firm Addleshaw Goddard blew Pete out for a high paying gig (an attempt to parachute out of the burning Royal Courts of Justice — otherwise known as ‘Doing a Hughie”) and he blew a fuse; the fucking huge 100 amp one marked “Common Sense”. And then it got weird as Pete made a full-on stampede for the stage in an attempt to snatch away the Silver award winner’s cup for the  “Looniest Judge Evar”  from Judge Florio of the Philippines.

When AG were on the record in the trial Pete totally lost it and ripped them a new one:

“MR CRAMPIN: Having had an unsuccessful discussion or negotiation with Addleshaws, your lordship expressed yourself in strong – intemperate, almost — anguish.

“MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH: Nonsense. I don’t know what part of the country you come from, Mr Crampin, but it’s about time you grew up. If you think that’s intemperate, then you are on another planet from me. If you thought it was intemperate, then you should have seen the correspondence which didn’t trouble Mr Twigden.

“MR CRAMPIN: I’m endeavouring to make a submission, not to engage with your Lordship in badinage of that kind. The question that a fair-minded person –

Any judge in that position would hope, in a moment of calmer reflection, that it would get better; but like being caught by one’s wife balls deep in the teenage girl from next door one would have to know that it wouldn’t. A complaint to the OJC was inevitable and realised.

A year later however Pete has caught a break. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers had a chat about it all down the pub over a cider or three and decided that while Pete had been somewhat of a plonker he merited only the bottommost level of sanctions: a reprimand for misconduct. The ONJ said:

Today a Judicial Communications Office spokesman said: “The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice have carefully considered the Court of Appeal’s comments on the conduct of Mr Justice Peter Smith … and have concluded that the conduct in question amounted to misconduct.

“As a result, the Lord Chief Justice has issued a reprimand to the judge.”

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, said: “I consider that a firm line has now been drawn under this matter.

“Both I and the Lord Chancellor value the services of Mr Justice Peter Smith and he has my full confidence.”

Geeklawyer’s also; though he is fully confident that if Addleshaw Goddard intruct him to appear before Pete he will find that his diary is unexpectedly full for a jolly long time indeed.

Prosecutor tripped by unexpected court argument

Published on 15 March 2008 in crime and trials. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

The Sun reports that a trial in Reading descended into anarchy when the defendant, a pikey accused of a shooting, leapt from the dock and made a successful dash for freedom. In the process he bit a cop’s nose. He seems to have been helped by a friends who were waiting.

The funny bit that caught Geeklawyer’s eye was that the prosecuting barrister Ian Hope tried to be a hero. He threw off his wig and gown and gave chase. It could have ended so well but one of McInerney’s accomplices tripped him up as he ran.

Mr Hope will now be rueing the fact that he didn’t prepare well enough for his case.

Police are stopping all pony and traps in the area.

Pole dancing for the judge

Published on 14 March 2008 in trials. 5 Comments Tags: , , , .

Geeklawyer was involved in a rather turgid IP trial in the High Court today. Patent infringement, design rights blah blah yawn etc.

Frankly it was all he could do to count the wadge of £50 notes he was being paid to say “No My Lord, that’s not right …” And he wasn’t doing very well. His Lordship had made clear his interest in Geeklawyer earlier in the trial: usher delivered notes giving invitations to meet in His Lordship’s chambers to ‘discuss the case’. Geeklawyer is ruggedly hetero and doesn’t go in for the bottom action favoured by conservative MPs and Wykehamists, and politely claimed another pressing interlocutory matter in the Patents County Court.

Well of course spurned judiciary are the worst of all. All of a sudden Geeklawyer’s submissions were meeting large and insurmountable brick walls:

“Your client has the patent [Mr Geeklawyer] covering the activities of the defendant, but perhaps my view is that they should not be held liable for infringement when when opposed by such a desirable barrister who is too proud to meet me for private discussions?”

Mercifully in the 2 hour lunch recess in the pub Geeklawyer read MsR’s blog post about her pole dancing exploits. Inspiration ensued.

The clock chimed midday. Geeklawyer, tanned dark muscular, clad only in Calvin Klein boxers slid through His Lordship’s chamber door. The £2 tube of olive oil was well bought: the oil smothered his rippling muscular pectorals and glistened on his engorged thigh muscles as he wound around his Lord’s 18th century oak doors in the half-light of the Strand afternoon.

“Martin, I mean, My lord [X]. We need to talk about urgent emissions, I’m sorry, submissions”

Geeklawyer leant back against Lord X’s oak bookcase, with its priceless array of 18th century authorities, and extended a muscular defined thigh slowly and delicately around Lord X’s lapdancing pole (an odd thing for a High Court judge to have in his chambers he thought). He could see the shuddering excitement of his Lord compounding as the gyrations of Geeklawyer’s writhings became more urgent and thrusting: as though for all the World the pole was that Love lost in the heady days of yore. Lenore. Nevermore. The visage from the Plutonian shore.

Geeklawyer won his case. An arduous victory. For God’s sake it had better not go to appeal.

Justice?

Published on 25 February 2008 in crime and trials. 6 Comments

However much Geeklawyer may whinge we do at least have some semblence of a system of fair trials. For those in Afghanistan the story is different: a 4 minute trial with no right to defend oneself or appeal followed by a death sentence.

Even sicko Blair wouldn’t have turned our justice system into this: but only because he’d never have succeeded; not that he didn’t want to.

And what are those cunts on about at the Sun with their campaign for the death sentence to be reinstated? Oh yea Geeklawyer remembers, cheap publicity gimmicks. Geeklawyer is all in favour of the death penalty for Sun journos but no-one else (ooh, is that calling for their death too? :)