Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 100456	2009-06-08 13:47:00	Privy Council	Sweep (90)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
780623	2009-06-08 22:18:00	Civil rights group urges reform of 'rag-bag' privy council www.guardian.co.uk The murky, mysterious world of the Queen’s Privy Council business.timesonline.co.uk There are more than 500 Privy Council members...... mostly former politicians on yet another gray-train. The group commonly known as the Privy Council by our lawyers is really the Judicial Committee - from Wikipedia.... The Council also performs judicial functions, which are for the most part delegated to the Judicial Committee. The Committee consists of senior judges appointed as Privy Counsellors: Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, judges of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland and judges of the Inner House of the Court of Session (the supreme civil court of Scotland). It was formerly a supreme court of appeal for the entire British Empire, and continues to hear appeals from British Overseas Territories, Sovereign Base Areas, Crown Dependencies and some Commonwealth countries.	Scouse (83)
780624	2009-06-08 22:26:00	Seems dumb to me not using the best legal brains in the world when we could have. Too late now that scum labor government lost us that option. Get used to it Great Britain is our mother country always has been, is today, always will be, cant rewrite history. If you came from another place in the world thats nice but the Queen is the head of state here. God save the Queen from you history revisionists and republicans.	prefect (6291)
780625	2009-06-08 23:55:00	Now there's an idea Winston! :thumbs: CER could become CJR (Closer Judicial Relations) Much more relevant to NZ and access to independent arbiters and a broader cross-section of legal opinion . . . Certainly I believe NZ is too small to be judicially independent, and with respect to our judges, it would be difficult to be entirely without bias . Many sporting codes have a system where if Country A and Country B are playing against each other they get a ref from Country C . Ramp that idea up a bit and you get the suggestion similar to that put forward by Winston . . . X2 It just makes sense to use the best (and hopefully, without any political bias) whenever we can :thumbs:	Marnie (4574)
780626	2009-06-09 00:42:00	Seems dumb to me not using the best legal brains in the world when we could have. One of the finest legal minds of the Commonwealth was a New Zealand judge - Lord Cooke of Thorndon - he was raised to the peerage and was a member of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. Dmae Sian Elias is also one of the best legal minds that we have and has been published a number of times on various legal issues - as well as being the Chief Justice and informing a great deal of the common law in New Zealand. There is nothing particularly special about the Privy Council - the vast majority of appeals that they hear concern matters of commercial law.	Deane F (8204)
780627	2009-06-09 01:06:00	We can also point to the fact that certain parties over the years in my lifetime have appealed decisions made in various New Zealand Courts to the highest New Zealand Court. Here I am not talking about the sentence for the offence but rather appeals against the conviction in the first place. In New Zealand the so called Justice system is based on the Westminster system which is adversorial by nature and I might add inherited from England rather than Scotland. We go by the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Parliament introduces laws and some get passed and others do not. Laws that get passed very often get amendments and amendments to the amendments etc. It is over to interpretion as to what Parliament meant when passing a particular law. Should it be that we adopt an inquisitorial system instead of the current system? A system that is designed to get at the actual truth of the matter I hope?	Sweep (90)
780628	2009-06-09 01:49:00	In New Zealand the so called Justice system is based on the Westminster system which is adversorial by nature and I might add inherited from England rather than Scotland. We go by the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Not quite - the Westminster system relates to the legislature. Our judicial system is based on the English legal tradition. And legal constructions are based on the spirit of the law - such as the legal construction that people should not lawfully benefit from crime - which is why, for example, you cannot inherit from your parents if you have murdered them Parliament introduces laws and some get passed and others do not. Laws that get passed very often get amendments and amendments to the amendments etc. No - amendments are repealed then replaced rather than being amended ad infinitum. It is over to interpretion as to what Parliament meant when passing a particular law. Of course it needs interpretation - no law can predict every future circumstance. That is why we need judges to fine tune the law to developing circumstances and by doing so make the law more clear by means of the Law Reports. Judges decisions are based on what parliament intended and have even been known to refer to Hansard. Should it be that we adopt an inquisitorial system instead of the current system? A system that is designed to get at the actual truth of the matter I hope? The system we have has evolved over hundreds of years. It would be impossible to supplant it with an entirely different system. The adversarial system is designed to get at the truth of the matter - through argument. What causes you to think that the inquisitorial method is any more successful than the adversarial system? The inquisitorial system gives judges a great deal more power than they have in the adversarial system.	Deane F (8204)
780629	2009-06-09 02:02:00	Seems dumb to me not using the best legal brains in the world when we could have. Too late now that scum labor government lost us that option. Get used to it Great Britain is our mother country always has been, is today, always will be, cant rewrite history. If you came from another place in the world thats nice but the Queen is the head of state here. God save the Queen from you history revisionists and republicans. Mother Country - yeah right. Why is it then that when I go there I have to line up in the Aliens line at immigratiion while the Europeans that my grandfathers and father fought against stream straight through the lines. Great Britain has long since given up it's mother country status - despite the lingering ones that can't face being weaned from mothers tit.	dvm (6543)
780630	2009-06-09 03:41:00	Well the Poms had to do this otherwise people from ex colonies like Africa, India, Bangladesh,Pakistan would have moved there although in their droves and swamped the English way of life. I understand why the Poms couldn't differentiate between commonnwealth countries even if we from Australia, Australia and Canada descended from pomgolia. Yeah it does grate that Hungarians, Italians, Germans, and Austrians have free access into pomgolia especially as we helped the poms give them a hiding in the 2 world wars.	prefect (6291)
780631	2009-06-09 03:59:00	Mother Country - yeah right. Why is it then that when I go there I have to line up in the Aliens line at immigratiion while the Europeans that my grandfathers and father fought against stream straight through the lines. Great Britain has long since given up it's mother country status - despite the lingering ones that can't face being weaned from mothers tit. Could it be that you do not have a UK passport for one thing? Another point is that the UK has agreements with other European countries. If you have a British passport you can also have a NZ Passport for example. When I lived in Australia for some years I qualified to become an Australian Citizen but if I had taken that option I would not qualify to hold a NZ passport.	Sweep (90)
780632	2009-06-09 04:21:00	Not quite - the Westminster system relates to the legislature. Our judicial system is based on the English legal tradition. And legal constructions are based on the spirit of the law - such as the legal construction that people should not lawfully benefit from crime - which is why, for example, you cannot inherit from your parents if you have murdered them No - amendments are repealed then replaced rather than being amended ad infinitum. Of course it needs interpretation - no law can predict every future circumstance. That is why we need judges to fine tune the law to developing circumstances and by doing so make the law more clear by means of the Law Reports. Judges decisions are based on what parliament intended and have even been known to refer to Hansard. The system we have has evolved over hundreds of years. It would be impossible to supplant it with an entirely different system. The adversarial system is designed to get at the truth of the matter - through argument. What causes you to think that the inquisitorial method is any more successful than the adversarial system? The inquisitorial system gives judges a great deal more power than they have in the adversarial system. OK. Fine. But you and I both know that the Judges do not MAKE the law as such do they? In the event I get to a Court as a witness I swear on what I hold sacred to "tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth so help me God." Should I object to swearing that oath on the basis that I will tell only what is admissable in that particular Court at that time? People swear when they get married to stay together "until death us do part". It does not say "I will stay as long as I feel like it."	Sweep (90)
1 2 3 4