Stupid Judges Judgements

Sleipnir

Two ridiclous news reports today on the state of our crap system of law.

One where a knacker jumped on a horse in Clondalkin, went galloping down the road, around a roundabout, hit a bus and cracked his head open when he fell off the bus.
He said that the county council knew there were 'wild' animals in the area and did nothing to capture them so they were at fault.

The judge (in my opinion judges do not live in the real world and have mental issues) awarded him €75,000

Be stupid, get rewarded.
It's the judges who are pushing our insurance premiums up, not the motorist who has a prang.




The other story is where a man was aquitted of drug trafficking because the State now has to
"prove an accused man knew the value of the drugs before he can be convicted"

What!?!?!? 10,000 ecstasy tabs worth €150,000 and he get's off.

How and why does the state have to prove that he knew the current market value?


What is wrong with out judges, they just don't seem to realise what they're doing or the effect their stupid decisions have on the community as a whole

flogen

While this is an interesting thread, I don't think it's well suited to News/Media.

Given there is no forum to talk about the law, I'm going to have to move it to After Hours.

flogen

Stephen

Jesus christ that's retarded.

lisa.c

its not really the judges fault we have do blame it on the laws that govern our country no matter how old or ridiculous they are. at the end of the day the judge has to make his ruling on the facts presented and the laws that are present even if he feels that its a ridiculous ruling its his job to enforce it. that knacker was in the wrong and should not of got a penny but he probably had a smart ass solicitor who presented him with a good case which left the judge no choice but to rule in his favor.... its like we all hate the sick pervs and want to lock them away forever and when they get a couple of months we are outraged at the judge but really its not his fault as he has to follow certain guidelines.... i dont know who actually sets the guidelines for whatever puishments are needed but maybe they are the ones who we should be oppased to.....

OfflerCrocGod

This just pisses me off no end, how can such gross miscarriages occur! It pisses me off no end I want to throttle the knacker who got that cash, piece of crap:mad:.

ixoy

What justice - the rest of us work hard, and would take years to amass the sort of cash that that lowlife gets after a few minutes work acting like a moron.

Now whilst, as Lisa C. says, the judge has to decide the matter based on the point of law, it doesn't mean they have to give such large punitive damages right? I mean the reward is nothing to do with any piece of legislature really, as far as I know. Previous cases serve as guideline amounts - that's it, right?

lisa.c

ya its a bit.ch alrite but law is the law and whilst its serves some justice it serves alot injustices..... i have a friend he's 26 when he was two he suffered a stroke when he wa in hospital they failed to give him certain medication and as a result he is not semi paralysed down on side(his leg drags and his arm is turned up).
now he has gone about compensation but has been told tough sh.it as the doctor who treated him is now dead... he cant get work and is entitled to s.f.a. he has free travel and thats it. he didnt even qualify for a grant for a specialy modified car so he could drive... its guys like him who desevre compo not losers who that guy who as you say will never earn an honest living....

Sleepy

Why couldn't the Judge in question just have granted damages of a cent or something along those lines. Bloody moron...

hmm, me has a great idea for a website...

leeroybrown

It's the judges who are pushing our insurance premiums up, not the motorist who has a prang.

Actually, on that point, a number of years ago the motor industry lobbied the government to remove jury trials for insurance claim cases on the basis that it would reduce the number of inflated claims getting through the system. Immediately after it became Judicial only the average payout went up.

Also, giving settlements on the basis of negligence by authorities is well within the Judges remit.

What!?!?!? 10,000 ecstasy tabs worth €150,000 and he get's off.

How and why does the state have to prove that he knew the current market value?

IANAL and I know nothing about this case but it's probably because the state are trying for a scentence that requires proof that the criminal was knowingly making such a huge deal.

Going on the way the state and the Gardai estimate drug seisures they probably claimed a far over inflated figure. The dealer would probably have been lucky to raise €30,000 - €40,000 selling by volume. You're not at a good starting point in a case accusing someone of attempting to get vastly more monetary gain from the crime regardless of how bad what they did is.

Tommy Vercetti

Most judges don't live in the real world, they're stupid overpaid old men.

I say we hold show-trials in Croker every Saturday! That'll learn them!

grumpytrousers

Regarding some knacker screwing the Council for damages...

There's a long enough procedure to go through before you can march into the Four Courts and just collect yer €€€. The Council will have a public liability insurance policy, and therefore an insurance company who certainly will not want to pay out.

The Insurance company will ALSO brief a well paid solicitor and Barrister to nitpick at every single thing that this lowlife scummy fecker says. Most cases actually stop before they get to court - Solicitors/Barristers on both sides will just come to a compromise unless there's a particularly good reason to go to trial

Thus, and I hate to say it, it would seem that the Councils legal team must have realised that (like it or not) they were in the 'wrong'. And more importantly, that the damages the knacker claimed had happened were for real. (BTW, it's not unheard of for Insurance companies to fund private investigators just to make sure that people who fell off ladders and can't work aren't secretly plugging away)

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by grumpytrousers

(BTW, it's not unheard of for Insurance companies to fund private investigators just to make sure that people who fell off ladders and can't work aren't secretly plugging away)

It would be cheaper and better if they hired a hitman to eliminate these people.

Paladin

Make a website with a page for each stupid judge in the country and append stupid rulings as they appear in the paper. Eventually the public outcry might get something done. Anyone got enough free time to do this? The boards could help by having people post stupid rulings as they find them in papers.

Imposter

Here's the story of the drugs one. He wasn't the actual trafficker but an accomplice. I can sort of understand the judge on this one and remember he hopefully had a lot more information than we have from this article. Plus the guy didn't get off completely with it (yet).

grumpytrousers

Make a website with a page for each stupid judge in the country and append stupid rulings as they appear in the paper.

Oh FFS get real will ya!!! How do we define stupid? Something you don't agree with perhaps? Something I don't agree with?

Eventually the public outcry might get something done.

Yes - i can imagine the legal, insurance and legislative bodies changing the way things have happened for the last x years becuase of the outrage felt by a few people on a messageboard

Anyone got enough free time to do this? The boards could help by having people post stupid rulings as they find them in papers.

Go for it - to be honest, there's nothing wrong with criticising a judgement - but only do so after becoming aquainted with all the facts. And by that I don't mean reading about it on feckin' AERTEL or the newspaper...

Lookit - I don't doubt there are idiotic judges out there, but their job is simply to listen to the evidence in front of them and rule on it as laid down by precedent, current legislation and current practise. They don't just go on a whim, pick a number from out their arses and run with that...

I'm sorry - I don't mean to come accross as all self-righteous....over litigious knackers are indeed a scourge, but the problem isn't really the judge....

ixoy

Originally posted by grumpytrousers
I'm sorry - I don't mean to come accross as all self-righteous....over litigious knackers are indeed a scourge, but the problem isn't really the judge....

Eh if the judgments are all so fine, and in line, and if the defense is really so competent - how come we have the Insurance Confidential line? How come we're trying to set up a new review system for claims and penalising fraudulent ones?

The exorbant handouts are merely encouraging all the fraudulent claims and leading to a compensation culture. I mean whatever happened to personnal accountability?

grumpytrousers

Eh if the judgments are all so fine, and in line, and if the defense is really so competent - how come we have the Insurance Confidential line? How come we're trying to set up a new review system for claims and penalising fraudulent ones?

Calm down dear, it's only a message board!!!

I still maintain that judgements will, on the balance of probabilites' tend to be fine, but we could possibly agree that not always the evidence is?

The thread seemed to be taking the line 'it's all the judges fault' and all I'm really saying is that there's more at fault than them.

We have the insurance confidential line cos people are sick to the eye-teeth of feckers riding the system. And long may it continue. I'd also, by the way, like to see as a result of lower payouts, premiums coming down. I shan't hold my breath.

The exorbant handouts are merely encouraging all the fraudulent claims and leading to a compensation culture. I mean whatever happened to personnal accountability?

well, y'see that's just it - we live in an age where f***wits prevail. Me, I long for those halcyon days where people were honest, considered perjury a bad thing and helped old people accross the street. But all that's with O'Leary in the grave as well, innit.

I just don't blame 'out of touch' judges for that either - that's society!

Sleipnir

But it's the judge that decided how much money is paid out in light of the evidence.

Idiot jumps on horse, rides around in traffic on it, falls, hits head, get €75,000.

The judge blamed the council for leaving the horses around where gombeens can get on them and hurt themselves. He did not lay any blame in front of the moron who did it.
That's not a fair judgement at all.

Plus, 75,000 was excessive anyway but then, to a judge, it's a few weeks work.

Paladin

I think its naive to put such faith in judges. Whilst as you say, most are ok, what needs to be done is the highlighting of retarded judges such as the one who gave a huge payout to a person to reward their stupidity. This is wrong.

Ireland interestingly, has the highest average payout in Europe, and is also higher than the average US payout for lawsuits.

If we all adopted you atitude grumpytrousers 'dear' (seemed an unnecessary condescension imo), then we might as well do away with the appeals process, the supreme court, and any other pesky time wasting measure for monitering judgements since they will by and large be right (sarcasm).

However I do fully and wholeheartadly agree with your view that its not all the judges fault.
Other problems: lack of jails in which to put criminals, money grabbing soliciters, little knackers taking lawsuits when they fall in a pothole...so many more probably.

I just dont like the idea of accepting what a judge says just because he is a judge. They are appointed positions so its quite possible (nay quite definate) that there are stupid in'duh'viduals in the incredulous position of power over justice.

grumpytrousers

Whilst as you say, most are ok, what needs to be done is the highlighting of retarded judges such as the one who gave a huge payout to a person to reward their stupidity.

Fair point. But leaving aside our muppet friend deciding on having a bit of bareback action - "is it the responsibiltiy of the council to ensure animals aren't running wild about the place?"

if the answer is yes, then they should have been found against - and I suppose the amount may be a bit much, and that's not something I can defend. You and I may well think that the judgement rewards stupidity, but on the other hand, you can say it 'punishes the complacency' of the council for not keeping certain animals in order.

You'd be wrong, but you could say it

(seemed an unnecessary condescension imo),

it wasn't meant to be - a reference to a very annoying ad with Michael Winner in it. Apologies proferred to whoevers nose I got up!!!

then we might as well do away with the appeals process, the supreme court, and any other pesky time wasting measure for monitering judgements since they will by and large be right (sarcasm)

Thanks for pointing out the sarcasm. I'd never have noticed. (more sarcasm!)

Of course we shouldn't. And I'm not advocating some blind faith in judges and never questioning it - I suppose what I'm getting at is that in general nobody wants to be thought of as a complete idiot. Even if they're overpaid and wear a powdered wig, and thus I'd think that your average judge will tend to ruminate over the amount awarded before he takes a figure. He'll take into account reports drawn up by qualified Doctors, Consultants, Engineers and Surveyors and he'll also take into account the testimony of litigants to see - yes - if he actually 'likes the cut of their jib'

Damn straight some will get it wrong...sometimes, and in such cases, I say thank God for the Supreme Court, appeals processes etc...

Part of the problem is of course shyster solicitors who, while not taking a 'no foal no fee' thing will tend to say to somebody of limited means 'we can run this case, we think you've 70% chance of winning, and if you lose and an order is made against you, well they can't do you for what you ain't got'

sceptre

Originally posted by grumpytrousers
Fair point. But leaving aside our muppet friend deciding on having a bit of bareback action - "is it the responsibiltiy of the council to ensure animals aren't running wild about the place?"

Indeed and it is. Control of Horses Act 1996 (and no, I didn't just make it up)

Sleepy

ffs. That type of thing is exactly what happens when solicitors/politicians get bored:rolleyes:

I think the website is actually a good idea. Put up the judges and the details of their judgements. If nothing else, it would get media attention and get the issue looked at a bit.

grumpytrousers

ffs. That type of thing is exactly what happens when solicitors/politicians get bored

I understand your frustration...but as Sceptre has pointed out, the Council were wrong in that they are/were obliged to ensure horses aren't free to run amok.

Now - you may think it's a stupid law and should be changed. There's folks on another thread presumably getting flamed to the bejaysus 'cos they think that the Smoking Ban is a stupid law and should be changed...

I think the website is actually a good idea. Put up the judges and the details of their judgements. If nothing else, it would get media attention and get the issue looked at a bit.

Ah yes - we'll get the issue looked at. By whom? Chances are it'll be...um solicitors and politicians.

pork99

My god the knacker's "reward" should have been 2 to 3 years not in "some white collar resort prison" but in "federal POUND ME IN THE ASS prison"

( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/quotes )

Surely he broke some law about reckless behaviour on the road? He was through a willful act of his own volition endangering the lives, health and property of law-abiding tax-payers and he gets €75,000 for criminal behaviour. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Secondly isn't what he did abuse of an animal? Another year for that I think.

Pity he didn't kill himself - good riddance. "What a tragedy - we're missin' a moron!" Put him in for a Darwin Award.

I'm afraid the judge & legal profession seem to be a shower of politicaly correct spineless half-wits.

grumpytrousers

Surely he broke some law about reckless behaviour on the road?

Road traffic acts tend to concentrate on 'mechanically propelled vehicles'! Sorry

He was through a willful act of his own volition endangering the lives, health and property of law-abiding tax-payers and he gets €75,000 for criminal behaviour

I appreciate that you don't approve of what this bloke did, but the fact remains (stoopid judge/profession notwithstanding) that the councils role is to ensure that this doesn't happen.

Period.

In the same way that you're not allowed guard your premises with a high wall and shards of glass no it. Or rather, you are, but you can be sued by trespassers.

Secondly isn't what he did abuse of an animal?

He was riding the horse, not ...er...riding the horse

Pity he didn't kill himself - good riddance.

I don't deny that he sounds like a scumbag...I'm not standing up for him


Ultimately what i've tended to see from this argument thus far is resentment that 'some knacker was reckless/feckless and sued and got money'

so tell me - what do we think of 'respectable' people going to the pub/nightclub, getting pissed, falling and sueing the owner? It happens. All the time. 'Iffy' lawsuits aren't the sole preserve of horse-thieving knackers...

ixoy

Another one, from today's Irish Independent:

Driven to distraction . . . by buses

The No 130 bus terminus near the home of Patrick and Dolores Cafferky at St John's Wood in Clontarf.

A COUPLE, who claimed their health had been damaged by the noise of bus engines idling at a busy stop outside their home, have been awarded €16,500 damages.

Judge Elizabeth Dunne said in the Circuit Civil Court yesterday that much of the stress complained of by Patrick and Dolores Cafferky, of St John's Wood, Clontarf, Dublin, had been exaggerated.

Awarding Mrs Cafferky €10,000 and her husband €6,500 against Dublin Bus, Judge Dunne said they allowed themselves to become obsessively preoccupied with noise.

The court heard that the Cafferky's home was 20-30 metres from the terminus of the No 130 bus route between Clontarf and Dublin city centre.

Problems had arisen when bus engines were left idling for several minutes at a time.

Mr Rory De Bruir, counsel for the Cafferkys, had told Judge Dunne his clients had first complained to Dublin Bus in November 2000 of the noise of bus engines idling while stationary close to their home. They had no complaint about passengers being collected and dropped off at the terminus.

Initially they had obtained an injunction restraining the noise nuisance; this had been replaced by an undertaking by Dublin Bus to direct its drivers to switch off their engines while stationary. However, not all drivers complied.

Judge Dunne said Dublin Bus had gone to reasonable lengths to ensure bus drivers switched off engines but it was equally clear this did not always happen.

She found it difficult to understand how the Cafferkys seemed to have benefitted so little from the reduction in noise as a result of earlier court proceedings; this gave her the strong suspicion that many complaints about noise levels were exaggerated.

However, medical evidence was clear regarding injury to their health and of the aggravation to Mrs Cafferky's pre-existing problems with hypertension.

Another fine example of people abusing a legal system :rolleyes:

Sleepy

For the love of Jeff, where did we find these judges? Surely any sane person in their position would either

a) throw these cases out of court for wasting court time, with no leave for appeal

or

b) use the age-old "I award damages of €1", with no leave for appeal.

Anyone know if it's possible to take a case against a member of the judiciary for gross incompetency? I assume they've covered their backs pretty well on this one but it would be nice to be able to fire Judges for stupid decisions/awards.

impr0v

Regarding the bus terminus example, it seems to be a wrong person, wrong place type of affair. The noise might not have been excessive, but the woman had hypertesion problems and got herself so wound up by the problem that she could demonstrate bona fide health issues directly caused by the noise, though it would probably be correct to say that the primary cause of her health issues were the existing problems with hypertension.

Regarding setting up a website to name and shame the judiciary, personally I'd be very careful about the phraseology I'd use in condemning their judgements...

impr0v

Originally posted by Sleipnir
Plus, 75,000 was excessive anyway but then, to a judge, it's a few weeks work.

I believe a high court judges salary is €172,000 per annum.

penguinbloke

The main fault lies with the insurance companies tbh. Generally it's cheaper and easier to pay the bill with as little hassle as possible and then raise the insurance premium than to investigate and find out what happened.

My mother was in a crash a few years ago (since then road markings have been changed bit of a black spot). Other guy involved suffering from crippleing back pain for months afterwards, couldn't walk, quality of life down the tubes, etc. Insurance companies were in the process of paying out when his picture was in the paper as a coffin bearer. remarkable for somebody who can bearly walk.

My mother showed the insurance company they said and I quote

"from his description, he should have been in the coffin not under it"

but they did nothing about it. And apparently it wasn't the first or last time it had happened with himself or his family.

So most of the blame deserves to go to the insurance company imo.

grumpytrousers

For the love of Jeff, where did we find these judges? Surely any sane person in their position would either

a) throw these cases out of court for wasting court time, with no leave for appeal

or

b) use the age-old "I award damages of €1", with no leave for appeal.

Anyone know if it's possible to take a case against a member of the judiciary for gross incompetency? I assume they've covered their backs pretty well on this one but it would be nice to be able to fire Judges for stupid decisions/awards.

And your 'criteria' for stupidity would be? That you don't agree with 'em, right? Great. That's fair! What was the waste of time?

Lady says 'Noise is getting on my wick, knock it off Dublin Bus'
Dublin Bus says 'fine'
Dublin Bus doesn't bother
Lady reminds 'em
Still no improvement
She sues 'em

All Dublin Bus were asked to do was ensure that when the buses weren't in operation that they were switched off at the ignition. I'm not a pensioner, but if I lived around that area, I wouldn't fancy filthy fumes belching about the place either just cos the driver is too engrossed in his Evening Herald to switch it off. Same goes for noise.

Considering the fact that the lady in question seemed to have some kind of health problems that were being exacerbated by the refusal of drivers to allow her 'live in peace' and presuming Dublin Bus were aware of this before they chugged along to the courthouse, then she is entitled to some kind of redress.

On a more general point, the more reactionary of you will be absolutely f***ing thrilled at the amount of ammo coming your way when the courts actions involing pubs/noise-pollution/smoking-ban/standing-outside-until-1-in-the-morning cases start coming up.

However much chance you have of getting a sober bus driver to switch off his engine, and however much 'sway' a company like Dublin Bus has over its drivers, I can assure you that the control the average publican has on a punter 'on the street' will be minimal

Sleepy

Lady says 'Noise is getting on my wick, knock it off Dublin Bus'
Dublin Bus says 'fine'
Dublin Bus doesn't bother
Lady reminds 'em
Still no improvement
She sues 'em

Dublin Bus took measures to try and facilitate the woman. If the company proved (which I assume it did) that it had put in place these measures I can't see how they can be sued for the actions of some of their employees. The company eercised their due of care to the public. Their employees didn't. Maybe they could have tried implementing disciplinary procedures but as we all know, the union would have been bloody fast to go on strike had Dublin Bus tried. So, to any logical means of thinking, Dublin Bus management did all they could to appease the woman without subjecting the country to YET ANOTHER avoidable strike.

On a more general point, the more reactionary of you will be absolutely f***ing thrilled at the amount of ammo coming your way when the courts actions involing pubs/noise-pollution/smoking-ban/standing-outside-until-1-in-the-morning cases start coming up.

Given that the publicans are only enforcing the law, I don't see how they can legitimately be in an actionable position for the behaviour of people outside their premises. They're not the direct cause of any disturbance caused by people on the street. Sure, if the pub PA system is being turned up to excessive levels, you would have a case as this is something that the publican has direct control over. It'll be the government that'll be defending these type of actions you predict as they are the direct cause of them.

Again, logically, why would anyone move near a pub if they objected to a bit of noise at night? People have a large degree of freedom of choice and if their free choices turn out badly, to any sane mind, they must accept the consequences of these decisions. It is not[/i] societies problem if you make a mistake (unless that mistake involves you breaking the law).

uberwolf

my understanding of the original case mentioned re: the d'young fella was that he sued the council and dublin bus. Dublin bus on the basis that they had a vehicle in the way of the crazed horse, and that the driver was sufficently trained to deal with the situation. TBH the irishmans diary is my source on that one though, a day or two ago

grumpytrousers

Dublin Bus took measures to try and facilitate the woman. If the company proved (which I assume it did) that it had put in place these measures I can't see how they can be sued for the actions of some of their employees.

They can..be sued, I mean. If you're a grumpy old Lady, you'll sue the company for noise disruption or whatever on the grounds that it's their agents who may be causing the problem - in this case the driver.

The legal advice the lady will get is "You've no business sueing the bloke taking home x thousand € a year - he doesn't have his own public liability insurance and can't afford to pay out the kind of damages you're gonna look for - Hit The Company!"

Strike

Largely a red herring. Dunno how a Union could even attempt to justify 'switching off a bus at a terminus' as an 'intolerable burden on their working conditions'. I mean - I say that and I'd consider meself a bit of a leftie!

Given that the publicans are only enforcing the law, I don't see how they can legitimately be in an actionable position for the behaviour of people outside their premises. They're not the direct cause of any disturbance caused by people on the street.

Oh aye - I know that. You know that. It won't stop people bringing actions though. And like I said above - they're more likely to be able to 'afford' an action. Who's right and Who's wrong is one for those better qualified than us to figure out. If it's written down that publicans have an obligation to observe some kind of peace and quiet thing...they somebody somewhere'll have 'em for a few bob. Or else there will be raft of objections to renewal of Licenses. All I'm saying is that the ball has started rolling.

*taps nose*

say no more!

Again, logically, why would anyone move near a pub if they objected to a bit of noise at night?

Noise out on the street is a bit different. You'll tend to get (come closing time) a lot more yelling, a lot more f***aboutery going on. I don't live near a pub (dammit) but I...er...know of people who do and aren't impressed!

People have a large degree of freedom of choice and if their free choices turn out badly, to any sane mind, they must accept the consequences of these decisions.

Depends. I mean - if you've had a tolerable situation that has lasted for x years, and suddently that changes without any recognition of your wishes, don't you have a right to complain?
You live beside a pub, and over the years you get used to the 'steady hummm' of voices and whatever, but by and large, the noise is absorbed by the furnishings and whatever of the pub. That's fine.
But suddenly the smoking ban tends to bring a louder clientelle out onto the streets where, coupled with late drinks on friday/saturday, it's considerably more difficult to get a nights sleep.

I'm not sure you should have to take that on the chin.

parallel example - it's okay to live by Heathrow Airport by day - yeah, you get the jets screaming in etc, but it's not all thru the night, so at least you get a nights sleep. What's happened is that the government in the UK suddently decided to let Heathrow go 24 hours. Now - that's not a case where the 'freedom of choice exercised turn out badly and must be accepted'. Okay - you can move, but you shouldn't have to just cos of a decision being made by legislators that doesn't take full consideration of the rights of others indirectly affected.

It's called 'joined up thinking' and it's something we're not all to good at!

gohaha

According to the Constitution, it seems the only way to remove a judge is through a motion from the Oireachtas.
However, I am unsure if this has ever happen.

The most chocking thing is that Judges are nominated by politics. The Constitution states it should be by the President...

Judges does not undergo a formal and uniform training though...

And the separation of power can not be insured by the Constitution...
Example of such is the fact that Chief Justice and the President of the High Court are both member of the Council of State,
advising the President... How can those two take part in decision regarding State legislation on the basis that noone should be judge and party.

Gatling

Where did you find a 9 year old thread ,prepare to be sentenced crime of necrothread

JustAThought

Gatling wrote: »

Where did you find a 9 year old thread ,prepare to be sentenced crime of necrothread

I was wondering why a lot of recent stupidness wasn't in it. Now I know.

johnayo

The Mods will be around in a little while and you will be sentenced to 6 months with hard labour for resurrecting such an old thread.:D

K-9

gohaha wrote: »

According to the Constitution, it seems the only way to remove a judge is through a motion from the Oireachtas.
However, I am unsure if this has ever happen.

The most chocking thing is that Judges are nominated by politics. The Constitution states it should be by the President...

Judges does not undergo a formal and uniform training though...

And the separation of power can not be insured by the Constitution...
Example of such is the fact that Chief Justice and the President of the High Court are both member of the Council of State,
advising the President... How can those two take part in decision regarding State legislation on the basis that noone should be judge and party.

Mod

Thread is nearly 10 years old and the site frowns on dragging up threads that old. Feel free to start a new one, we also have a Politics board here, the button to start a new thread is near the middle of the page called New Thread.

Dwork

Yeah, the law is the law. Right. I was in the high court(got sued by a rich cnut who was mad as a hatter and was so wrong it just was not right). Up beore me was some fat, lazy, skanger cnut that tripped on a loose pavement. He got 70k compo for tripping. Tripping.

Me? I got to pay the stone-mad (but rich) luder that was sueing me (for robbing me in the first place) compo. Justice? Not in this country. You're waay better off being a brass necked cnut. Judges love them.