"clerical" errors in Supreme Court Judgements

Carawaystick

An english lawyer David Allen Green ( writes for the FT, tweets @jackofkent) posted a link to a judgement handed down by scotukgbni which stated the Star Wars films depicted events in the future, when they were clearly stated in writing to have happened long ago.

see http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/39.html paragraph 44

If there is a clerical error in a judgement here from our supreme court, is there a mechanism to amend the judgement?
is it like
*cough* Judge, shouldn't this read x instead of y

or altoghether more formal
or is the court right, and reality out of step?

GerardKeating

Carawaystick wrote: »

An english lawyer David Allen Green ( writes for the FT, tweets @jackofkent) posted a link to a judgement handed down by scotukgbni which stated the Star Wars films depicted events in the future, when they were clearly stated in writing to have happened long ago.

see http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/39.html paragraph 44

If there is a clerical error in a judgement here from our supreme court, is there a mechanism to amend the judgement?
is it like
*cough* Judge, shouldn't this read x instead of y

or altoghether more formal
or is the court right, and reality out of step?

But is it set in the past ?

While the "opening crawl" from the movies clearly states that the story is in the past, but they could just be from further in the future, from the point of view of someone in (for example) the 25th century telling a story about a great war that came upon us all in the year 2257

MarkAnthony

I have no idea why but I picturing Mr Justice Hardiman, a man of towering intellect perhaps but not so blessed in stature, in that Darth Vader costume from Spaceballs.

Perhaps it's time for bed.

Tom Young

There is precedent for revisiting judgments in the UK in a case called Paulin v Paulin. The case was mentioned in the context of the McInerney Homes litigation but not fully accepted by Fennelly and O'Donnell JJ in the Super Court here. It appears that any such revisitation must occur shortly after the judgment and often before what we might refer to as the perfection of the order accompanying any judgment.

Lady Hale in the UK Supreme Court has recently visited the matter in a family division appeal.

I guess for everything else there's the slip rule (though not appropriate in the Star Wars case).

tiro

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I have no idea why but I picturing Mr Justice Hardiman, a man of towering intellect perhaps but not so blessed in stature, in that Darth Vader costume from Spaceballs.

Perhaps it's time for bed.

"I find your lack of faith (in the Kenny exclusionary rule) disturbing."

Carawaystick

Tom Young wrote: »

. It appears that any such revisitation must occur shortly after the judgment and often before what we might refer to as the perfection of the order accompanying any judgment.

Ah yes, I remember hearing something like this before.

Pro Hoc Vice

Carawaystick wrote: »

An english lawyer David Allen Green ( writes for the FT, tweets @jackofkent) posted a link to a judgement handed down by scotukgbni which stated the Star Wars films depicted events in the future, when they were clearly stated in writing to have happened long ago.

see http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/39.html paragraph 44

If there is a clerical error in a judgement here from our supreme court, is there a mechanism to amend the judgement?
is it like
*cough* Judge, shouldn't this read x instead of y

or altoghether more formal
or is the court right, and reality out of step?

In my humble opinion there is no error in paragraph 44 of the judgement. "The Star Wars films are set in an imaginary, science-fiction world of the future." If the judgement was given in a galaxy far far away it may have been an error but the past it depicts is not our past. Hence the helmets are not of our past but may be of a science fiction world that can if it ever exists only be in our future.

conorh91

These galaxies may have existed thousands of years ago in space time, but may still only be perceptible far into our future. In the 4D space-time model, the opening narration of Star Wars is given by that universal, invisible, omniscient literary voice which unifies the dislocation across spacetime. In terms of actual chronological time, the omniscient voice does not seek to specify whether he is referring to 'our time' future or 'universal time' past. It may be either.

hullaballoo

Look, the whole concept of time is provably bollocks. It doesn't matter whether he said past, present or future because it's all meaningless. Time exists and doesn't exist. Linear time is a myth. See below.

FreudianSlippers

Time is so fluid that this thread is happening on that day all the random drugs were not illegal.