Ian Bailey case: Our civil liberties threatened

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, but, you see, Irish grounds for trial are good, French grounds for trial are bad, because the Irish system is good, the French system is bad. The Irish system is good because it's Irish*, and the French system is bad because it's not Irish**.

As far as I can make out the reasoning***, anyway. Not in any sense xenophobic****, though.

amused,
Scofflaw


*|oh, alright, British, but that's not important
**|alright, British again, but it's still not important
***|the term is used very loosely
****|as defined by BetterLisbon's personal dictionary - xenophobia is unjustified fear of foreigners, whereas this is entirely justified distrust of foreigners and their funny so-called legal systems*****
*****|reference intentional

Well we can see who has lost the argument by who has to resort to ridicule and cheap personalised attacks rather than address the points.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It is not for participants in an argument to decide the winner. As you claim to believe in the application of legal principles, I remind you of another: nemo iudex in causa sua.

Resorting to argumentum ad hominem is essentially the admission of defeat.

View wrote: »

There is no such principle. It does not exist. How hard is that to understand?



Count me as one (although I would prefer not to face serious charges under any legal system!)

Given that:
a) The Civil law countries seem to operate legal systems quite safely, and,

b) These legal systems are - like our the common law systems - subject to the common rulings of the ECHR,

There is little reason to believe that the verdict in a court case is likely to be substantially different from legal system to legal system - I have yet to see evidence that proves you are more likely to be convicted in one system than the other. Or indeed more likely to be acquitted.

Lastly, do I really need to point out the serious miscarriages of justice that have taken place on occasion under the common law system?

But the fact remains defendants have less protection under the civil code than under common law. If i were falsely accused of a crime i know what legal system i would prefer to be tried under.
I do concede that there have been bad miscarridges of justice under common law. The birmingham 6 and guildford 4 immediatly spring to mind. That is why i like the american idea of an appeal on the grounds that the jury convicted against the weight of the evidence.

prinz wrote: »

Could you provide examples?

This wikipedia summarises common law quite well. These protections would be absent if you were tried in France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

This bit is quite succinct.
"Adversarial system vs. inquisitorial system
Common law courts tend to use an adversarial system, in which two sides present their cases to a neutral judge. In contrast, in civil law systems, inquisitorial system proceedings, where an examining magistrate serves two roles by developing the evidence and arguments for one and the other side during the investigation phase.
The examining magistrate then presents the dossier detailing his or her findings to the president of the bench that will adjudicate on the case where it has been decided that a trial shall be conducted. Therefore the president of the bench's view of the case is not neutral and may be biaised while conducting the trial after the reading of the dossier. Unlike the common law proceedings, the president of the bench in the inquisitorial system is not merely an umpire and is entitled to directly interview the witnesses or express comments during the trial, as long as he or she does not express his or her view on the guilt of the accused.
The proceeding in the inquisitorial system is essentially by writing. Most of the witnesses would have given evidence in the investigation phase and such evidence will be contained in the dossier under the form of police reports. In the same way, the accused would have already put his or her case at the investigation phase but he or she will be free to change his evidence at trial. Whether the accused pleads guilty or not, a trial will be conducted. Unlike the adversarial system, the conviction and sentence to served (if any) will be released by the trial jury together with the president of the trial bench, following their common deliberation.
There are many exceptions in both directions. For example, most proceedings before U.S. federal and state agencies are inquisitorial in nature, at least the initial stages (e.g., a patent examiner, a social security hearing officer, etc.) even though the law to be applied is developed through common law processes."

prinz wrote: »

Six of one, half dozen of another. They are different systems. Is thre any reason to believe injustice is more frequent in one as opposed to the other?

Then we will have to agree to disagree prinz. Well i am absolutely sure which system i would like to be tried under.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, but that's just a statement of preference, like saying that you prefer cheese to chocolate. Trying to erect it into some sort of principle argues a deep deficiency in your grasp of logic.

regards,
Scofflaw

Well i would welcome anyone to show how they would feel equally or better protected without common law. I would consider that an interesting read to say the least.

Scofflaw wrote: »

You would probably need to contact a eurosceptic from a civil law country, who could explain to you how the EAW exposes people from civilised legal systems to the appalling dangers of the common law system.

cordially,
Scofflaw

How about you go one better scoff and show us the colour of your money. Can you explain why you would be at least as comfortable if not more so facing a false charge without common law.