ANTI-IMMIGRATION PROTESTER JAILED IN LONDON JUDGE ORDERS PRESS BLACKOUT ROBINSON SILENCED!

[Scot Dutchy]

Hey Rum. There is no UK law system. You are talking about ENGLISH law. Scots law is different. Reporting restrictions are imposed not under written law but under common law in Scotland. Any offence will be dealt with under common law which means the judge can do anything he likes. From a warning to life imprisonment. It never pays to get on the wrong side of a Scottish judge.

[Rum]

Don't be silly. A judge can't 'do anything he likes'.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah they can. Just like facebook can get all your data even if you block facebook from all your data.

[Scot Dutchy]

Don't be silly. A judge can't 'do anything he likes'.

In Scots law he can. It is common unwritten law. I did study Scots Law when I was a policeman. The systems are totally different.
There is no case law. Every offence stands on its own. You English could never understand. In Scots law you have a third verdict: Not Proven. There 15 people in a jury. Majority is sufficient but you will find no act of law where this is stated. One witness is never enough. I could go on and on.

[Scot Dutchy]

Yeah they can. Just like facebook can get all your data even if you block facebook from all your data.

Having a head fart. Be careful.

[Rum]

Don't be silly. A judge can't 'do anything he likes'.

In Scots law he can. It is common unwritten law. I did study Scots Law when I was a policeman. The systems are totally different.
There is no case law. Every offence stands on its own. You English could never understand. In Scots law you have a third verdict: Not Proven. There 15 people in a jury. Majority is sufficient but you will find no act of law where this is stated. One witness is never enough. I could go on and on.

'Could'? You do.

[Forty Two]

Rainbow -- Edit/delete [thought better of responding at all - not worth it]

[Forty Two]

Don't be silly. A judge can't 'do anything he likes'.

In Scots law he can. It is common unwritten law. I did study Scots Law when I was a policeman. The systems are totally different.
There is no case law. Every offence stands on its own. You English could never understand. In Scots law you have a third verdict: Not Proven. There 15 people in a jury. Majority is sufficient but you will find no act of law where this is stated. One witness is never enough. I could go on and on.

Since they have an appellate system, where higher judges reverse lower judges for committing errors in thier decisions, it would seem that they can't "do anything they like."

[Scot Dutchy]

They dont. Put your rotten US law system in the round filing bin where it belongs. Nowhere is so corrupt and dont even try to compare.

[Forty Two]

You know nothing about the US legal system, that much is obvious. You're just ethnocentric and xenophobic - everything is better where you are, and worse everywhere else.

And, they do have an appeals system. The Sheriffs Court of Appeal hears appeals from summary criminal proceedings in the sheriff courts and justice of the peace courts, and hears appeals on bail decisions made in solemn proceedings in the sheriff court. The Sheriff Appeal Court also hears appeals in civil cases from the sheriff courts, including the Sheriff Personal Injury Court.

An appeal is a an, well, appeal to a higher court to find that the lower court made the wrong decision, based on whatever law or standard is applicable. Thus, there are times in Scotland where a judge makes a decision, and is told he can't "do whatever he wants to do" because the higher judge reverses his decision. Some appeals there can still go to the Inner House of the Court of Session (Supreme Court of Scotland), so they can reverse decisions brought to them too. What do these appeals entail? Rubber stamping the trial judge?

And, you're sitting here criticizing a legal system, suggesting that a better legal system would be one that lets a judge "do whatever he wants to do?" A judge that can "do whatever he wants to do" is a recipe for lawlessness, and a recipe for the preservation of error. The whole idea of having a court is to interpret and apply the law to given fact situations, given cases. Where a court does something, intentionally, unintentionally, whatever, any sane system has a mechanism to review the decisions and rectify errors.

In the US civil system, for example, a court can make a ruling, but if the ruling is wrong or thought to be wrong, the party can make a motion for reconsideration or for rehearing, depending on the circumstances, and the court can correct its own error. There are mechanisms to disqualify a judge who has shown bias or some other cause to remove the judge from the case and get a new judge. Then there are appellate mechanisms, where an appeal is allowed to a "court of appeal" which reviews the judge's decisions for errors of law and for misapplication of the fact and evidence, etc. And, the decisions of appellate courts can often be appealed to state supreme courts, and some of those decisions can be appealed to the US supreme court for ultimate determination. In federal court, there's a trial court, and a court of appeals, and then a chance to bring cases to the Supreme Court which in most cases takes appeals by discretion, not right.

So, there are levels of courts which can try to correct error. Nobody would assume that a judge cannot make mistakes, cannot be biased, and cannot be otherwise in the wrong. Or, I guess, only someone who thinks that their own culture is immune from such things, and walks on water, would think that.

[Rum]

A decent summary. Scot may be a tad out of touch considering how long ago he fled his home country. In 2015 the Sherrifs Appeal court was established. For the purpose of appeals obviously against in part judges who think they can do anything they like.

In practice of course it is often the clerk of the court who tells the judiciary what they can and can’t do in terms of disposals. When I did court duty in my stint in Youth Offending one would often see a clerk leaping to their feet and whispering urgently into (in this case) a magistrate’s ear, clearly informing them that flogging and keel hauling were no longer in fashion...

[Scot Dutchy]

That is only the Sheriffs Court. The High Court is just that. The judge there is his own law and master.
I worked there on and off in the days the police organised the court now civil servants do it.

[Forty Two]

So, judges there can't do "whatever they want," and they are subject to review, except the highest court, which has no review mechanism in place?

[Rum]

There's an excellent summary of the system in Scotland if you follow thr link below. Nowhere does it appear to say a judge can 'do whatever they want'.

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/16 ... -Structure

[Scot Dutchy]

There's an excellent summary of the system in Scotland if you follow thr link below. Nowhere does it appear to say a judge can 'do whatever they want'.

http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/16 ... -Structure

Already read it. We are talking about High Court judges. Of course it is not written that he can do anything but it is common law. Contempt of court is a big thing. He has the ultimate power in his court.