Humblemans Appeal –please Read Post #1 Before Posting

[lilly white]

It is interesting the term technical it may be that the law is technical however if we have laws god for bid that we know the law

 

So yes the judge has missed directed her self in the sense that the law is not technical just she does not want to up hold it.

[Bill Shidding]

Hi Humbleman, I can appreciate all the hard work and research you put in to your case. To have all that toil swept aside by a blinkered judge is initially soul-destroying (I know only too well). It will make your resolve stronger though, I guarantee it.

 

In the meantime, here is something (relevant) for you to read -

 

"the Court of Appeal ruled that if there was evidence of “an apparent bias” (meaning a possible bias), then inconvenience, costs and delay in finding a substitute judge were not acceptable reasons for the original judge continuing to preside"

 

Linky here-

The Law Explored: judicial bias - Times Online

 

All the best,

Bill

[humbleman]

Bill

 

Thanks, very interesting. Would like opinions on how I can best use this in my appeal. Do I even need to appeal, is there any other avenue to put this aside using this bias.

[smouk]

Subbing with great interest - good luck with this one HM!

[Bill Shidding]

Hi Humbleman, here is something else -

 

"There are many examples of cases in which the impartiality of a court, tribunal or arbitrator has been challenged. The House of Lords has held that overriding consideration to be taken into account is "....... whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased (Lord Hope in Porter v. Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357, HL(E) at para 103). The practical application of this test in the context of a complaint that an employment tribunal chairman was biased would be to say "If it would appear to a reasonably informed bystander that the Chairman was showing favour to one side unfairly as against the other, the Chairman would have acted in breach of [his][her] duty"

 

I know this relates to an employment tribunal, but surely all courts would need to adhere to some kind of standard?

 

Linky here -

Bias

 

As your DJ did not imply that her preliminary findings were "provisional only" then her statement(s) would have given your proceedings somewhat of an "uneven keel" don't you think?

 

Just to add, you have asked whether retaining a solicitor or counsel from the same firms that represent the banks is a good idea. I would go a small step further and say, as DJs and DDJs are usually still practising solicitors or barristers, how can anyone be sure that your DJ hasn't represented banks in the past (maybe even your claimant). More importantly, isn't currently representing your claimant elsewhere? How would anyone know?

 

Bill

Edited January 24, 2010 by Bill Shidding

[humbleman]

She is actually a circuit Judge

[Bill Shidding]

She is actually a circuit Judge

 

Shame there is no way to check her previous clients or whether she still holds down "a second job"

[DonkeyB]

Humbleman and VJ could, as they know her name, but I think it's a red herring. There's a distinction between prejudice and bias. Stick to the points of law and nothing else, because only points of law and procedure will be considered in an appeal. Questioning the integrity of a judge is not the way to go in an appeal if you want to win.

 

It was her prejudice that caused her interpretation of the law to be incorrect, in my view, but the appeal has to be based on her failure to apply the law correctly - the prejudice is a sideshow (albeit an important one).

 

For example, you can claim that the judge has misdirected herself - your evidence for this is that her statements make it clear that she believed you to be avoiding debt and not to have presented evidence, points you can refute easily. An appeal judge will clearly note the prejudice, but you will have presented it as a problem of law. It's a subtle difference, but an important one.

 

The prejudice issue is a matter for complaint, made through other channels. I queried in an earlier post whether there's anything to stop you making a complaint at the same time as an appeal, but clearly the appeal must take precedence.

 

Fairness doesn't come in to it, sadly.

[fairclaire]

I have read this and your other post with great interest humbleman and have had nothing useful to add thus far, so I haven't.

 

I see your argument as a relatively simple one. This was a moral judgement and not a legal one. The judge made an assumption on your morality and that deviated her from sticking to the law.

 

I have experienced this argument to be enough a. to have judgements set aside and b. as valid reasons for appeal. Albeit in different types of circumstances, but the law is the law nevertheless and judges are paid for and expected to abide by it.

 

Prejudice is a strong word, morality is slightly more subtle but still gets the message accross

 

I wish you good luck and will be following with interest

[foolishgirl]

IMO, Bill's points & links will be very useful when it comes to making a complaint about the judge, but I agree with DB, stick with points of law for your appeal HM.

 

Whilst this judge may have shown bias, to get anywhere on allegations of mistrial, IMO you would also have to show that she had a financial (or similar) interest in the claimant. By implication this should have included any past or current pecuniary reward from representing that client, in which case she should have stepped down.

[seriously fed up]

sorry dont agree entirely. I think we would all agree that if the judge had a direct and personal (eg financial) interest, she should have stood down. That though would be determined in quite a restrictive way. If she had an interest in HFC that would disqualify her (I think), but not if she had shares in RBS (as if she would be that stupid).

I think we could all agree we all have prejudices - some people support Arsenal, while others prefer Chelsea to take just one example - there are some things we like and others that we dont. We all draw distinctions, sometimes in ways that lack rationality. That is part of being human, and judges are affected by this in the same way as the rest of us (yes, judges are human - good humans? Discuss). However their job is to apply the law in a detached and professional way, not to begin a case from the perspective of "I hate debtors". This isnt a unique problem for anyone who has come into contact with the judiciary. Griffith's book "The Politics of the Judiciary" set all that out more than 30 years ago now. However in most of the cases that Griffiths refers to what the judge did was to take the law and apply it in a way that was not inconsistent with the words on the page, even if it was not what Parliament intended (for instance that while inducing a trade dispute - a strike - was protected, the threat of this was not - Rookes v Barnard 1965). What they did not do, was to make clear their distaste and then bring down a judgement which simply ignored the words on the page, which, it seems to me they did with Humbleman. The degree of personal prejudice that was applied in this case was not only unacceptable, it was frightening.

[Bill Shidding]

I agree that Humbleman should concentrate on the mis-interpreted facts of law in any appeal. I would also keep in reserve the lady Judges strong objectivity to the defence. The whole point of being called a "Judge" is to keep personal thoughts seperate from the law. ie being subjective.

Her words hardly convey subjectivity or any doubt as to her personal viewpoint. I repeat that if her preliminary findings were not labelled as "provisional" then on the "balance of probabilities" any argument was lost before the hearing started.

Our judiciary is purportedly the envy of the world, until you scratch the surface, allegedly.

 

Bill

[DonkeyB]

Humbleman, you must feel it's flying in from all directions here!

 

I think we all know what went on, but most people here seem to agree that you have to be a bit stoic - put the unfairness and unjustness aside and concentrate on building the legal case. I think the input from your barrister will really crystallise things. After all, the rest of us are rank amateurs!

[humbleman]

Humbleman, you must feel it's flying in from all directions here!

I think the input from your barrister will really crystallise things. After all, the rest of us are rank amateurs!

 

When I manage to get one, of the 6 I approached (who have knowledge of CCA)

 

1 on holiday

2 not direct access

2 several calls and emails no response.

1 wants 3K just to read up things and won't accept electronic files more

than 10 pages.

[DonkeyB]

HM, have a look at this, post 74 by diddydicky. That's the kind of judge you need - hopefully a quick read will give you a bit of confidence in the judiciary. There are some strong similarities with your case evidence, but not in the judge's conduct.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/241827-legal-action-how-start-4.html#post2724036

[humbleman]

How appropriate

 

Deputy Judge Smart.

[patrickq1]

appeal, re-opening of. Where there are exceptional circumstances (eg, allegation of judge’s bias), CA possesses power to re-open an appeal which has already been determined: Taylor v Lawrence (2002) 152 NLJ 22i. For ‘bias’, see Porter v Magill [2002] 1 All ER 465.

also the evidence you had already submitted to both the court albeit late evidence had already been submitted to the OC this they cannot deny it was an oversight on your part not again bringing it to the fore ...

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

This is the html version of the file http://www.adminlaw.org.uk/docs/James%20Maurici%20-%20July%202007.doc.

[humbleman]

don't forget to look into this one, result in today

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/244025-delfi101-et-al-weightmans.html#post2724336

[foolishgirl]

don't forget to look into this one, result in today

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/244025-delfi101-et-al-weightmans.html#post2724336

 

Just show HM, that sometimes justice does prevail & it took delfi 3 years to get this result! Just keep plodding..

[patrickq1]

fantastic result as i said on delfi thread you could do with the summary and a witness statement if thats allowed ,that would certainly stuff them huh

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

The Law Explored: judicial bias - Times Online

[Ruprecht]

don't forget to look into this one, result in today

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/244025-delfi101-et-al-weightmans.html#post2724336

 

Why not try and get that barrister? Or at least the skeleton argument from the cagger if you are going it aone.

[humbleman]

Why not try and get that barrister? Or at least the skeleton argument from the cagger if you are going it aone.

 

Trying

[diddydicky]

oops