Ministry of Injustice

[totally_pennyless]

Hi all,

 

I have to say the civil/tribunal legal systems seem completely in favour of the rich or resourceful.

 

I have brought discrimination claims in the past and I have found that the burden of proof is almost impossible to satisfy on occasion partly due to the fact that Defendants/Respondents are more than happy to perjure themselves as I have personally experienced on multiple occasions.

 

I have also found that judges bend over backwards for the party that has the most resources to challenge their decision(s) (in most cases that would be an employer or small and medium-sized businesses/organisations)

 

If you are living in poverty you have little to no access to justice.

 

Just my thoughts.

[Consumer dude]

I agree with you. It should not be called ministry of justice as to me this is at times not factual. Better for it to be called ministry of law as this sounds more correct..

[Ganymede]

I agree, but you not being able to afford a lawyer isn't the Courts fault. Blame the last few governments for that.

[Peterbard]

Hi all,

 

I have to say the civil/tribunal legal systems seem completely in favour of the rich or resourceful.

 

I have brought discrimination claims in the past and I have found that the burden of proof is almost impossible to satisfy on occasion partly due to the fact that Defendants/Respondents are more than happy to perjure themselves as I have personally experienced on multiple occasions.

 

I have also found that judges bend over backwards for the party that has the most resources to challenge their decision(s) (in most cases that would be an employer or small and medium-sized businesses/organisations)

 

If you are living in poverty you have little to no access to justice.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

I have found that many times the impoverished amongst us expect that their rights to exceed those of the "rich and powerful".

They do not of course, there is nothing written that says if you have money your rights to have property returned or money owed to you repaid, is less.

 

That is why before going to court you must ensure your pleadings rely on what is prescribed within the law

[Consumer dude]

If one is vulnerable because of financial restriction and may rely on others for help via way of legal assistance which cost money, then one is not exactly on an equal footing, and yes that's tough on the poor..

[totally_pennyless]

I have found that many times the impoverished amongst us expect that their rights to exceed those of the "rich and powerful".

They do not of course, there is nothing written that says if you have money your rights to have property returned or money owed to you repaid, is less.

 

That is why before going to court you must ensure your pleadings rely on what is prescribed within the law

 

The law is the problem in that Judges has been prescribed far too much discretion.

 

I do not expect more favourable treatment than the rich but merely to be put on an equal footing.

[totally_pennyless]

I agree, but you not being able to afford a lawyer isn't the Courts fault. Blame the last few governments for that.

 

Indeed it's the fault of the government (Ministry of 'Justice') and, in part, greedy bankers.

[totally_pennyless]

If one is vulnerable because of financial restriction and may rely on others for help via way of legal assistance which cost money, then one is not exactly on an equal footing, and yes that's tough on the poor..

 

Even more tough on the poor and disabled.

 

We all know what the government recently proposed in terms of cutting Personal Independence Payment (PIP). Not much consideration for the vulnerable there.

[legalistic]

In my view there are two main reasons the poor/unrepresented tend to get a raw deal in court. The first is simply that they are not trained in the law. A lawyer will almost always know the law better. The second is something that hardly anyone thinks about, viz the judge's position.

 

If a judge has before him a LIP and a lawyer whatever the merits it will be a professional risk for the judge to find in favour of the LIP. Why? It's because the lawyer will appeal and almost certainly succeed. Result, humiliation for the judge. Now, if the LIP appeals he will almost certainly fail and the judge's decision/professional position is maintained. If a county court judge gets overturned in the high court too many times s/he can get sacked. It certainly happens. A high court judge has much better protection as the matter has to go to Parliament.

 

To the best of my knowledge no high court judge has ever been sacked however the odd one has been persuaded to fall on his sword. In the county court there are political factors at work too. There is normally a district judge (DJ) and a circuit judge (CJ) working in the said court. Appeals from the former go to the latter. However CJs can feel beholden to the DJs who regularly do the court's donkey work. CJs simply don't want to humiliate them.

 

Accordingly, if you lose before a DJ and wish to appeal it is best that it was a deputy district judge (basically a freelance) because a CJ will find it easier to overturn a stranger. There are politics too in the high court. In the Court of Appeal, which sees lots of LIPs, when they are refused permission to appeal (PTA) on the papers they often ask to go before a different judge the next time. That is a mistake in my view as you never know the politics or the seniority of the lord justices. Much safer to try to get before the same judge again and with added material. That said LIPs don't normally get a choice.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Andyorch
Paragraphs added

[totally_pennyless]

In my view there are two main reasons the poor/unrepresented tend to get a raw deal in court. The first is simply that they are not trained in the law. A lawyer will almost always know the law better. The second is something that hardly anyone thinks about, viz the judge's position.

 

If a judge has before him a LIP and a lawyer whatever the merits it will be a professional risk for the judge to find in favour of the LIP. Why? It's because the lawyer will appeal and almost certainly succeed. Result, humiliation for the judge. Now, if the LIP appeals he will almost certainly fail and the judge's decision/professional position is maintained. If a county court judge gets overturned in the high court too many times s/he can get sacked. It certainly happens. A high court judge has much better protection as the matter has to go to Parliament.

 

To the best of my knowledge no high court judge has ever been sacked however the odd one has been persuaded to fall on his sword. In the county court there are political factors at work too. There is normally a district judge (DJ) and a circuit judge (CJ) working in the said court. Appeals from the former go to the latter. However CJs can feel beholden to the DJs who regularly do the court's donkey work. CJs simply don't want to humiliate them.

 

Accordingly, if you lose before a DJ and wish to appeal it is best that it was a deputy district judge (basically a freelance) because a CJ will find it easier to overturn a stranger. There are politics too in the high court. In the Court of Appeal, which sees lots of LIPs, when they are refused permission to appeal (PTA) on the papers they often ask to go before a different judge the next time. That is a mistake in my view as you never know the politics or the seniority of the lord justices. Much safer to try to get before the same judge again and with added material. That said LIPs don't normally get a choice.

 

Indeed. Very sad but true it seems.

[totally_pennyless]

According to this article 83% of lawyers believe justice is no longer accessible to all:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/nov/23/appeal-court-judge-horrified-number-litigants-without-lawyers

[Consumer dude]

True justice, like true democracy appears to be a myth and yet your money is still needed to maintain control..

[totally_pennyless]

True justice, like true democracy appears to be a myth and yet your money is still needed to maintain control.

 

Indeed.

[totally_pennyless]

Knowing how much these judges earn is enough to make your eyes water too:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209683/judicial-salaries-schedule-13-14.pdf

[totally_pennyless]

Another interesting article:

 

http://www.hja.net/press-releases/damning-new-statistics-denounce-unfair-confusing-and-inaccessible-uk-justice-system/

[totally_pennyless]

These stats are hardly a positive reflection:

 

http://www.hja.net/wp-content/uploads/HJA_UNJUST_KINGDOM.pdf

[BazzaS]

Knowing how much these judges earn is enough to make your eyes water too:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209683/judicial-salaries-schedule-13-14.pdf

 

Even so, £100k is likely a pay cut for a high flying corporate partner.

 

Do you want judges pay to attract the best & brightest, and allow them to remain impartial?

 

Or would you prefer that the judiciary attract only the less able, and mean that they might be subject to financial pressures??

[totally_pennyless]

Even so, £100k is likely a pay cut for a high flying corporate partner.

 

Do you want judges pay to attract the best & brightest, and allow them to remain impartial?

 

Or would you prefer that the judiciary attract only the less able, and mean that they might be subject to financial pressures??

 

All I want is some ethical behaviour amongst judges. Without solid ethics engrained firmly in the minds of judges the justice system is simply not fit for purpose regardless of salaries.

 

Earning over 100k a year is hardly being put under financial pressure.

[BazzaS]

All I want is some ethical behaviour amongst judges. Without solid ethics engrained firmly in the minds of judges the justice system is simply not fit for purpose regardless of salaries.

 

Earning over 100k a year is hardly being put under financial pressure.

 

Zooom ..... The sound of my previous post flying well over your head.

 

So, you want them to take (let's say 50k?)

 

That might leave them open to financial pressure.

It also would mean many more able (and ethical) lawyers won't leave private practice despite wanting to provide an able and ethical judiciary, because they can't afford to do so.

 

So, what are you proposing other than your unrealistic expectation?

What do you suggest judges should be paid that will still attract the able & ethical, and not leave them open to financial pressure?

[totally_pennyless]

Zooom ..... The sound of my previous post flying well over your head.

 

So, you want them to take (let's say 50k?)

 

That might leave them open to financial pressure.

It also would mean many more able (and ethical) lawyers won't leave private practice despite wanting to provide an able and ethical judiciary, because they can't afford to do so.

 

So, what are you proposing other than your unrealistic expectation?

What do you suggest judges should be paid that will still attract the able & ethical, and not leave them open to financial pressure?

 

I think you will find that those 'ethical' lawyers you refer to aren't as ethical as you might think. Most lawyers in private practice deliberately draw out litigation to increase their turnover. Indeed I was recently told this by a lawyer who left the private sector for this very reason.

[totally_pennyless]

All I am saying is that, in general terms and as seemingly agreed on this thread, if the taxpayer has to pay in excess of 100k per year for a district/circuit judge then one would expect some ethical behaviour.