Our legal system Home
The
Star Chamber
In 1487 the English court became a judicial body separate from the
king's council, with a mandate to hear petitions of redress. Court sessions were
held in secret, with no right of appeal, and punishment was swift and severe. In
1641 the Long Parliament abolished the hated Star Chamber, though its name
survives still to designate arbitrary, secretive proceedings in opposition to
personal rights and liberty. The Star Chamber could order
Torture, Prison and Fines and there was no appeal from the Star Chamber.
A good story to the star chamber judge could
get your enemy tortured, imprisoned and fined. You
could even have your own wife burnt as a witch.
The
European Witch-Hunts, c. 1450-1750
For three centuries of early modern European
history, diverse societies were consumed by a panic over alleged witches in
their midst. Witch-hunts, especially in Central Europe, resulted in the trial,
torture, and execution of tens of thousands of victims, about three-quarters of
whom were women. Arguably, neither before nor since have adult European women
been selectively targeted for such large scale atrocities.
The rule of law was introduced to
limit the improper use of the legal system.
The rule of law is the principle that governmental
authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly
disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural
steps that are referred to as due
process. Due process (more fully due process of law) is the
principle that the government must respect all of a person's legal rights,
instead of just some or most of those legal rights, when the government deprives
a person of life, liberty, or property. Procedural justice concerns the fairness
and the transparency of the processes by which decisions are made
Applying
the law to the facts? (What courts are supposed to do)
I would estimate, from observations, this happens about
70% of the time.
Courts are hiding their miscarriages of justice by being secretive. The
Courts must be open and accountable to guarantee everyone gets their fair
hearing with the law being properly applied to the full honest accurate
facts. There are many Acts which are now conducted in secret and these
include Family Court, Peace and Good behaviour, Domestic Violence, Mental
Health and Guardianship. In Queensland courts the Justices Act applies and
the only people entitled to the transcripts are those who have an interest
in them and that is at the discretion of the Registrar. Much of the legal
workload is now being conducted by Tribunals where the laws of evidence do
not apply and are secret. The noble principles of the Rule of Law have been
eroded.
There are three sections of law and they work differently.
There is the Civil Legal System, the Criminal Legal System and Tribunals.
How trials are conducted is defined in The
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Rules and The
Criminal Procedure Rules
respectively. Tribunals are very close to a star chamber and
have no, or, next to no rules. An example of a Tribunal System coming to
Queensland soon under Labor is VCAT.
Due
Process - Procedural
Fairness requires: See: The
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and The
Criminal Procedure Rules
That the Defendant knows the charge against them.
That the Defendant is afforded an opportunity to prepare a defense.
That the Defendant knows the case against them, they are given the
evidence they have to defend themselves from. In criminal this is the Police
brief.
That there is no surprise caused to the defendant. This means that any
evidence held back and kept secret and in surprise cannot be used in a trial
because it would cause surprise.
The Law of evidence applies. See the Evidence Act at www.legislation.qld.gov.au
The evidence has to be sworn to or affirmed, which
can invoke the penalty of perjury when it is deliberately falsely given.
Only that which was witnessed at the time of the
event is evidence.
Hearsay - What someone was told is not
evidence.
Malice - That which would cause the defendant
to suffer prejudice is also not allowed.
The evidence can be contested - this means the
witnesses can be cross examined.
Both sides are given Justice - their right to be heard.
Both sides have the right of appeal to a higher judge.
The Civil Legal System - Here the Plaintiff, the
person with the claim asks the Judge for something from the defendant. The
test is on the balance of probability. The claim is nearly always for money
but can also be for some performance (the doing / or not doing of something).
The Uniform Civil
Procedure Rules apply (note section 444).
The Judge looks down upon the Plaintiff with two questions:
What do you want? What you want
from the Judge is an order from the Judge and what that order is, is defined
in the Application and statement of claim. The Judge is asked
a question and has to give an answer to that question. It is important to
properly define the order(s) sought. They have to be very clear and
precise.
Why should I give it to you? Why
you should get it requires the law to be applied to the facts. This is
covered with a legal submission which summarises the law as it should
be applied to the facts, yes you tell the Judge how to suck eggs - how to do
his job. The facts are defined in affidavit(s). An affidavit
should obey the laws of evidence in that it should be restricted to what the
person swearing the affidavit actually witnessed. Where there are documents
attached to the Affidavit the documents are not evidence. What is important
on the documents needs to be said again in the affidavit to make it
evidence. Evidence is that which is sworn or attested to. The documents are
only there to support the evidence provided on the Affidavit.
Telling a lie
on an affidavit is perjury and the courts place themselves as most
important. Perjury is considered to be a crime against the court so the penalty is
high, equal to murder.
Trouble is:
Judges never do anything about perjury so people get
away with telling lies on their affidavits.
Cheating in courts is
done on the evidence.
The evidence is where lies are told.
The Judge interferes with the evidence by refusing to allow one side to present
the evidence that will show they should win or should not lose.
Judge deliberately misinterprets the evidence for the benefit of one
party. This happens when Judges are corrupt. Often afterwards Legal Aid
is lobbied so that there will not be aid given to support an appeal. The
Judge will say that they find the evidence given by one side to lack
credibility and then dismiss their evidence totally. Result: a false
conviction can occur.
Cheating is
also done by making applications such as: that the Plaintiff's statement of
claim be dismissed as showing no cause of action, or that it is an abuse of
process of the court, or it is frivolous and vexatious or ... . This
application is supported by an affidavit where it is claimed things like
harassment or some improper conduct has been occurring and that this
application is a continuation of that improper conduct. Here lies on
affidavit can win a reprieve for the guilty.
The Plaintiff is caught by surprise
without an answer and his application is dismissed with costs against
him.
Solicitor for one party is bought in some back room deal. To
ensure his party loses he does not put all the evidence into the court and
will make it cost his party too much or force a settlement.
Costs may be too high. Solicitors can be unscrupulous and will take
advantage of their clients by increasing the costs with unnecessary delay,
unnecessary letters, over charging and the like. The remedy becomes
unaffordable.
The court record can be falsified.
Documents get changed or removed from the file so that the decision made
appears to be the "correct" decision on the evidence. False
evidence equals false conviction.
The Remedy is the Appeals Process.
There are two types of appeals.
1. A Rehearing of the facts. This means another trial in a higher
court.
2. A Higher Court Judge makes the determination "That with the evidence
before him could the lower court Judge reasonably made the decision he made.
The appeal has two elements to it, the facts
and the law.
A Judge can err by giving undue weight to the evidence, or in someway
restricting the evidence presented to the court.
A Judge can err in law by not applying the correct law to the facts or not
applying the law correctly to the facts.
3. If there is new evidence an application has to be made to the Judge to
allow the new evidence and it has to be evidence that was not available at
the time of the trial. You cannot call a witness to give evidence if that
witness could have been called at the time of the earlier trial.
How they cheat on Appeal
The transcripts can get edited. A record is kept on who gets what
transcript. It is important to get in quickly and order the transcript and
pay for it as this will minimise interference with the transcript. They
write simple things like ..... & incoherent in place of the important things.
The Solicitor will ask for some exorbitant fee up front at the last moment
and make you abandon the appeal.
If you have Legal Aid, they will be lobbied to deny you legal aid for an
appeal.
Criminal Legal System - The Police charge someone,
the defendant, with a crime and the defendant then has the job of defending
themselves from the charges in a court.
The Criminal Procedure
Rules apply
To commit a crime one must do two things:
1. Something
defined by law as a crime. This means there is an Act of Parliament such as the
Crimes Act, the Traffic Act, Vagrancy Act etc. where the thing that has been
done is defined.
2. Have intended to do the thing. Killing someone is
only murder if there is the intention to kill someone, it could have been an
accident. If the death occurs from a deliberate act of harm, but there was no
intent to kill the person, then the crime is manslaughter. I saw a woman be
found not guilty when she was caught by Police doing 90 in a 60 zone and
admitted to doing the 90. Her defense was that she had just bought the car, a
sports car, and the speedometer was in error by 30km/hr. She had a mechanic give
evidence that he had fixed the speedometer. She said she did not realize she was
speeding and because it was a new sports car she had expected the sensation of
speed so did not notice she was speeding. Her defense was that she did not
intend to speed and this defense was accepted as proven by the Magistrate.
Defendants
have the right to know the case they have to answer. This is called the brief of
evidence.
Police get innocent people convictions by:-
Fabricating
evidence - they can make up the evidence and lie to the court
They can
tutor witnesses for the prosecution and teach them the lies they have to
tell to the court.
They can improperly or incompletely investigate and in
the process lose or not collect the evidence that would show the defendant
is not guilty.
Where there is a dispute Police will only look at what
will get them a conviction and ignore all the other crimes the defendant
suffered. They turn victims into perpetrators when the victim acts irrationally
and with desperation from a desperate position.
Solicitors have taken an
oath to the court, they are "officers of the court". This means they will not bring the court into disrepute. So
if a prosecution witness is lying a Solicitor will not show that witness up for
lying as there is the view that this will bring the prosecution and thus the
court into disrepute.
Magistrates are biased for the Police. When the Police lie their
evidence is considered credible and because what they say is in conflict
with the Defendant's evidence the Defendant's evidence is found to lack
credibility. A large chunk, (all) of the defendant's evidence is dismissed and then
not considered. Thus the Defendant is found guilty.
Magistrates and Judges refuse to allow defense to lead
evidence that may mitigate the crime.
When they do this they remove evidence of self defense or
impairment that could go to the defendant's lack of intent.
The court record can be falsified.
Documents get changed or removed from the file so that the decision made
appears to be the "correct" decision on the evidence. False
evidence equals false conviction.
When Police witnesses perjure themselves they are never
charged. Police will never
prosecute their own witnesses.
The High Court has made law which states:
If a prosecution witness is
charged with perjury this could cause the courts a problem because when
people hear about it they may not willingly come forward to give evidence.
Because of this no perjuring Police witnesses are ever charged with perjury.
The Appeal process is flawed as it is in answer to the Question "With
the evidence before him could the Judge / Magistrate have reasonably made
his decision". When evidence is with held from the court that proves
innocence that evidence is never considered and innocent people are made
guilty and punished for crimes they did not commit.
The Remedy is the Appeals Process.
A Higher Court Judge makes the determination "That with the evidence
before him could the lower court Judge reasonably made the decision he made.
The appeal has two elements to it, the facts
and the law.
A Judge can err by giving undue weight to the evidence, or in someway
restricting the evidence presented to the court.
A Judge can err in law by not applying the correct law to the facts or not
applying the law correctly to the facts.
3. If there is new evidence an application has to be made to the Judge to
allow the new evidence and it has to be evidence that was not available at
the time of the trial. You cannot call a witness to give evidence if that
witness could have been called at the time of the earlier trial.
How they cheat on your Appeal
The transcripts can get edited. A record is kept on who gets what transcript. It
is important to get in quickly and order the transcript and pay for it as this
will minimise interference with the transcript. They say simple things like
..... & obscure in place of the important things.
The Solicitor will ask for some exorbitant fee up front at the last moment and
make you abandon the appeal.
If you have Legal Aid, they will be lobbied to deny you legal aid for an appeal.
How
to fix the legal system:
1. Deal with Police who cheat by sacking them. They bring courts into disrepute.
When it can be clearly shown that a Police Officer has
lied to a court he is instantly sacked from the Police Force. Instant dismissal
is a must. Once a perjurer always a perjurer.
When a Police Officer has been caught out three times with his witnesses lying
to a court he must be instantly sacked from the Police Force. It is the duty of
a Police Officer to know his case and to know that his witnesses are telling the
truth.
2. Properly investigate any claims made by the defendant in relation to the
crimes of others against him or others, that may have led up to his situation.
Often people act defensively and may commit crime in their
own self defense. This needs to be considered. People can become distressed,
irrational and misguided. When Police take sides and only seek to get a
conviction they are being unfair and this needs correction. A proper
investigation will require another Police Officer from another section of the
Police to be assigned the investigation initiated by the defendant. People can
be set up by others and when they lack the resources to properly investigate can
go down because of the malice of others.
3. The Court's case manager should collect the evidence and ensure it is
complete and manage the file for both the prosecution and defendant. The
power of the court needs to be exerted to improve the honesty of the process.
The case manager should be able to call on the Court Police to investigate where
there might be impropriety, perjury or miscarriage of justice.
4. Legislation should have an easy reading summary of the Act placed on
the internet with the Act so relevant sections are easy for citizens to find and
understand.
5. Include with court forms on the internet examples showing how to present a
case with the relevant forms to make it easier for the citizen to be self
represented.
6. Judges should be charged with applying the law to the facts. Allowing
solicitors to tell the Judge how to do his job is a Judge failing in his duty as
a judge. The Judge should know the law and should be able to advise the parties
of the Acts and precedence he will rely on to decide the case. We want better
from our judges. When the Court's case manager has the evidence the Judge
is given an opportunity to prepare by identifying the laws which apply.
7. Prosecution witnesses who perjure themselves should be dealt with properly.
An Act of Parliament is required to introduce this as a crime and over ride the
Judge made law. People should not be getting convicted and jailed by malicious
witnesses.
8. Limits have to be placed on Judges so they can not so readily exclude
evidence that may mitigate the crime. Judges can too readily refuse evidence of
self defense. Evidence refused must be detailed so it can be used in an appeal
if required by the defendant.
9. Create a court Police service to investigate crimes against the court.
Investigate and prosecute cases where the courts could have been used improperly
or lied to.
10. Courts are to be open and accountable. Privacy legislation
should not apply to courts because it gives an opportunity to cover up
miscarriages of justice. transcripts should be published for all to see and the
media should not be excluded. The Justices Act which limits the access to the
transcripts to those who have an interest in the case at the discretion of the
Registrar is wrong.
Please
blog your inputs and ideas. We really need courts to properly apply the
law to an honest and complete set of facts. The Justice system needs
improvement.
The worst injustice is the injustice of the courts being added to the
injustice suffered by the victims.