The Canons of evidence - 'Not in the public interest'

[traderfluff]

Sarah you can add this knowledge to ACTIVITY 6: Expressing values ...

[Geronimo]

No. Those judgments are made on a heirarchy basis: Higher courts' prior decisions (COMMON LAW) are binding on the lower courts... And the ECHR is binding on all courts except itself.

Having said that, Judges are NOT there to decide what will or will not be decided upon. The adversaries are there to present EVIDENCE to the judge and THAT is what he or she uses to determine the judgment. If an advocate or LIP does not cite appropriate case law/precedent, then that will not be used by the judge in determining the outcome.

You have to be "in it to win it"

determine the judgment

Isn't that then deciding the case or at least interpreting it to their own satisfaction/whim regarding what they have been presented with.
A judge doing this might seem to be saying....here is a set of rules you have to use and remain in, some you might know others you might not, but that's up to you, now act out a case for me using these rules and ill decide which one i think deserves to win. Or sums up to the jury in such a way as to let them know what they should be coming back with. All rules can be bent.

[bodge]

Common Law comes from the fact that many of the laws here are made by judges in individual legal cases and also known as "case law" because it comes from "judicial opinion" in individual cases. It is a "DIFFERENT "SOURCE" of law than legislative law.

[State-Property]

Isn't that then deciding the case or at least interpreting it to their own satisfaction/whim regarding what they have been presented with.

Yes. That's the whole point of having a judge!

[State-Property]

It is a "DIFFERENT "SOURCE" of law than legislative law.

No necessarily! Judges have a strict heirarchy of HOW they should interpret statute, and in what order they should apply that heirarchy. That interpretation/judgment then becomes case law (which is what is called Common Law). So, common law judgments can come about as a result of interpretation of legislation x

[Geronimo]

Isn't that then deciding the case or at least interpreting it to their own satisfaction/whim regarding what they have been presented with.

Yes. That's the whole point of having a judge!

Im not sure that IS the whole point of having a judge.

[State-Property]

so what is?

[Geronimo]

so what is?

Perhaps to make sure that any verdict is the one that is within the agreed parameters by those who must be obeyed.

[traderfluff]

how do dogs bark G.

[Thomas]

so what is?

The whole point originally of having a judge was to have someone well trained and capable in the Law, whilst all other people were "all" supposed to learn too (People could then see more readily if "any one" was perverting it) then the whole of that society would live in more harmony and encourage other societies to do likewise when they saw the benefits of it compared to their mad and corrupt way of society.

But they started to pervert it (the Law) for their own gain. Then really it was then superseded by no judges etc, as the right was taken away from them, and all people were to learn and judge for themselves in the Law (and being shown by example by someone very famous). But this didn't suit the Judges Rabbis priests politicians, so the whole tradition of Judges etc continued for thousands of years and hence all the corruption, lies, misrepresentation and wars, etc etc.


There is also a "sign" in that too