Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Is the UK judiciary independent and neutral?

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 5:33:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What the topic says, basically:

Is the UK judiciary independent and neutral?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 8:53:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 5:33:54 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What the topic says, basically:

Is the UK judiciary independent and neutral?:

I don't know enough about their judicial system.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 10:55:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 5:33:54 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What the topic says, basically:

Is the UK judiciary independent and neutral?

In the Judiciary system of England and Wales, judges are guaranteed continuing judicial independence, according to statutory law.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 10:57:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 10:55:11 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/20/2012 5:33:54 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What the topic says, basically:

Is the UK judiciary independent and neutral?

In the Judiciary system of England and Wales, judges are guaranteed continuing judicial independence, according to statutory law.

also there are 3 separate judicial systems in the UK.
1. England and wales
2. Scotland
3. Northern Ireland
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 1:31:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 5:33:54 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What the topic says, basically:

Is the UK judiciary independent and neutral?

Depends on what you mean by independent. As a rule, nit as we have in the US. IN the UK it is almost completely different as ALL are subject to the Queen/King. There is a procurator Fiscal, who evaluates evidence and the Judge has absolute control. One is not presumed innocent in the UK. It is not independent as we in US consider it.

After all, they consider themselves a constitutional monarchy, but have no constitution.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2012 3:55:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 1:31:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/20/2012 5:33:54 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What the topic says, basically:

Is the UK judiciary independent and neutral?

Depends on what you mean by independent. As a rule, nit as we have in the US. IN the UK it is almost completely different as ALL are subject to the Queen/King. There is a procurator Fiscal, who evaluates evidence and the Judge has absolute control. One is not presumed innocent in the UK. It is not independent as we in US consider it.

After all, they consider themselves a constitutional monarchy, but have no constitution.

I am English, I wanted some arguments. But about half of that is just generally wrong.

All are not subject to the Queen. The government is granted assent by the Queen as Tradition, as do a lot of the things you basically said. In addition "Innocent until proven guilty" is a phrase by the ENGLISHMAN Sir William Garrow. In addition, article 48 of the EU human rights state presumption of innocence. Finally, Lord Sankey stated:

"Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen - that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception..." (Now on wikipedia if anyone wants to check)

A procurator Fiscal just simply investigates sudden deaths in case there is the possibility of, for example, homicide, then **** off. There is jury nullification for one, and I could list the limits on a judge, but there's barely any point to waste all my characters.

Finally, regarding the independence point, you basically ignored any reasons.

Oh wait! The nonexistence of the constitution! I could spend a long period of time just ranting about this, but I'l' keep it short: a constitution does not need to be in only one document written down on one piece of paper.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:12:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/20/2012 3:55:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/20/2012 1:31:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/20/2012 5:33:54 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What the topic says, basically:

Is the UK judiciary independent and neutral?

Depends on what you mean by independent. As a rule, nit as we have in the US. IN the UK it is almost completely different as ALL are subject to the Queen/King. There is a procurator Fiscal, who evaluates evidence and the Judge has absolute control. One is not presumed innocent in the UK. It is not independent as we in US consider it.

After all, they consider themselves a constitutional monarchy, but have no constitution.

I am English, I wanted some arguments. But about half of that is just generally wrong.

All are not subject to the Queen. The government is granted assent by the Queen as Tradition, as do a lot of the things you basically said. In addition "Innocent until proven guilty" is a phrase by the ENGLISHMAN Sir William Garrow. In addition, article 48 of the EU human rights state presumption of innocence. Finally, Lord Sankey stated:

"Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen - that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception..." (Now on wikipedia if anyone wants to check)

A procurator Fiscal just simply investigates sudden deaths in case there is the possibility of, for example, homicide, then **** off. There is jury nullification for one, and I could list the limits on a judge, but there's barely any point to waste all my characters.

Finally, regarding the independence point, you basically ignored any reasons.

Oh wait! The nonexistence of the constitution! I could spend a long period of time just ranting about this, but I'l' keep it short: a constitution does not need to be in only one document written down on one piece of paper.

Let me sum up, you are all subject to the queen (assent) and there is no constitution. Got it. As to Fiscal....wrong, he/she oversees all criminal prosecutions, I think UK still has an Inquest for all suspicious deaths...not sure bout that one. So, again I am correct. Heck, in the UK the army enforces the rule of law, that's a crime over here.

poga ma hon
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 5:28:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 3:12:30 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/20/2012 3:55:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/20/2012 1:31:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/20/2012 5:33:54 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What the topic says, basically:

Is the UK judiciary independent and neutral?

Depends on what you mean by independent. As a rule, nit as we have in the US. IN the UK it is almost completely different as ALL are subject to the Queen/King. There is a procurator Fiscal, who evaluates evidence and the Judge has absolute control. One is not presumed innocent in the UK. It is not independent as we in US consider it.

After all, they consider themselves a constitutional monarchy, but have no constitution.

I am English, I wanted some arguments. But about half of that is just generally wrong.

All are not subject to the Queen. The government is granted assent by the Queen as Tradition, as do a lot of the things you basically said. In addition "Innocent until proven guilty" is a phrase by the ENGLISHMAN Sir William Garrow. In addition, article 48 of the EU human rights state presumption of innocence. Finally, Lord Sankey stated:

"Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen - that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception..." (Now on wikipedia if anyone wants to check)

A procurator Fiscal just simply investigates sudden deaths in case there is the possibility of, for example, homicide, then **** off. There is jury nullification for one, and I could list the limits on a judge, but there's barely any point to waste all my characters.

Finally, regarding the independence point, you basically ignored any reasons.

Oh wait! The nonexistence of the constitution! I could spend a long period of time just ranting about this, but I'l' keep it short: a constitution does not need to be in only one document written down on one piece of paper.

Let me sum up, you are all subject to the queen (assent) and there is no constitution. Got it. As to Fiscal....wrong, he/she oversees all criminal prosecutions, I think UK still has an Inquest for all suspicious deaths...not sure bout that one. So, again I am correct. Heck, in the UK the army enforces the rule of law, that's a crime over here.

poga ma hon

The UK has a constitution, that's simply fact. It is unwritten as it is not in a single document (like a lot of constitutions). The Queen's power is aesthetic tradition, and she cannot overrule any laws regarding judiciary, legislation and the executive. Also, she cannot enter either House. But apart from that, yes, she has *absolute* control.

The procutor Fiscal in the UK only investigates sudden deaths, and in Scotland only additional powers like investigating people going missing and bona vacantia.

You keep saying we are all subject to the queen, but the phrase UKC simply refers to citizenship. Citizen, by the legal term meaning subject to Queen and Parliament, is an MP, Peer, or advisor to the Queen or Government.

Also, I enjoy the phrase "I'm not sure about that one. So, again, I am correct".

And now we're making things up about the army following the rule of law? Coolstorybro.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 5:29:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 3:12:30 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/20/2012 3:55:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/20/2012 1:31:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/20/2012 5:33:54 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What the topic says, basically:

Is the UK judiciary independent and neutral?

Depends on what you mean by independent. As a rule, nit as we have in the US. IN the UK it is almost completely different as ALL are subject to the Queen/King. There is a procurator Fiscal, who evaluates evidence and the Judge has absolute control. One is not presumed innocent in the UK. It is not independent as we in US consider it.

After all, they consider themselves a constitutional monarchy, but have no constitution.

I am English, I wanted some arguments. But about half of that is just generally wrong.

All are not subject to the Queen. The government is granted assent by the Queen as Tradition, as do a lot of the things you basically said. In addition "Innocent until proven guilty" is a phrase by the ENGLISHMAN Sir William Garrow. In addition, article 48 of the EU human rights state presumption of innocence. Finally, Lord Sankey stated:

"Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen - that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception..." (Now on wikipedia if anyone wants to check)

A procurator Fiscal just simply investigates sudden deaths in case there is the possibility of, for example, homicide, then **** off. There is jury nullification for one, and I could list the limits on a judge, but there's barely any point to waste all my characters.

Finally, regarding the independence point, you basically ignored any reasons.

Oh wait! The nonexistence of the constitution! I could spend a long period of time just ranting about this, but I'l' keep it short: a constitution does not need to be in only one document written down on one piece of paper.

Let me sum up, you are all subject to the queen (assent) and there is no constitution. Got it. As to Fiscal....wrong, he/she oversees all criminal prosecutions, I think UK still has an Inquest for all suspicious deaths...not sure bout that one. So, again I am correct. Heck, in the UK the army enforces the rule of law, that's a crime over here.

poga ma hon

You are an idiot. Don't comment about things you don't know.

The UK has 3 legal systems
1.) English Law of England and Wales
2.) Scotish Law of Scotland
3.) Northern Irish Law of Northetn Ireland

The UK supreme court ties the 3 systems togeather
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 5:32:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 5:29:33 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/21/2012 3:12:30 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/20/2012 3:55:09 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 3/20/2012 1:31:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/20/2012 5:33:54 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
What the topic says, basically:

Is the UK judiciary independent and neutral?

Depends on what you mean by independent. As a rule, nit as we have in the US. IN the UK it is almost completely different as ALL are subject to the Queen/King. There is a procurator Fiscal, who evaluates evidence and the Judge has absolute control. One is not presumed innocent in the UK. It is not independent as we in US consider it.

After all, they consider themselves a constitutional monarchy, but have no constitution.

I am English, I wanted some arguments. But about half of that is just generally wrong.

All are not subject to the Queen. The government is granted assent by the Queen as Tradition, as do a lot of the things you basically said. In addition "Innocent until proven guilty" is a phrase by the ENGLISHMAN Sir William Garrow. In addition, article 48 of the EU human rights state presumption of innocence. Finally, Lord Sankey stated:

"Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen - that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception..." (Now on wikipedia if anyone wants to check)

A procurator Fiscal just simply investigates sudden deaths in case there is the possibility of, for example, homicide, then **** off. There is jury nullification for one, and I could list the limits on a judge, but there's barely any point to waste all my characters.

Finally, regarding the independence point, you basically ignored any reasons.

Oh wait! The nonexistence of the constitution! I could spend a long period of time just ranting about this, but I'l' keep it short: a constitution does not need to be in only one document written down on one piece of paper.

Let me sum up, you are all subject to the queen (assent) and there is no constitution. Got it. As to Fiscal....wrong, he/she oversees all criminal prosecutions, I think UK still has an Inquest for all suspicious deaths...not sure bout that one. So, again I am correct. Heck, in the UK the army enforces the rule of law, that's a crime over here.

poga ma hon

You are an idiot. Don't comment about things you don't know.

The UK has 3 legal systems
1.) English Law of England and Wales
2.) Scotish Law of Scotland
3.) Northern Irish Law of Northern Ireland

The UK supreme court ties the 3 systems together

The ECHR also tie these together, but essentially yes.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 6:26:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You're doing his homework. Unit 2: Government and Politics in the UK. UK Constitution, Parliament, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Judiciary and Civil Liberties.

Open your textbook to the area after the knowledge parts. If you want examples refer to the token members of the supreme court (the Lords: Woolf, Hoffman, Bingham) and instances where the UK has had to bow to the European Court of Justice and/or Human Rights (Factortame Litigation, Ex parte and the Equal Opportunities Commission, Criminal disenfranchisement).
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 2:50:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 6:26:16 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
You're doing his homework. Unit 2: Government and Politics in the UK. UK Constitution, Parliament, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Judiciary and Civil Liberties.

Open your textbook to the area after the knowledge parts. If you want examples refer to the token members of the supreme court (the Lords: Woolf, Hoffman, Bingham) and instances where the UK has had to bow to the European Court of Justice and/or Human Rights (Factortame Litigation, Ex parte and the Equal Opportunities Commission, Criminal disenfranchisement).

My textbook skims over these topics, so I needed more info on it. I didn't have token members though, thanks a lot. How is human rights / ECHR effecting the neutrality though?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...