Tag Archives: rule of law

Easy Read Guide to Being Lord Chancellor

This is an easy read guide for those who do not know very much about the law and how the law works. Such people are some times called “Graylings”.

What is the High Court?

The High Court is somewhere a bunch of people who no one voted for make decisions based on what Foreigners (or Europeans) think is best.

Someone who is accused of making a bad decision and goes to court is often called a Lord Chancellor.

An example of a bad decision is when the Lord Chancellor hides a load of info that he uses to make his bad decision.

This process is sometimes called Judicial Review but people in power often call it a right pain in the arse.

Before you go to court.

Make sure you spend a lot of time getting on the telly or the radio to tell everyone it is not your fault.

It is a very good idea to blame Foreigners.

If you cannot blame Foreigners, blame Immigrants.

Immigrants are also Foreigners but people are more scared of Immigrants and are more likely to vote UKIP unless you blame them for everything.

If it is really hard to blame Foreigners or Immigrants you can try to blame Left Wing Liberals.

At the same time as blaming someone else, make sure a friend from your College at Oxbridge writes something about a prisoner getting Legal Aid because his mattress is too hard.

Don’t worry if that’s not true.

When you get to the court

Make sure you pay lawyers a lot of money to do exactly what you say.

Pay them a lot of money to make sure you get a really good lawyer. Pay them a lot more than you pay Legal Aid lawyers.

At the same time make sure the other side cannot pay a lawyer at all.

This is called equality of arms.

You have two arms. They are allowed two arms.

Just make sure you have more lawyers.

Sometimes they will have lawyers who are doing the case pro bono. Pro bono means they are doing it for free.

If a lawyer does a case pro bono make sure someone who works for you sends your friend from Oxbridge the amount the lawyer received from Legal Aid last year.

Make sure this number is big by adding in the VAT.

If there is a hearing, who is who?

The person sitting at the front facing you is the Judge.

If the Judge finds you made a bad decision he is out of touch.

If the Judge finds you did not make a bad decision then give them the next Judge led inquiry.

The person who says you made a bad decision is a pressure group. Their lawyer is called a fat cat.

What happens at the hearing?

Keep repeating that the decision you made is policy and it is all about politics. Judges are allergic to politics.

Get some civil servants to give some made up facts and numbers. Call this evidence.

When the other side say what is really happening because of your decision, call this anecdotal.

If anecdotal does not work, also say the words self serving.

What happens if you lose?

A Judge may think what you did was as unreasonable as a small town just outside of Birmingham.

If you hear the word “Wednesbury” make sure it was someone else’s decision.

Then deny that the decision had ever been made.

Then make some minor changes.

Do what you always planned to do in any event.

What happens if you keep losing?

Complain about it a lot.

Change the rules to make it much more difficult for people to complain about your decisions.

Keep on repeating how what you are doing makes the rule of law stronger.

Ignore all the lawyers who say that stopping the weak complaining about the powerful is wrong.

Use the words fat cat, liberals and self interest again. And again.

Then throw a big expensive party, or Global Law Summit, to celebrate how strong you have made the rule of law.

Then laugh all they way on to the Board of various global businesses.

Why Should I Care?

In the last two days I have blogged/ranted/whined about the state of the criminal justice system. The courts are hurtling towards ineptitude and injustice, the prison system teeters on the edge of disintegration.

Who cares? I hear you cry. Why should the public, press and politicians care?

Every citizen should care, every journalist should examine this scandal , every politician should do all they can to understand the problem because the criminal law and the courts are absolutely central to our society.

No civilisation has ever existed without rules. Those rules give structure and set the standards of the civilisation. To enforce those rules the civilisation creates a system of sanctions. Then the civilisation shows that it lives by its deeds as well as its words by ensuring the sanctions are never imposed unjustly.

This is the sort of model that we would look to export throughout the world. Our concept of democracy is not just about an election or two. It is this idea of rights and responibilities, crime and punishment, law and equality before the law.

Our society looks to the law on an almost daily basis, no more so than at times of strife or concern. So we worry about young men going to Syria to join jihadists and BoJo suggests (admittedly ludicrous) criminal offences to ensure the safety of the nation. Concerns are raised about domestic abuse and the talk turns to legislation.

Whenever public safety is called into question, whenever there is the whiff of scandal in the establishment, whenever the sense of national morality requires resetting; we as a nation turn to the law and lawyers – Judge led inquiries with the examination and testing of evidence in public forums. This is what the public place their trust in.

This is why every simple case in the magistrates’ court is a gem in our democratic crown. Every exponent of the law, of rules of evidence and of the skills of the advocate are a vital player on our democratic stage.

We, as a society, set out to be better than those who break the rules by rising above the frailties of the individual and offering them the protection of the law.

This is all very noble. It is also all very vital. This is all in decline. We, as nation, need to recognise the value and importance of what we are losing. Before it is lost.