Jump to content

Ad Lib

Gold Members
  • Content Count

    12,428
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    9

Ad Lib last won the day on October 7 2015

Ad Lib had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,523 Excellent

5 Followers

About Ad Lib

  • Rank
    Watch out Simon Stainrod
  • Birthday 27/05/1991

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London

Recent Profile Visitors

36,537 profile views
  1. Never had them I don’t watch it. Easter Road. The away turnstiles at Tynecastle are a ball ache unless you’re a midget. No because I rent and therefore don’t own the white goods in my abode. Please clarify. Do you mean beef burger or chicken or do you mean beef burger or chicken burger? If the former, I generally prefer beef burgers over chicken, but if we are talking about burgers I actually prefer a chicken burger done right.
  2. The point was not about what was likely but what underpins the jurisdiction of the UKSC. Small problem with this is that the Human Rights Act didn’t come into force until 2000: after devolution had commenced. Before 1999 the Convention wasn’t directly enforceable in domestic courts at all; they had to rely on common law rights providing analogous protection. There wouldn’t have been a “reference” to Strasbourg except after the exhaustion of very limited domestic legal remedies. That’s as true of the English criminal legal system as it is of the Scottish one. The enforcement of the ECHR in domestic courts effectively did start only from 1999 (and in non devolved contexts from 2000). You’re making my point for me. No, they’re saying “the prosecution didn’t have the power to do that. We are the guardians of the constitutional rules that govern the actions of the devolved institutions. It’s irrelevant what the High Court has said because it is not the final arbiter of constitutional rules”.
  3. The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords isn’t and cannot be regarded as an English court when it’s literally a Committee of a constituent part of the Parliament of Great Britain (and later U.K.). 😉 This is where you lose me, even at “arguably”. The Scottish criminal system became (for the most part) a devolved function in 1999, and therefore became subject to the norms of devolved competence. It’s important to remember that the UKSC’s jurisdiction in devolution issues related to criminal matters was originally that of the Privy Council and not the House of Lords. If devolution were abolished tomorrow, the UK Supreme Court, by default, would lose its jurisdiction over (in essence) human rights related criminal justice system matters. What is being policed is the Lord Advocate rather than the courts and that’s entirely proper in the context of what Article XIX says (IMO). Yes but, for example, Cadder and the related cases were really about whether evidence was obtained properly (by the police and the Crown Office/PF). That’s a prior question to whether the criminal courts can then admit that evidence. It’s reviewing acts of executive or administrative actors not judicial ones. Fair point re Elish (I was thinking about the incumbent not the then incumbent...). The simple answer is, I think, that it’s about the enforcement of limits on devolved competence of executive/administrative actors, and not about the challenging (directly) of the High Court of Justiciary. I think it is a closed question.
  4. Your concern is noted. I did go on to explain why he was wrong. Because it isn't one of the listed courts that now (mostly) form part of the English High Court/Court of Appeal, and because it isn't a court in Westminster Hall. The House of Lords may have had the final say on whether it had jurisdiction, but its finding that it did is entirely consistent with the plain meaning of the words used in Article XIX.
  5. Well indeed. The Treaty of Union was not intended to be a bar on subsequently giving the House of Lords that jurisdiction. All jurisdiction is legal fiction. The Supreme Court (and before that, the Privy Council) reviewed the legality of acts of a public official with reference to the devolution statutes. They didn't challenge the decisions of the High Court of Justiciary itself. Therefore no violation of the Treaty. Or put another way, the UK Supreme Court ensured that a member of the Scottish Government complied with his obligations under the Scotland Act, through the bespoke jurisdiction provided for by the Scotland Act (as amended by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005). Can this settlement be regarded as a form of "back door" appeal? Sure. But it's not incompatible with the Treaty of Union, properly construed. Well quite.
  6. Aye, but who did you vote for when you were a child, you dirty Unionist pig?
  7. The devolution jurisdiction of the UK Supreme Court doesn’t enable it to quash acts and sentences of the High Court of Justiciary. QED. The phrase “court of a like nature” doesn’t just mean “any court”. It refers specifically to the listed types of Court that existed in 1707 in England, and any successor or equivalent jurisdictions that may come into existence subsequently to that. Once more, and with emphasis: the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the UK Supreme Court were/are not courts of a like nature to those listed in Article XIX. Because unlike those listed courts they aren’t English courts. You are talking shite.
  8. Literally read the full fucking sentence. The reference to “any other of the like nature” means that if, for example, the Court of Chancery is renamed or restructured, its successor body cannot review the acts and sentences of the High Court of Justiciary. Once again, for emphasis: the UK Supreme Court: (a) is not a court “of like nature” of the listed courts and more importantly (b) cannot review the acts or sentences of the High Court of Justiciary. You are, simply put, completely and utterly wrong.
  9. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. The bit you’ve just quoted is about the High Court of Justiciary (for criminal matters). What that says is that you can’t have another court review or alter the acts or sentences of the High Court. The UK Supreme Court can’t review or alter the acts or sentences of the High Court. The UK Supreme Court can only determine devolution issues and hear Inner House of the Court of Session appeals. Article XIX doesn’t prohibit appeals on civil matters to the UK Supreme Court, nor did it prohibit appeals to its predecessor jurisdictions. It only prohibited “Courts of Chancery, Queens-Bench, Common-Pleas or any other Court in Westminster-hall” from reviewing decisions of the Court of Session. Those are all English courts.
  10. For criminal matters it is. The Acts of Union don’t require the Court of Session to be the highest court for civil matters in Scotland. They merely require that there isn’t a right of appeal against the decisions of the Court of Session to an English court, or as the Acts put it: “that no Causes in Scotland be cognoscible by the Courts of Chancery, Queens-Bench, Common-Pleas or any other Court in Westminster-hall And that the said Courts or any other of the like nature after the Unions shall have no power to Cognosce Review or Alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland or stop the Execution of the same” Neither the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, nor the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, nor indeed the UK Supreme Court satisfy that description of an English court.
  11. That is still the case. The existence of the Supreme Court (and for that matter, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council whose functions preceded it) are not a breach of that provision.
  12. Fuckin does. No it really doesn’t. Quote me the relevant passage of the Union with England Act or retract your falsehood.
×
×
  • Create New...