£850 fine for causing brain damage

[hoopdriver]

Oh yeah, She's good too.

 

[Red Light]

Judge Dredd for me Put down your weapons and prepare to be judged.

 

[hoopdriver]

And let's not forget Judge Roy Bean, the law west of the Pecos...

 

[Red Light]

Or Judge Constance Harm

 

[Crankarm]

I'm not off my trolley but you are way out of your depth in a subject you try to profess to have knowledge of but don't.

You claim for example:



English law (and the law in most other countries) is mainly case law set by judges in Court, not statutory law set by Parliament. What happened in Smith v Finch and Froom v Butcher before it is at the heart of the way English law works, not some aberration as you seem to see it. Setting precedents in Court is the way it works.

Murder is one of the best examples of that. You will not find an Act of Parliament on the offence of murder. The offence comes from case law. But you would seem to think the offence of murder was just "some stupid judge thinking he can re-write the law via case law and undermining Parliament" because surely if it was that important Parliament would have debated it and passed a law of murder.

And since you insist I have run, in a corporate context, a number of cases in both English and US courts up to and including the level of the Appeal Court which have set significant legal precedents. I have spent more hours than I would like to admit sat in chambers with the QCs and legal teams I engaged going over this stuff to know a bit about what I am talking about. Now since you insisted that I disclose my credentials, would you care to reciprocate and tell us what legal training/experience you have? Thought not! We know it doesn't even go as far as Wikipedia but that might be a good place for you to start.

You seem to be attributing rather a lot of things to me I have not stated.

You still haven't said what your legal role is? Are you are an intern on work experience? Yet again your reply is all over the place introducing totally irrelevant areas. Stick to the specific issue in question RLJ. This thread is about the wearing of helmets by cyclists not about murder or other common law offences. Yes you are quite right a large part of criminal law has been developed by case law ie case by case basis in higher courts. But where issues have particular public interest, public policy or are suitably contentious then the courts have deferred to HoL or Parliament to decide on the matter. The fact that the offence of murder is still a common law offence is because there is no need for Parliament to debate it as there is no debate to be had about killing people with deliberate intention. Period. Parliament decided that drivers of vehicles should wear seat belts and motor cyclists helmets not judges.The courts enforce the law, Parliament makes it.

Me - the usual legal qualifications you know law degree, lpc things you need and a few years experience. How about you apart from "organising" cases for appeal in UK and US jurisdiction and relying on Wilkipedia as your legal source and taking inspiration from Judge Dredd? You really can't be taken seriously if you give Wikipedia as your source of cases. LMAO. What legal qualifications do you have if any .................?

 

[hoopdriver]

Wasn't there an Irish judge named Lynch, long ago, who enriched the Englsh language?

 

[Red Light]

You seem to be attributing rather a lot of things to me I have not stated.

You still haven't said what your legal role is? Are you are an intern on work experience? Yet again your reply is all over the place introducing totally irrelevant areas. Stick to the specific issue in question RLJ. This thread is about the wearing of helmets by cyclists not about murder or other common law offences. Yes you are quite right a large part of criminal law has been developed by case law ie case by case basis in higher courts. But where issues have particular public interest, public policy or are suitably contentious then the courts have deferred to HoL or Parliament to decide on the matter. The fact that the offence of murder is still a common law offence is because there is no need for Parliament to debate it as there is no debate to be had about killing people with deliberate intention. Period. Parliament decided that drivers of vehicles should wear seat belts and motor cyclists helmets not judges.The courts enforce the law, Parliament makes it.

Me - the usual legal qualifications you know law degree, lpc things you need and a few years experience. How about you apart from "organising" cases for appeal in UK and US jurisdiction and relying on Wilkipedia as your legal source and taking inspiration from Judge Dredd? You really can't be taken seriously if you give Wikipedia as your source of cases. LMAO. What legal qualifications do you have if any .................?

Very odd. Someone claiming a law degree and a few years experience who a) didn't know the basics of the Common Law system and how English Law is made b) didn't know how to look up the transcript of Froom v Butcher c) didn't know the classic example of non-Parliamentary English Common Law of murder d) doesn't know that English law is made by both Parliament through statutory law and the judiciary through common law and that the role of the Courts is to interpret and apply the law and to make the law through the system of precedents and common law.

You also appear to be unaware that contributory negligence is a standard common law defence not just for helmets and seat belts and has long been thus since the precedent set by Butterfield v Forrester in 1809 ("One person being in fault will not dispense with another's using ordinary care for himself").

You also seem to have comprehension problems. Interns or work experiencers do not run major cases in the High and Appeal Courts - at least not in my world they don't. YMMV.

And if you think I am bullshitting just read what you have written above (and if you can be bothered in previous posts) and then read the Open University section on the role of the Courts and Judiciary

 

[Red Light]

Wasn't there an Irish judge named Lynch, long ago, who enriched the Englsh language?

American:

‘The origin of the expression has not been determined. It is often asserted to have arisen from the proceedings of Charles Lynch, a justice of the peace in Virginia, who in 1782 was indemnified by an act of the Virginia Assembly for having illegally fined and imprisoned certain Tories in 1780. But Mr. Albert Matthews informs us that no evidence has been adduced to show that Charles Lynch was ever concerned in acts such as those which from 1817 onward were designated as “Lynch's law”. It is possible that the perpetrators of these acts may have claimed that in the infliction of punishments not sanctioned by the laws of the country they were following the example of Lynch, which had been justified by the act of indemnity; or there may have been some other man of this name who was a ring-leader in such proceedings. Some have conjectured that the term is derived from the name of Lynche's Creek, in South Carolina, which is known to have been in 1768 a meeting-place of the “Users”, a band of men whose professed object was to supply the want of regular administration of criminal justice in the Carolinas, and who committed many acts of violence on those suspected of “Toryism”.’ (N.E.D.)


The particulars supplied by Ellicott, together with other evidence, clearly establish the fact that the originator of Lynch law was Captain William Lynch (1742–1820) of Pittsylvania in Virginia. According to Ellicott, ‘this self-created judicial tribunal was first organized in the state of Virginia about the year 1776’; an article in the Southern Lit. Messenger (1836) 2 389 gives the date definitely as 1780.


www.oed.com

 

[benb]

... a band of men whose professed object was to supply the want of regular administration of criminal justice in the Carolinas, and who committed many acts of violence on those suspected of “Toryism”.’ ...

I like their style!