5 ms·

The UK is in a precarious situation, with COVID and Brexit in full effect. I think that for the sake of the UK-US relationship and future trade talks, the gover

by mmkos 6y ago

The UK is in a precarious situation, with COVID and Brexit in full effect. I think that for the sake of the UK-US relationship and future trade talks, the government wants to appear aligned with the US as much as possible on this issue, while not actually extraditing Julian Assange.

matthewmacleod 6y ago
This is nonsense conspiracy theorism. There is unlikely to be any possibility of the judicial decision in this case being influenced by the UK government's policies on UK-US trade deals.
- mmkos 6y ago
  It is pretty far reaching, but I wouldn't say that it is 'unlikely to be any possibility' that the UK government would want to influence a high profile case, which is highly likely to impact the UK-US relationship.
  - bmsleight_ 6y ago
    Which is why there is absolute separation between the fiercely independent judiciary and the government in the UK. No influence is possible, consider the case of the MP convicted of rape and the fiercely independent judiciary pushing back on character references.
    - jfk13 6y ago
      Also recall the high-profile, politically-charged cases which the Government has lost (to its considerable embarrassment) in recent memory.
      - JAlexoid 6y ago
        Government isn't the parliament. No court in the UK has ever overruled the parliament.
        spiralx 6y ago
        Because one of the key parts of UK law is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty - that parliament is the ultimate source of legal authority. The court cannot overrule parliament by definition, in the same way SCOTUS cannot overrule the Constitution.
    - toyg 6y ago
      There is no “absolute” separation of the judiciary in the UK. Parliament sovereignty is absolute, which includes the power of rearranging the justice system as it sees fit - as indeed was done when the Supreme Court was established a few years ago. Before the SC was created, the highest court in the land was composed of members of the House of Lords, and the Lord Chancellor (a member of cabinet) was a judge - effectively making the High Court an offshoot of Parliament. The new Supreme Court is still composed of judges that must be approved by the Secretary of State for Justice (i.e. a government minister, a politician). Technically the appointment is made by the Queen, but overruling an elected minister would be considered an infringement of constitutional prerogatives of Parliament. That means a government can veto high-justices it doesn’t like. Downstream of that, the judiciary cannot invalidate or overrule primary legislation. Parliament comes first. What we have in UK is fundamentally a degree of protection of most judiciary elements from the otherwise-supreme power of Parliament. That’s not absolute separation, but rather a partial one - if very extended.
- pydry 6y ago
  This is more than a little naive I think. The UK needs more bargaining chips. Trade negotiations are heavily weighted against them right now.
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    Okay, but how do you think this works? Boris Johnson having a word with the judge? The judiciary haven’t exactly shown much interest in pandering to Boris; see Brexit judgements over the last couple of years.
    - pydry 6y ago
      I think the judges are probably more interested in the global standing, power and leverage of the UK than Boris is and the Brexit rulings arguably reflect that too. The UK government is about more than just Boris's ego. I wouldn't speculate as to the exact mechanism as to how this ruling came about but to assume it came divorced from politics is naive, especially given the nature of the ruling.
      - rsynnott 6y ago
        > I think the judges are probably more interested in the global standing, power and leverage of the UK than Boris is Really? I wouldn't assume that at all; it's very much not their job, and it's not unusual for the courts to cause the government significant trouble and embarrassment. A judge's job is to uphold the law, not to be a political actor. And the UK's judges, by and large, have a reasonably good reputation for sticking to it.
        pydry 6y ago
        Whether it's their "job" or not it's exactly in line with their rulings. Whether it's taking gold from Venezuela, trying to prevent the Brexit train from going off the cliff or this, realpolitik is clearly never far from their mind. If their job were to give out fair rulings they wouldn't pretend that Assange was a spy not a journalist and they wouldnt try to hold Venezuelan gold hostage by picking winners in a foreign election.
- PoachedSausage 6y ago
  Maybe not trade deals but the Anne Sacoolas[0] case of using diplomatic immunity of dubious legality to flee from justice probably tends to irritate the British judiciary. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-52630089 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-52630...
dang 6y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25629990 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25629990.

by mmkos 6y ago

matthewmacleod 6y ago

This is nonsense conspiracy theorism. There is unlikely to be any possibility of the judicial decision in this case being influenced by the UK government's policies on UK-US trade deals.

mmkos 6y ago
It is pretty far reaching, but I wouldn't say that it is 'unlikely to be any possibility' that the UK government would want to influence a high profile case, which is highly likely to impact the UK-US relationship.
- bmsleight_ 6y ago
  Which is why there is absolute separation between the fiercely independent judiciary and the government in the UK. No influence is possible, consider the case of the MP convicted of rape and the fiercely independent judiciary pushing back on character references.
  - jfk13 6y ago
    Also recall the high-profile, politically-charged cases which the Government has lost (to its considerable embarrassment) in recent memory.
    - JAlexoid 6y ago
      Government isn't the parliament. No court in the UK has ever overruled the parliament.
      - spiralx 6y ago
        Because one of the key parts of UK law is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty - that parliament is the ultimate source of legal authority. The court cannot overrule parliament by definition, in the same way SCOTUS cannot overrule the Constitution.
  - toyg 6y ago
    There is no “absolute” separation of the judiciary in the UK. Parliament sovereignty is absolute, which includes the power of rearranging the justice system as it sees fit - as indeed was done when the Supreme Court was established a few years ago. Before the SC was created, the highest court in the land was composed of members of the House of Lords, and the Lord Chancellor (a member of cabinet) was a judge - effectively making the High Court an offshoot of Parliament. The new Supreme Court is still composed of judges that must be approved by the Secretary of State for Justice (i.e. a government minister, a politician). Technically the appointment is made by the Queen, but overruling an elected minister would be considered an infringement of constitutional prerogatives of Parliament. That means a government can veto high-justices it doesn’t like. Downstream of that, the judiciary cannot invalidate or overrule primary legislation. Parliament comes first. What we have in UK is fundamentally a degree of protection of most judiciary elements from the otherwise-supreme power of Parliament. That’s not absolute separation, but rather a partial one - if very extended.
pydry 6y ago
This is more than a little naive I think. The UK needs more bargaining chips. Trade negotiations are heavily weighted against them right now.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  Okay, but how do you think this works? Boris Johnson having a word with the judge? The judiciary haven’t exactly shown much interest in pandering to Boris; see Brexit judgements over the last couple of years.
  - pydry 6y ago
    I think the judges are probably more interested in the global standing, power and leverage of the UK than Boris is and the Brexit rulings arguably reflect that too. The UK government is about more than just Boris's ego. I wouldn't speculate as to the exact mechanism as to how this ruling came about but to assume it came divorced from politics is naive, especially given the nature of the ruling.
    - rsynnott 6y ago
      > I think the judges are probably more interested in the global standing, power and leverage of the UK than Boris is Really? I wouldn't assume that at all; it's very much not their job, and it's not unusual for the courts to cause the government significant trouble and embarrassment. A judge's job is to uphold the law, not to be a political actor. And the UK's judges, by and large, have a reasonably good reputation for sticking to it.
      - pydry 6y ago
        Whether it's their "job" or not it's exactly in line with their rulings. Whether it's taking gold from Venezuela, trying to prevent the Brexit train from going off the cliff or this, realpolitik is clearly never far from their mind. If their job were to give out fair rulings they wouldn't pretend that Assange was a spy not a journalist and they wouldnt try to hold Venezuelan gold hostage by picking winners in a foreign election.
PoachedSausage 6y ago
Maybe not trade deals but the Anne Sacoolas[0] case of using diplomatic immunity of dubious legality to flee from justice probably tends to irritate the British judiciary. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-52630089 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-52630...

dang 6y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25629990 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25629990.