4 ms·

This is a really interesting development. The legal aid system in the UK has been falling apart for years and as of this week lawyers are actually on strike. Th

This is a really interesting development. The legal aid system in the UK has been falling apart for years and as of this week lawyers are actually on strike. The theory was that without proper legal representation it would be impossible to try people, since you would be taking away their right to legal representation, but it seems that some judges are just pushing ahead. I would be shocked if this doesn't cause a series of appeals that eventually affirm that defendants have the right to legal representation and can't be tried until a lawyer is found. Even before this strike the courts have been falling apart and trials have been delayed by months and years. It's pretty shocking how badly the government have fucked up not only this, but basically every policy area now.

LatteLazy 4y ago
The problem with the UK is that you have no rights except for what Parliament gives you. When Parliament passed a law requiring people to pay themselves or do without, anyone covered (90% of people) lost their right to representation. You cannot appeal that because courts are bound to follow only the will of Parliament. There is no higher authority (no constitution, no human rights convention etc) to appeal based on...
- beerandt 4y ago
  Will be interesting to see if the newish UK Supreme Court will attempt a US style supremacy power grab ala Marbury v Madison and subsequent cases. There was no explicit right to appeal constitutional rights in the US wrt to laws being unconstitutional until SCOTUS declared one. Since House of Lords handled the appeals role historically, it seems like much of the case law would be based on the assumption of legal appeals being reviewed by a sovereign entity, ie, parliament.
  - Veen 4y ago
    Parliament could remove the Supreme Court just as it created it. The “supreme” in Supreme Court is inaccurate. In theory at least, Parliament is supreme. Although getting rid of the Supreme Court might be politically awkward.
    - waqf 4y ago
      I wouldn't say "supreme" is inaccurate, since the Supreme Court is superior to every other court. (That's if we accept that Parliament is no longer a court after the Supreme Court assumed its judicial responsibilities. Also, I'm likely wrong because everything one thinks one knows about the UK constitution is always wrong, but feel free to tell me how so.)
      - MonkeyClub 4y ago
        > everything one thinks one knows about the UK constitution is always wrong Ha, this cracked me up, and got me thinking whether it's possible that the UK developed legal bitrot because it hasn't had a good revolution in a while. so it's in a sense.
  - javagram 4y ago
    However, the US constitution explicitly states it is the supreme law and limits what congress and the states may pass unless they follow an amendment process. The UK has no constitution for a Supreme Court to claim trumps parliament’s laws. (That said, I understand that the Israeli high court has claimed the ability to overturn parliamentary laws despite Israel not having a constitution either, so perhaps there is a chance a UK court tries the same?)
- Veen 4y ago
  That is the opposite of the the truth. In fact, you have every right but those Parliament and the common law take away from you. This has been a long-standing principle of English jurisprudence.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    positive rights vs negative rights. You have all negative rights "freedom from", but no positive rights "freedom to"; except as Parliament rules. "An attorney provided by the state" is a positive right.
stuaxo 4y ago
Fucked up I implies incompetence, this is an incompetent leadership yes, but also one happy to attack all the institutions of government and democracy, courts included.

LatteLazy 4y ago

The problem with the UK is that you have no rights except for what Parliament gives you. When Parliament passed a law requiring people to pay themselves or do without, anyone covered (90% of people) lost their right to representation. You cannot appeal that because courts are bound to follow only the will of Parliament. There is no higher authority (no constitution, no human rights convention etc) to appeal based on...

beerandt 4y ago
Will be interesting to see if the newish UK Supreme Court will attempt a US style supremacy power grab ala Marbury v Madison and subsequent cases. There was no explicit right to appeal constitutional rights in the US wrt to laws being unconstitutional until SCOTUS declared one. Since House of Lords handled the appeals role historically, it seems like much of the case law would be based on the assumption of legal appeals being reviewed by a sovereign entity, ie, parliament.
- Veen 4y ago
  Parliament could remove the Supreme Court just as it created it. The “supreme” in Supreme Court is inaccurate. In theory at least, Parliament is supreme. Although getting rid of the Supreme Court might be politically awkward.
  - waqf 4y ago
    I wouldn't say "supreme" is inaccurate, since the Supreme Court is superior to every other court. (That's if we accept that Parliament is no longer a court after the Supreme Court assumed its judicial responsibilities. Also, I'm likely wrong because everything one thinks one knows about the UK constitution is always wrong, but feel free to tell me how so.)
    - MonkeyClub 4y ago
      > everything one thinks one knows about the UK constitution is always wrong Ha, this cracked me up, and got me thinking whether it's possible that the UK developed legal bitrot because it hasn't had a good revolution in a while. so it's in a sense.
- javagram 4y ago
  However, the US constitution explicitly states it is the supreme law and limits what congress and the states may pass unless they follow an amendment process. The UK has no constitution for a Supreme Court to claim trumps parliament’s laws. (That said, I understand that the Israeli high court has claimed the ability to overturn parliamentary laws despite Israel not having a constitution either, so perhaps there is a chance a UK court tries the same?)
Veen 4y ago
That is the opposite of the the truth. In fact, you have every right but those Parliament and the common law take away from you. This has been a long-standing principle of English jurisprudence.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  positive rights vs negative rights. You have all negative rights "freedom from", but no positive rights "freedom to"; except as Parliament rules. "An attorney provided by the state" is a positive right.

stuaxo 4y ago

Fucked up I implies incompetence, this is an incompetent leadership yes, but also one happy to attack all the institutions of government and democracy, courts included.