4 ms·

The UK has a spectacularly weak judicial system for an industrialized country. From the lack of judicial review of primary legislation ([1]) through a huge abu

by drucken 14y ago

The UK has a spectacularly weak judicial system for an industrialized country. From the lack of judicial review of primary legislation ([1]) through a huge abundance of archaic haphazard laws, to lack of representative judges, to the ease with each political, police, partisan and private organisations can influence the judiciary, the UK system is ripe for abuse and disruption by any industry. It is also fertile ground at this time due to the dual US/UK government focus around issues of "Intellectual Property". From a general perspective, the only saving grace, which is a relatively minor one in practice (by volume not significance), is that EU laws normally have precedence and judges are therefore unable to act completely unilaterally without risking being overturned. Just think: what other industrial country permits unilateral criminal prosecution from private entities with explicit support from one of its judges? [1] Yes, I am aware that without an arms-length written constitution, this would potentially make things even worse.

objclxt 14y ago
I'm not sure what perspective you're writing from, but I think many people in the legal profession would disagree with you. Firstly, the UK has several distint judicial systems. I suspect in this case you're referring to the English legal system (Scotland having its own, entirely separate, process). There's then the civil and criminal courts. The former are held in high regard around the world - the English courts are often the venue of choice for impartially resolving international disputes and litigation. You can argue it is a discrepancy that private prosecutions are still allowed - at some point in the past they did actually serve a purpose - however, under the English system it is up to the government, rather than the judiciary, to correct that. I am not pretending it is a perfect system: far from it. I think in this case the judge behaved inappropriately, and the logic being used to force a copyright claim (which is a tort, i.e, purely a civil matter) into a criminal one (conspiracy to defraud) is potentially very spurious. However, this is also why an appeals system exists. What I'm basically trying to say in a round-about way is that I don't think the English courts are 'spectacularly weak' - they have their problems, but what judicial system doesn't?
- tptacek 14y ago
  The UK has a criminal copyright infringement statute; like the US, infringement becomes criminal when you do it for money. It is news to me --- and, wow --- that private entities can prosecute crimes in the UK. Am I reading that right?
  - waqf 14y ago
    Yes, that's right. For example the RSPCA, a private charity, brings its own prosecutions against alleged animal abusers, something that the CPS (government prosecutors) might not want to spend time and money on.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    Well, only England & Wales (not Scotland), but yeah. Private prosecution used to be the norm, and was never abolished, just supplemented by Crown prosecution. The Crown can take over any private prosecution, either to prosecute it themselves, or to drop the charges, and now handles most cases. But sometimes the Crown doesn't care to intervene either way, and the case can go forward on the private party's dime. I can't seem to find any statistics on how common convictions are in those cases, e.g. if it's mostly private parties wasting their time on no-hope prosecutions, or if there are actually a substantial number of people convicted in cases that the Crown doesn't consider worth prosecuting.
  - arethuza 14y ago
    It seems odd to me that in other countries individuals can't bring criminal cases - leaving everything to the "official" prosecutor (e.g the Procurator Fiscal here in Scotland).
    - tptacek 14y ago
      How, exactly, do pleas and charge reductions work when the person conducting the prosecution has none of the incentives for leniency that the state does?
      - 14y ago

by drucken 14y ago

objclxt 14y ago

I'm not sure what perspective you're writing from, but I think many people in the legal profession would disagree with you. Firstly, the UK has several distint judicial systems. I suspect in this case you're referring to the English legal system (Scotland having its own, entirely separate, process). There's then the civil and criminal courts. The former are held in high regard around the world - the English courts are often the venue of choice for impartially resolving international disputes and litigation. You can argue it is a discrepancy that private prosecutions are still allowed - at some point in the past they did actually serve a purpose - however, under the English system it is up to the government, rather than the judiciary, to correct that. I am not pretending it is a perfect system: far from it. I think in this case the judge behaved inappropriately, and the logic being used to force a copyright claim (which is a tort, i.e, purely a civil matter) into a criminal one (conspiracy to defraud) is potentially very spurious. However, this is also why an appeals system exists. What I'm basically trying to say in a round-about way is that I don't think the English courts are 'spectacularly weak' - they have their problems, but what judicial system doesn't?

tptacek 14y ago
The UK has a criminal copyright infringement statute; like the US, infringement becomes criminal when you do it for money. It is news to me --- and, wow --- that private entities can prosecute crimes in the UK. Am I reading that right?
- waqf 14y ago
  Yes, that's right. For example the RSPCA, a private charity, brings its own prosecutions against alleged animal abusers, something that the CPS (government prosecutors) might not want to spend time and money on.
- _delirium 14y ago
  Well, only England & Wales (not Scotland), but yeah. Private prosecution used to be the norm, and was never abolished, just supplemented by Crown prosecution. The Crown can take over any private prosecution, either to prosecute it themselves, or to drop the charges, and now handles most cases. But sometimes the Crown doesn't care to intervene either way, and the case can go forward on the private party's dime. I can't seem to find any statistics on how common convictions are in those cases, e.g. if it's mostly private parties wasting their time on no-hope prosecutions, or if there are actually a substantial number of people convicted in cases that the Crown doesn't consider worth prosecuting.
- arethuza 14y ago
  It seems odd to me that in other countries individuals can't bring criminal cases - leaving everything to the "official" prosecutor (e.g the Procurator Fiscal here in Scotland).
  - tptacek 14y ago
    How, exactly, do pleas and charge reductions work when the person conducting the prosecution has none of the incentives for leniency that the state does?
    - 14y ago