Judges refuse to back Justice Ministry

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, says that concerns amongst senior judges over their independence is so high that they have been unable to come to an agreement with the British government over the creation of a Justice Ministry.

The Ministry will be headed up for the time being by the unelected Scottish Lord Chancellor of England, Charlie Falconer who prefers illegal summary justice to the traditional trial by judge and jury that every Englishman has a constitutional right to.  Judges are concerned that they will be sidelined by Falconers control of the entire legal and justice system and his penchant for unconstitutional summary justice.

The Lord Chief Justice has called for a review of the courts’ status as Executive Agencies and for the introduction of “constitutional safeguards” to protect their independence.  Falconer disagrees.

7 comments

  1. Calum (183 comments) says:

    You are wrong there.

    Falconer actually agrees with Philips, beleving that Reid only split the Home office so he could focus on terrorism. Falconer beleives that the justice ministery which he is temporary head of (he says it is a post that should be held by an elected member, an MP. Falconer is infact a man of great propririety and is an asset, he is a man of hogh moral fibre, or at least has more morals than most of his compatriots at the top of New Labour).

    Falconer has said that he beleive there is a propensity for Justice ministery to neglect judiciary in favour of penal system.

    People seem so worried that the judiciary will be neglected and intefered with. Why? The old home office had the same job. In fact if anything the judiciary should receive more funding as it will be one of only a few issues for the ministery of justice to press for funding. Whereas in the old Home office it was behind terrorism, jails etc…, behind a long list of more politicially sensetive issues, whereas now it is number 2 issue for the justice dept. I think if anything it will now get more funding, and may be a better run service. There will be no nagative effects form it being higher up the agenda for a department. Also all concerns of inteference were also present in the old Home office.

  2. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Calum, again, please check your facts before blindly disagreeing with people because they disagree with Liebour policies.

    He wants an inquiry into the issues raised by the new ministry – and he called for “constitutional safeguards” to ensure the continued independence of the judiciary.

    “We have now reached the firm view that there is a need to have a fundamental review of the position in light of the creation of the Ministry of Justice,” he told the Constitutional Affairs Committee.

    Lord Falconer had hoped to reach an agreement but he told the judges a number of topics were off limits, including the executive agency status of HM Courts Service and the possibility of ring-fencing its budget.

    Lord Phillips told the committee: “We’ve tried very hard to reach an interim agreement to tide over the period that will elapse before a review, and any implementation of it can take effect.”

    He said the Lord Chancellor did not agree there was a need for a review.

  3. Ed Longshanks III (9 comments) says:

    Socialist stooge and general Quisling (lacking brain & spellchecker)wrote:
    “Falconer is infact a man of great propririety and is an asset”

    I welcome your comments on Lord Dome. Best laugh this week – so far. You can’t believe that surely? Are your drugs prescribed? The country has a right to know, if only to be reassured that care in the community is actually working and that the only thing you have control over – is a broom.

  4. Calum (183 comments) says:

    Falconer is one of a few good eggs in the current labour administration. How many other ministers or shadow ministers whould stand down from such a post as minister for justice, part of one of the main offices of state because he believed it would be more befitting for an elected man/woman to have the job? Answer – not many.

    Falconer has done good work as lord Chancellor and his work in the dept of constitutional affars, although fleeting, has been worthwhile and good.

    You just dislike him because he is a Scott.

  5. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    Calum, you need to check your facts. Falconer was told he wasn’t getting the job, he didn’t step aside.

    Falconer has done an appaling job in the DCLG.

  6. Calum (183 comments) says:

    No Falconer said he would step aside, he wasn’t pushed. You are wrong i am afraid.

  7. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    I disagree. What I read said that Reid made it clear the Justice Ministry would be headed up by an MP.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.