@http asks: Should we Elect our Senior Judges?

http

@http asks: Should We Elect our Senior Judges now that they interprete Political Decisions made by a serving UK Government?

In my opinion, they crossed a line and should in future be accountable to taxpayers.

Yes

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/david-neuberger-on-the-power-of-judges-in-the-uk

majorincident

http, David Neuberger doesn't address this in the extract.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of the judiciary in this country. People should learn what it does before calling for judges to be elected. By the way, who should elect judges and to what end?

andyslc

http did you watch and most importantly understand the entire court case or are you basing judgement on media articles?

For clarity they (the judges) ruled it as illegal ie a point of law, and it is only the losing side ie the government, who are saying it was a political decision.

Judges currently are selected on a far better basis of merit than the public would be capable of. The judiciary is independent and needs to stay that way less we have a partisan system as they have in the US.

eileenusher

http no we shouldn't, judges are selected on there knowledge of the law, not for political reasons, there decesion was not political they were simply asked to rule if the perogation of Parliament the way Johnson went about it and lied was lawful, they did just that they found it unlawful.

techiebloke

http The judiciary are, and need to remain, independent of political interference.

A case was brought before them, as happens every day and they were asked to rule upon it upon their interpretation of law which they have studied at great length (hence why those in the legal profession may refer to each other as 'my learned friend' and they certainly know more than your average MP or armchair expert.
People don't always get the result they want but that isn't a reason to argue to be able to change the Judge for one that is more sympathetic to one side or the other.

jaymailsays

http In my opinion, they crossed a line and should in future be accountable to taxpayers.

In days gone by, men thought it acceptable to deprive women of a vote.

Ironically in 2019, Judges deem themselves to be above the law and continue to rely on the appointment system and resist an election process for those in the upper echelons of the Judiciary.

Few are advocating elections for Magistrates or for Judges in the lower courts but where SCJ are making new law on the hoof, we need new safeguards put in place, that carry out the will of the electorate and have SCJ who are accountable for their actions every decade to us 👨‍⚖️ 👩‍⚖️

basil1921

http 'Yes' - And presumably you'd want them changed everytime there was a change of government. Should we elect heads of civil service departments too?

caro120

http

I started reading this but too tired to take it in at mo.

My goodness, electing judges - is hard enough finding someone worthy for position of PM!...

Trouble is we don't know enough about the people going for the job. Anywhere else you'd have a CV and letter of application, do a CRB check or whatever it called and have 6 month probation or maybe less, references too...

Seems crazy when you consider how much devastation they can bring about.. though I guess rest of party or lords mitigate that a bit, not sure? Maybe royalty have a part to play too if things got too out of hand for their subjects? I certainly think they should take some interest in things.

ps as for judges, they do go through lengthy study, training etc. presumably the law society regulates them as with solicitors, not sure. If did have serious concerns then hopefully there would be recourse or some sort of ombudsman but then I guess majority of people who have sentances, fines or decisions made may try to object and it would be unworkable...

All I know is legal system is expensive, you don't get the legal aid used to and it is causing major injustice and some terrible situations for sure.

nefarius

They are the only safe guard against rogue prime ministers and hoodwinked royalty. That's clearly obvious now.
What a proper democracy the UK has!

jaymailsays

nefarius It was the High Court that decided Boris was unlawful.

You are out of touch.
The High Court in England found in favour of the Government.

@majorincident wrote:-
By the way, who should elect judges and to what end?

The Taxpayers
Transparency

@andysic wrote:-
The judiciary is independent

Not any more

davidvarley

nefarius
yeah a joke of a parliament that do not know what they are doing.
An ant could do a better job than them jokers.

nefarius

jaymailsays Oops, I misread that.

andishdi

Perhaps not elected but they should be answerable.

Instances where there clearly hasn’t been impartiality, such as this, there needs to be repercussions. You cannot be entrusted to such a role when showing such blatant bias... It’s fundamentally wrong but on top of that it’s a slap in the face to the public who see them sending down their opinions down from upon high, dressing them up as rulings.

eileenusher

andishdi what bias, they looked at the evidence, looked at laws ancient and modern and ruled on that, come on 11 judges uniamously said it was unlawful, so your saying all 11 just happened to be bias, mmm I think more likely they looked at evidence, laws, discussed and decided based on that evidence and laws it was unlawful.

nefarius

11 judges all agreed that Boris's prorogation was constitutionally unlawful. Why would 11 judges all agree on this? Either because it's true or Remain bias perhaps? So many people are accused of being remainers, now, that they must clearly be a majority. Everyone's a remainer!

andath

davidvarley yeah a joke of a parliament that do not know what they are doing.
An ant could do a better job than them jokers.

I take it you'll be putting yourself up for election, seeing as the job is a joke and those representing you are so poor!

majorincident

You are out of touch.
The High Court in England found in favour of the Government.

The High Court is a lower court and its ruling has been set aside by The Supreme Court. However, we remain a member of the EU and the government is welcome to appeal to the ECJ. 🤣

As a taxpayer, how exactly do I go about electing a judge?

jaymailsays

majorincident As a taxpayer, how exactly do I go about electing a judge?

When Parliament passes a Bill that allows it.

Ask your MP whether they would support a change to the law. If not, ask others standing in your area, whether they would or not.

andyxhill

The High Court rules PArliament should return, they did and what a fabulous job they are doing shouting ,ranting and sorting out expenses

baconbutty

andyxhill What so you think they should all get a payed extended break ?

jaymailsays

standardbearer In the days before blaire instigated the supreme court, The High Court was the end.

Hardly, the European Court reigns Supreme.

andyxhill The High Court rules PArliament should return

The High Court of England ruled the opposite of that. The Juges there ruled it was a political matter. The unelected Supreme Court overturned the decision and said our elected Goverment ill advised our unelected Queen.

majorincident standardbearer, in fact, no. The highest appellate court was the House of Lords.

As your link says:-

"in the UK"

The judicial role of the House of Lords as the highest appeal court in the UK has ended.

kenralph

Elected Judges???
Heaven forfend.
We elect Members of Parliament, and that is it.
We don't even elect jurors, and for very good reason.

andyslc

I had no idea we had so many legal experts and mind readers on here. What on Earth are you doing on these forums? Judges are quite well payed, especially ones with such extensive knowledge that they can decide if 11 of the highest judges in the land acted politically rather than legally and impartially.

zakrs

No, because that's where "The power of people ends" and rightly so as some idiotic decisions can be just overturned.

dave99

Elected judges? What a terrible idea.

Judges, making reference to the law and constitution give a judgement, 11 of them in a unanimous verdict and people suddenly want to cry about electing judges because they don't like the judgement? Do they think this is Trump's USA?

Ridiculous...