I cannot recall any other occasion on which a judge or magistrate has openly expressed the hope that his decision will be appealed, although it must happen occasionally.
This chap has made his views clear, and I shall be interested to find out how things turn out.
Unjudicial behaviour. The court takes the law as it finds it.
ReplyDeleteThare are bonkers judges, just as there are bonkers criminals.
ReplyDeleteOthers have faired better in court. In 1999 three women caused £80,000 worth of damage at a Scottish Trident base, mainly by throwing computers into the loch. At trial they offered the defence that nuclear weapons are illegal and so their actions were lawful. The jury acquitted at the direction of the judge. Breaking in and planting a fig tree seems tame by comparison.
ReplyDeleteDetails here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/11_00.html
I agree with the previous comment. Really quite disgraceful comments. The politics are not the business of the court. Further, I find it rather bizzare that the judge would welcome an appeal. Does he think that grounds exist? If so, then what does he think was defective in his judgement?
ReplyDeleteSurprising unjudicial, and it wouldn't be in the least surprising if he were soundly taken to task by the OJC.
ReplyDeleteKate Caveat
it is one thing to say that the decision is according to law and if the D doesn't like it he can appeal. It is quite another to get involved in the emotion of the case. That is certainly not what a judge should do.
ReplyDeleteBut after all he is a human and human failings are part of life.
I have to agree with Kate. I'm sure that if it were one of us lowly beaks, we would be soundly castigated for such a statement
ReplyDeleteTo a layman, the case appears clear from the outset. They damaged a fence, committed trespass and took unauthorised photographs on ministry of defence land - an offence because they were actually inside the perimeter fence. Had they been on public land, they would be able to take photos. It is surprising the only case brought against them was criminal damage. Maybe the judge is not the only one sympathetic to their cause.
ReplyDeleteAllowing the usual reservations about relying upon press reports, the foregoing criticisms of the District Judge (MC) are misconceived and unfair. He plainly was considering the law and not getting involved in the politics. The statute provides that a person is guilty of criminal damage only if it is committed “without lawful excuse”. It seems that in this case the defendants admitted committing the damage but argued the defence of lawful excuse. The facts appear to have been undisputed and the issue hinged on whether or not on those facts the excuse put forward amounted to a lawful excuse under Criminal Damage Act s.5. The DJ found, as he said “not without hesitation”, that as a matter of law it did not. It was this legal finding that the DJ seems to have believed might merit appeal – presumably because, on the argument he heard, he could see that the law was capable of bearing a different interpretation. Little wrong in being honest in saying that – and something that is not so uncommon in the High Court where judges more frequently have to wrestle with legal uncertainty.
ReplyDeleteWe don't know the details. But it sounds like this is a well-disciplined DJ who applied the law as he was supposed to, in spite of seeing some sort of factor that made that application of the law potentially unjust.
ReplyDeleteThe DJ(MC) plainly had some sympathy with the defendants but found the law to be against them. I think it better for DJ(MC)s and Magistrates to simply apply the law without additional comment as to its merits.
ReplyDelete