Thursday, July 30, 2009

Judge Ian Trigger for the new Supreme Court

It may have passed the attention of most, but this week saw the eradication of the Law Lords from the Upper House. No more will the House of Lords be the highest court of appeal: in New Labour's New Britain, there is no place for this ancient institution and the subtle fusion of powers: there has to be an increasing separation. So the Law Lords have been expelled and replaced by the new Supreme Court, on the US model, to be housed in the old Middlesex Guildhall in Parliament Square, at a cost of some £60 million.

The appointed supreme judges will have silky new robes in a shiny new building. The Supreme Court will cost £12 million a year to run: at present, the Law Lords cost about £2 million.

But the money is of little consequence.

Although there was a certain tension in having judges in the legislature, the system has evolved over centuries, and it worked. Tony Blair removed the Lord Chancellor - the head of the judiciary - from the Cabinet, after discovering he could not simply abolish the ancient post. At the plea was to the 'rational' in order to 'modernise'. The creation of the Supreme Court is a logical consequence of this incessant constitutional tinkering, but it will be to the detriment and diminution of the status of the House of Lords. A further consequence will be the inevitable politicisation of the Court, exactly as it is in the US. Liberated from the constraints of the legislature, the judges will be more likely, spurred on by EU law and European conventions, to overturn Acts of Parliament. Their personal political views will therefore become a factor in their appointment.

Insofar as each successive prime minister will now ensure that those who constitute the Supreme Court will be ‘on-side’, Cranmer would like to propose a nomination.

Judge Iain Trigger does not look very happy, but he talks an awful lot of sense.

Dispensing a two-year jail sentence this week to a Jamaican drug dealer, his comments were politically insightful and refreshingly lucid:

He told Lucien McClearley, 31, at Liverpool Crown Court: 'Your case illustrates all too clearly the completely lax immigration policy that exists and has existed over recent years.'

He added: 'People like you, and there are literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people like you, come to these shores to avail themselves of the generous welfare benefits that exist here.

'In the past ten years the national debt of this country has risen to extraordinary heights, largely because central Government has wasted billions of pounds. Much of that has been wasted on welfare payments.

'For every £1 that the decent citizen, who is hard-working, pays in taxes, nearly 10 per cent goes on servicing that national debt. That is twice the amount it was in 1997 when this Government came to power.'

Judge Trigger, who is also a part-time immigration judge, told McClearley: 'The fact that it took nearly two years to process your claim shows how desperate the situation in this country has become.'

This is precisely the sort of Supreme Court judge we need: one who will tell it exactly as it is.

After the Conservative fashion, of course.


Blogger Jim Bartlet said...

It will be interesting to hear the arguments against this one, if indeed there can be any.

30 July 2009 at 09:41  
Anonymous philip walling said...

The abolition of the Law Lords is a disgraceful thing which has one purpose and one purpose only: to diminish our liberties and strengthen the power of the liberal-left state over our lives. Had we any spirit remaining we would have opposed this with all our power; men would have gone to the block in defiance of it; that it has gone through with hardly a bat-squeak of protest shows how degraded and servile we have become.
This and the 'e-borders' controls introduced a few weeks ago (with a similarly undeafening protest) are terrifying developments. It will not be long before you will be prevented from travelling and arrested at the airport if your tax return has not been filed on time.
If your conservative party does not promise to abolish the e-borders scheme they are not worth voting for. I fear they won't and I fear, as Simon Heffer said in yesterday's Telegraph, whatever they might be, it will not be a conservative government.

30 July 2009 at 09:57  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Mr Bartlett, against which one?

30 July 2009 at 09:59  
Anonymous Maturecheese said...

Your Grace

The police and the CPS(are they called that now?)have been politicized so the logical extension will naturally be the politicization of the judiciary. Where is all this 'modernisation' going?

I commend the Judge in question for his observations and I have no doubt he will pay a price for making them and I hope that the offender in question is going to be deported after serving his sentence.

The only problem with this subject is it should have been a politician that made this statement, not a Judge but alas we don't have any main stream politicians with the courage or integrity to say it.

30 July 2009 at 10:02  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

So hereditary peers, law lords & soon the bishops are now all gone. And what do we have in their place? Such worthy figures as Glenys Kinnock, Alan Sugar & Peter Mandelson [actually I concede that PM does have some merit]. So those with a long term view of the national interest are replaced by political cronies whose vision can only extend to the next election.

30 July 2009 at 10:11  
Anonymous philip walling said...

This 'modernisation' is going to enslave you and entrench the power of the state over you. The state no longer works for you, you work for the state - the balance shifted a good while ago (police dressing in paramilitary uniforms happened when the state thought it was safe to make it manifest).
I think it's part of the inevitable demise of Britain. There are so many parallels with the decline of the Roman Empire, I'm wondering where the new 'barbarians' will come from to save Christendom and bring in a new moral order.
God help us all.

30 July 2009 at 10:11  
Anonymous Orwellian Prophet said...

But the money is of little consequence.

Money is never of much consequence to Socialists who will tax, borrow or print (sorry quantitatively ease) as much of it is they want to fund their ideological stupidities at our expense.

Since 1876 professional judges have ruled on cases. Why do we need this Supreme Court?

"The introduction of a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom will provide greater clarity in our constitutional arrangements by further separating the judiciary from the legislature."

Why do we need greater clarity in our constitutional arrangements?

"If a Judge has legislative or executive powers they are not sufficiently impartial to ensure a fair trial according to the European Convention of Human Rights."

Now I understand.
This is another phase in the subjugation of Britain by the Confederation across the Channel.

"The court will be an independent institution, presided over by independently appointed law lords."

It will only be independent if Britain becomes independent.

30 July 2009 at 10:23  
Blogger Gnostic said...

And what has Cameron got to say about this? I am deafened by the silence...

I don't normally agree with Heffer but his article made a whole lot of sense to me. And so does voting UKIP next year.

30 July 2009 at 10:52  
Blogger Jim Bartlet said...


I am a bit low on G.A.S today (giving a shit), it happens often these days, so I will appeal to your better judgement.

One thing I am noticing is that there are a lot of Tory supporters who are saying the right things, even if the party its self isn't doing particularly well its self. Maybe this is the hope, that when they get elected, these people will start pushing the right buttons, and turning the right levers. One remains in hope.

This reminds me of the five candles that all start to go out one by one, but so long as the last candle, hope, still burns, then the others can be re lit.

30 July 2009 at 11:07  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Mr Bartlet, you are not alone in being on the edge of despair, but you must take courage and do all in your power to resist this tyranny, even if it's just witholding your income tax to the last minute or delaying paying something else the state demands from you. If you have the courage you might be willing to go to prison rather than pay, but I do not advise that because the consequences of a criminal conviction in this brave new world dog you for ever (no rehabilitation of offenders unless the state approves of them).
But anything you can do to clog up the system would be helpful.
It would only take a sizeable minority to bring the whole stinking edifice to the ground.

30 July 2009 at 11:18  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The Law Lords haven't been expelled.They will make up the 12 justices of the new court.
The Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 attempted to abolish the House of Lords as a judicial body for England so this isn't something Nu-Labour.
Of course the courts that need abolishing are the Ecclesiastical Courts.They serve no real useful purpose and are expensive to operate. An arbitration system would be a much more effective way of dealing with any disputes.

30 July 2009 at 12:35  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Manfarang,

They have been expelled from the House of Lords. That is what His Grace said. New appointees to the Supreme Court will not be ex officio peers. Ergo 'Law Lords' are being phased out.

30 July 2009 at 12:58  
Blogger Manfarang said...

When the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary retire from the Supreme Court they can return to the House of Lords as full members.That is hardly expulsion.

30 July 2009 at 13:20  
Anonymous SJB said...

AC: "Tony Blair removed the Lord Chancellor - the head of the judiciary - from the Cabinet, after discovering he could not simply abolish the ancient post."

The current Lord Chancellor is the Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, who is a member of the Cabinet.

30 July 2009 at 14:27  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Manfarang,

His Grace's point is the members of the Supreme Court will not necessarily be Peers of the Realm. There is no requirement for them to be so. Of course those who are presently peers may return, but there will be no requirement to make new Supreme Court judges peers at all. It is the office which is expelled; not the individual.

30 July 2009 at 14:30  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...


The title only remains.

30 July 2009 at 14:31  
Anonymous SJB said...

I wish we could remove the "subtle fusion of powers" between the executive and the legislature. Imagine if before embarking on another huge IT project the government had to first obtain financial approval from the legislature, which did not include members of the executive.

30 July 2009 at 14:38  
Anonymous Michael Canaris said...

--This is another phase in the subjugation of Britain by the Confederation across the Channel.--

Bosh. There's no way the German political class (for instance) would get away with rushing through massive changes to their Grundgesetz in such an ad hoc manner.

Rather, this problem stems from the utter philistinism near the core of New Labour.

30 July 2009 at 14:42  
Anonymous SJB said...

Your Grace,

Please be assured the Lord Chancellor still has many functions: see sch7 Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
These functions only be removed by an Act of Parliament.

The Lord Chancellor, as far as I know, still exercises patronage in Church of England matters; for example, a Lord Chancellor's Living.

30 July 2009 at 15:39  
Anonymous Faust's audience said...

We want 2 Referenda Now!!!

eu Yes/No
mozzies Yes/No

30 July 2009 at 16:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your grace
would it not be manifestly to the advantage of the British electorate if members of this "government" suffered the fate that you in a previous life suffered?

30 July 2009 at 17:06  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Brown's head on a spike would do for a start - for the first week - then the rest of them, one a week, every week until the railings round the Palace of Westminster are full.

30 July 2009 at 17:34  
Anonymous Faust's Audience said...

Philip W -
I like that picture! Very Celtic-British: they kept the heads, as I recall, because it gave them power over the spirits of their enemies.

After all, genetically speaking we are predominantly Celtic [cf B. Sykes: 'Blood of the Isles']. And now that the neu euies have banished Christianity - well what else should they expect?

I think we might "Modernise" by anticipating the event and playing it psychologically though. We could employ modern pagan artists who to model heads artificially: and then stick the models on the railings.

That way we could claim religious and artistic immunity if they got us via cameras. We could double the chances of immunity, really, if we dressed up in burkas and hijabs and black sheets and things - so that we looked like desert dung beetles.

Let's not forget to take our own cameras, as well - --- [The event would never make our so-called Media]

30 July 2009 at 18:06  
Anonymous Faust's Audience said...

"who to model": sorry - either or.

30 July 2009 at 18:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Judge Trigger should watch his back, and resist the temptation to go walking in the woods. I hope he enjoys his retirement, which will now no doubt be brought forward "for" him.

30 July 2009 at 19:10  
Anonymous not a machine said...

My concern is that it is the sort of vanity to play up to the legal profession , the more we go down this legalistic formatt , the more educating children to gain the more moral and fluid notions in the mind of right and wrong , becomes a matter for the state.

It is of course the model for the EU sell off , we have the european court of human rights , the european court, these will then influence and gradually harmonise our legislature to the EU.

The expense is bad enough , but it further weakens the second chambers debating potential .

the law will now be defined by case seperate to the legislative process and will no doubt bloom in its powers and reports , resulting in a very different sort of commons and legislative formulation , with goverment having to refer to it before it does anything .

our old system worked , but in subtle ways that made both chambers give a legal reference in formualting laws , as it was within the same structure and not seperate .

it smacks too much of socialism , departments vying for power , when before it just had to be watertight before being presented .

A future unecessary expense for the tax payer , you bet .

30 July 2009 at 19:56  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Dear Mr F's Audience

Why is it Celtic-British? I am half Celt, half Norse, so you're not far wrong, but I'd never thought my writing betrayed at least half of my ancestry.
And why have models? What's wrong with the real thing?
We're all too reasonable and faux-peaceable nowadays;if these shits in charge thought there was some possibility of being lynched they might behave with less contempt for their electorate and more circumspection.

30 July 2009 at 20:51  
Anonymous Faust's Audience said...

Dear Mr. Walling:

I'm distinguishing between Celts in the British Isles and those in euroland. We're not necessarily all the same (though some 'Atlantic' types are close).

Everything I read - a fair bit - suggests that the Vikings and the Normans pretty well polished off the Anglo-Saxons between them. That supports Sykes's finding (c. 2006) that, even in England, the genetic substrate is now predominantly Celtic.

As I understand it, in the north (especially northeast) we retain quite a bit of germanic - probably Viking. Viking, of course, wasn't uniformly Norse... though that is proportionately higher in Scotland. The Sykes is eminently readable... and the Oxford-based project has a website, too.

[I'd actually like to have my own DNA tested - but it's too expensive, right now!].

Anyway, moving to the topic: ummm - maybe I'm a bit squeamish, Christian, and feminine, about taking responsibility for the real thing! So I wouldn't mind a trial run with the models - But, come the Revolution and the total abolition of our own Law .... :)

30 July 2009 at 22:33  
Anonymous Benedict Telfer said...

Your Grace
It is ironic that when the uneducated people talk about not wanting to "go like america" when religion and politics are mentioned in the same breath are the very people who are turning us into america -or far worse the EUSSR and this is a classic example.

I for one do not want to start seeing "political" judges. Will Mrs Blair be angling after a position (about right- Mr Blair becomes EUSSR President and the Mrs still 'wants' her career) .

30 July 2009 at 22:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The trouble is that we had labour medling in our ancient constitution for the past 12 years when it should not have- they are bolshevik-liberals gone mad .

They leave a mess.

It is up to the conservatives to solve this mess, just like we have done after EVERY labour government . Sad to say, but it is true.

30 July 2009 at 22:55  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

I'm not sure I'll be able to suffer New Labour for much longer. they are totally insufferable!

Basically, when it comes to the majesty of this country's history, tradtions and culture they have no soul. Even a philistine would blink twice.

30 July 2009 at 23:47  
Blogger Joanna Bogle said...

This change in our legal system is a bad one. Pray for our poor country.See my blogpost.

Auntie Joanna

31 July 2009 at 00:04  
Anonymous Faust's Audience said...

P.S: btw Mr. Walling - I don't mean to suggest that the head cult was confined to the British - I think it was probably pan-Celtic. The Romans weren't above depicting it on Trajan's Column, either!

Sorry to post again...

31 July 2009 at 01:06  
Blogger John Woolman said...

Whilst not in any way dissenting from the accuracy and relevance of HHJ Trigger's comments, has he contravened Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1689?

Just asking...

31 July 2009 at 07:59  
Blogger The Young Oligarch said...

This Supreme Court raises other constitutional questions . Originally the House of Lords did not have jurisdiction over Scottish cases . Within the first decade or so of the Union it did manage to assert its authority , due to the fact that it was part of Parliament . Had it been merely another part of the English legal system it would have been specifically barred from having jurisdiction over Scotland by the Treaty of Union .

I think I'm correct in saying this .

31 July 2009 at 10:58  
Anonymous stereodog said...

I disagree with your analysis on this for two main reasons. Firstly I think it is a cheap argument to say that the US Supreme Court is 'politicised'. It is true that Americans talk of liberal and conservative judges but that refers more to their attitudes to the constitution rather than their politics. Secondly the judge you were quoting is hardly any less political than US Supreme Court judges, he was expressing a conservative philosophy on immigration that you happen to agree with. The great advantage of the US Supreme Court system is that as a consequence of the Senate confirmation procedure the public knows exactly where they stand on controversial issues.

31 July 2009 at 13:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have any English voice and accent, stereodog. The American Irish hate the English: their ferocity seems to grow exponentially as Britain weakens. They love it: serves us right, they say.

So if I were ever tried under the authority of an American-Irish Judge, I would expect dispatch by Mafia, not Justice.

31 July 2009 at 16:53  
Anonymous merely a mouse said...

My copy of Blake, the Visionary, is open today. So - substituting 'supreme judges' and PCs where he has 'priests' [e.g] - I thought the following bears comparison with the present state of erstwhile British 'lore and order':

I went to the Garden of Love
And I saw what I never had seen:
A chapel was built in the midst
Where I used to play on the green.

And the gates of this chapel were shut,
And 'Thou shalt not' writ over the door;
So I turned to the Garden of Love
That so many sweet flowers bore.

And I saw it was filled with graves
And tombstones where flowers should be;
And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
And binding with briars my joys and desires.

31 July 2009 at 17:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The trouble with giddy up Trigger is that everyone locally has always regarded him as a waste of space and probably a sick joke.Noone knows how he was appointed in the first place.

31 July 2009 at 22:12  
Anonymous Dave J. said...

"Had it been merely another part of the English legal system it would have been specifically barred from having jurisdiction over Scotland by the Treaty of Union."

The HoL is the court of last resort for Scottish civil cases, but still does not have jurisdiction over Scottish criminal appeals. I'm not sure whether the new Supreme Court will or not: its enabling legislation would likely have to amend the Act of Union to do so.

This has always struck me as an odd and inverted arrangement, BTW, since Scots civil law is very significantly different from English law, but Scottish criminal law is substantively much closer, because most criminal law in the UK is statutory, not common law.

The new Supreme Court strikes me at a first glance as more similar to the Supreme Court of Canada than of the United States: the Canadian Supreme Court is the final court of appeal as to EVERY legal question in the country, i.e. it is not only the federal supreme court but ALSO the supreme court of each of the provinces, with the last word as to matters of provincial law. As you may know, the Supreme Court of the United States does not and indeed cannot "do" state law as such: federal courts in the US may strike down state law as inconsistent with valid federal law, but otherwise they do not construe state law and must accept the opinions of the state courts as binding upon them as to questions of state law.

1 August 2009 at 01:18  
Blogger Emmanuel said...

Judge Ian Trigger's comments are disgraceful as they have no bearing on the case in front of him. He cannot reach the conclusions he reached on immigration on the basis of evidence before him.

The big question now is how much of his obvious dislike of immigrant influenced his sentencing of the accused.

A level-headed analysis of Judge Ian Trigger's comments will show that his comments are not supported by facts.

As a conservative, I am afraid that, while the country desperately needs a conservative government to steer it back to sanity, comments by every daily sun reading immigrant hating racist is perceived to have the sympathy of the conservatives. I have no doubt that Judge Ian Trigger would not have made similar statements had the accused been a white guy from Canada (who is also an immigrant---except "immigrants" is your code-word for black and Asians)

4 August 2009 at 17:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tuesday 4th August 12 : 14 . 20 BBC R4 Midnight News.

Judge Trigger to be investigated for comments by Lord Chief Justice.

Emmanuel - Immigrants as code ?

Migrants go somewhere, do something, then they go back to where they came from, migration, immigrants. Ref : Any Dictonary.

Colonialist go somewhere, but do NOT go back, they colonise. Ref : Any Dictonary.

Are you sure you are not inadvertantly using 'ecconomic' Westminster Code yourself ?

5 August 2009 at 23:22  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older