Contempt of court......

Joined
7 Jan 2007
Messages
8,836
Reaction score
1,224
Country
United Kingdom
Some very interesting reading here !


http://contempt.fmotl.com/


from further down the link ~

Now, since the Magna Carta 1215 TREATY is the best-known start to a written Constitution that we have, where do 'Bill of Rights (1689) ... etc ... the Supreme Court Act 1981' obtain their Constitutional legitimacy? The Magna Carta 1215 says NOTHING about any legitimacy for any Parliament - nor (obviously) for any Acts of Parliament. In point of fact the Magna Carta 1215 specifically states that any attempt to supersede it is null & void.

How very clever ~

In point of fact the Magna Carta 1215 specifically states that any attempt to supersede it is null & void. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Sponsored Links
Some very interesting reading here !


http://contempt.fmotl.com/


from further down the link ~

Now, since the Magna Carta 1215 TREATY is the best-known start to a written Constitution that we have, where do 'Bill of Rights (1689) ... etc ... the Supreme Court Act 1981' obtain their Constitutional legitimacy? The Magna Carta 1215 says NOTHING about any legitimacy for any Parliament - nor (obviously) for any Acts of Parliament. In point of fact the Magna Carta 1215 specifically states that any attempt to supersede it is null & void.

How very clever ~

In point of fact the Magna Carta 1215 specifically states that any attempt to supersede it is null & void. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


But what you omitted to point out was a paragraph prior to the one that you refer to, namely:

1221. Constitutional Acts.

The British Constitution is said to be 'unwritten'. This only means that, unlike most countries, the United Kingdom does not possess a single comprehensive constitution and much of its constitutional principle is embodied in the common law. There are nevertheless a number of historic statutes regarded as embodying and setting forth the state's constitutional principles. Any modern Act which amends or adds to these may also be regarded as a constitutional Act. The main significance of classing an Act as a constitutional Act lies in the nature of the interpretative criteria which then apply to it. In particular, the rights the Act confers, having the quality of constitutional rights, will be regarded by the courts as fundamental and not to be displaced except by clear words.

But exactly what was the point of your post?
if it was to contest the Bil of Rights (1689). Then this Bill was an Act of Parliament.
Magna Carta was designed to limit the power of the king. It had no concept of Parliament at that time.
Magna Carta 1215
The first concept of Parliament 1236 The King (parler) talking with his nobles. The King was head of "parliament" then.
 
That a judge cannot accuse you of contempt of court !

It would have to go to trial
 
That a judge cannot accuse you of contempt of court !

It would have to go to trial

I'd never thought of that but, now you mention it, I suppose that although a judge can accuse you of contempt of court, to be fair he'd have to prove it. Are we not all innocent until proven guilty? And are we not entitled to be tried by twelve of our peers?
 
Sponsored Links
I suppose that although a judge can accuse you of contempt of court, to be fair he'd have to prove it. Are we not all innocent until proven guilty? And are we not entitled to be tried by twelve of our peers?

Now look here, my good man, one thing, would you risk the cost of a trial and even more severe sentence?

I don't know. If I felt I'd done nothing wrong I probably would, but I'm a bit pig-headed like that.

And I don't really have a great deal of judges these days. They seem to have a great deal of sympathy for convicted criminals and, going by the sort of 'sentences' they award, I'd probably receive an all expenses paid holiday in one of Her Majesty's holiday camps.
 
A judge can send you to prison for contempt without a trial, thats the whole purpose of doing it. The only release is if you purge your contempt, usually by saying sorry. Its usually done by doubling up, i had dealings with someone who couldnt stop beating his girl about, a court order was issued forbidding contact which was broken, the tw*t got 42 days, with the prospect of 84 to follow, no right of appeal and no time off for good behaviour. I often wondered why all prison sentences couldnt be the same.
 
A judge can send you to prison for contempt without a trial, thats the whole purpose of doing it.

That, then, must be the only crime or misdemeanour of which one can be found guilty without a fair trial.

Or is it?

Don't get me wrong. I'm no supporter of criminals and ne'er do wells. I think they deserve all they get and, preferably, more. But what happened to 'trial by jury'?

Perhaps we should bring back 'trial by fire' too!
 
You could start by asking Michael Howard the former home secretary who ended the right to trial by jury of those charged with assault on Police..............................because the conviction rate was so low. Now it is tried in the magistrates(formerly Police courts) and the conviction rate is, if I remember correctly, amongst, if not the highest.

Incidentally all attempts to increase the conviction rate of alleged rapists have failed because they can only be tried in the crown courts.

You could ask why it was deemed necessary to have Diplock(single judge) Trials in Northern Ireland.

You might wonder why we already have secret trials in the family courts where someone can be sent to prison without what many would consider to be a fair trial.

You probably know that you are deemed to be guilty of the offence of driving under the influence if you fail the breathalyser at the Police station or fail to provide a sample breath/blood. Very few people have been able to "prove" themselves not guilty once charged.

If you are cautioned and fail to answer questions put to you by Police, customs and excise, work and pension and later charged the presiding judge at your trial can direct the jury to draw inference from that as a sign of guilt but they should be directed by the judge that they cannot rely on that silence alone.

If you have a previous conviction for an offence for which you are now facing trial the jury can be told and of course conclude that you are likely to committed the offence for which have been charged.

That is just a little taste.

In this country you can quite literally be tried by the butcher, the baker and candle stick maker if you are tried in the magistrates court.

trial by 12 of your peers and innocent until proven guilty is a myth.
 
You probably know that you are deemed to be guilty of the offence of driving under the influence if you fail the breathalyser at the Police station or fail to provide a sample breath/blood. Very few people have been able to "prove" themselves not guilty once charged.

An excellent post. It certainly sounds like a minefield.

Taking the one example above, I think it would be impractical to have to have a full jury trial if breathalyser or blood test evidence of high blood alcohol levels are present. I'd like to think that, even in such circumstances, the option of a full trial should be made available to the person being charged, if they felt they wanted it. However, if found guilty (which would be almost a certainty) they would have to pay all court costs.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top