|
Post by Jim on Nov 4, 2016 9:37:51 GMT
So, what about using the review on CRT. Go and start your own thread in Politics if you don't like the rule of law. ๐
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 4, 2016 9:53:45 GMT
So, what about using the review on CRT. Go and start your own thread in Politics if you don't like the rule of law. ๐ You will have to explain that .... judicial review is subject to appeal ...... that is the law
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 4, 2016 10:24:27 GMT
So, what about using the review on CRT. Go and start your own thread in Politics if you don't like the rule of law. ๐ You will have to explain that .... judicial review is subject to appeal ...... that is the law What's to explain? Main thrust of my thread was to ask whether judicial review is a tool to be used to keep CRT operating within the law. as for stating the obvious, I know that, also all 11 supreme court judges will be deciding on the brexit issue, not just 3 of them.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Nov 4, 2016 10:54:37 GMT
And I am sure they will uphold the will of the people and say parliament doesnt have to vote, because they have already voted in the referendum and the people spoke and the government want to action that result! Its called democracy
|
|
|
Post by mischief on Nov 4, 2016 11:17:20 GMT
British justice is as it always has been... Sometimes British justice works - there is always hope.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 4, 2016 11:39:47 GMT
Main thrust of my thread was to ask whether judicial review is a tool to be used to keep CRT operating within the law. Despite the convention quoted by bodger as to the separation between Parliament and the judiciary, this is sometimes as tenuous as the parties desire. The judiciary opposes Parliament mostly where their independence is seen to be threatened, and/or their role is seen as overlooked โ as might be the situation in the example cited. Even if that were not the case, where both parties are of single mind, the effect is the same. The Courts have historically been exceedingly reluctant to bring their full power to bear upon such quangos as BW, and Judicial Reviews on the whole will lean towards upholding the decisions of authoritarian bodies. Theoretically, of course, you are correct; the Judicial Review process is specifically designed for just such a purpose โ a means for the public to challenge the decisions of those in power over them. Aside, however, from the Courtโs natural reluctance to hold governing bodies up for criticism [except where those are seen to be impinging on Court authority], there is also the fact that you have to pinpoint a precise decision over which to mount the challenge. Even then, the reluctance of the Court to interfere can be seen from the example of the attempted NBTA JR. That sought to challenge the decision by CaRT to publish a reviewed Guidance for boaters without home moorings. To be clear: it was the content of that Guidance that was challenged, not the decision to issue guidance in the first place. A great deal of confusion reigned amongst boaters as to what was sought to be accomplished, and the judiciary did their level best to keep the challenge out of their courtrooms. A measure of the lengths to which they went can be seen even from the number of interim dismissals along the way. One of the most successful โspinsโ that CaRT made out of the progressive proceedings, revolved around the number of times the application was scornfully dismissed. What that [intentionally] overlooked, of course, was that the history showed only, that the succession of high Court judges had failed to appreciate the core validity of the challenge per se. The fact that it finally took the second highest judge in the land to recognise that there was a case to answer, was not a reflection on Nick Brown, it was a reflection on the inability of the lower level judges to appreciate the point. In a very real sense, the eventual hearing revealed even at that point, the extreme reluctance of the High Court to go along, even with their superiorโs directive. Personally, I saw the judgeโs urging that the matter was pointless in the absence of a โfactual matrixโ to be a transparent cop-out, and legally unsustainable [not to mention being in defiance of the Lord Justiceโs opinion]. However, that was the outcome after more than a year of almost wasted effort on all sides: withdrawal of the challenge, leaving the issues yet to be decided upon. Interestingly, Mr Stoner QC harked back to this during Leighโs last hearing. I am deeply suspicious of the sincerity - albeit it makes sense - but his assertion was that his client claimed to be disappointed in that aborted outcome. He claimed that CaRT would have preferred any outcome, even an adverse decision, to having matters left in the air after all the expenditure leading up to that point. He gave this as being the identical feeling of CaRT as to Leighโs challenge โ whatever the outcome, it was going to be desirable to get a firm binding decision, such that they would welcome even a win for Leigh [?!?!], because of the certainty that would provide for the future. What does not quite add up with that, is the year and more spent trying to have Leighโs case thrown out entirely, as they had sought to have Nickโs case thrown out entirely โ and it does not gel with the avowed intention to appeal an adverse decision for them in Leighโs case โ but one can see the principle, and I totally agree with it. Nonetheless, as you can see from the history, the likelihood of a successful JR challenge to any of CaRTโs decisions is remote indeed. That said, it might yet be the only recourse a boater might have in certain circumstances, such as refusal to issue a licence.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 4, 2016 12:01:23 GMT
Thanks for your usual clarity Nigel. Had to wade through some dross to get there:)
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Nov 4, 2016 13:26:56 GMT
Legal stuff is definatly not my thing i got forced into it over Tadworth, metal bashing is more my level, but I see the most important thing is to settle the correct meaning of section 43 in court. CaRT are pushing this idea that the licence is bound by a contract idea, and slowly but surely changing their procedures and documents to echo this. Customer services will now tell you that you are renewing your licence under the 1962 transport act, and EO's are telling people they can revoke their licence for a breach of contract.
Nigel has laid it all out very clearly, I think Cart's bluff should be called by a crowd funded judicial review.
|
|
|
Post by Trina on Nov 4, 2016 14:32:27 GMT
I think you are missing it (the plot) they in both are the parliament. "They" voted to give by a large majority, a referendum and agreed it to be binding. the fact is "they" (still the same) thought it would go the other way. "they" (the same ones who voted to let us have a referendum) don't like the result ... it was not the way "they" (again the same parliament) thought the sheep could be frightened into voting. Now "they" (again the same ones) are trying by any means possible to weasel out of a result they didn't foresee. Firstly, 'they' never agreed that the referendum would be legally binding. Secondly. they are not weaselling out of the result. Brexit will still happen. Article 50 will still be invoked, it will just be done by parliament instead of some daft old woman that nobody voted for. 'Daft old woman...' She is only 18months older than me & I am NOT old !!!!!!๐ ๐ ๐
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Nov 4, 2016 14:45:53 GMT
Firstly, 'they' never agreed that the referendum would be legally binding. Secondly. they are not weaselling out of the result. Brexit will still happen. Article 50 will still be invoked, it will just be done by parliament instead of some daft old woman that nobody voted for. 'Daft old woman...' She is only 18months older than me & I am NOT old !!!!!!๐ ๐ ๐ You tell 'im girl!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 4, 2016 14:46:23 GMT
ps - her husband works for a company that does not like to pay any taxes to Britain's upkeep, and she seems to approve of this.
|
|
|
Post by Trina on Nov 4, 2016 15:54:57 GMT
'Daft old woman...' She is only 18months older than me & I am NOT old !!!!!!๐ ๐ ๐ You tell 'im girl! ๐๐๐
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Nov 4, 2016 16:22:31 GMT
ps - her husband works for a company that does not like to pay any taxes to Britain's upkeep, and she seems to approve of this. Foxy she is the best hope for Brexit we have the other party have nothing but platitudes, and on the Tory side she seems to working her way through it. On the child abuse scandal another 8 were jailed today so it marches on, and if you look at the pictures I will give you 3 guesses what their race is! I dont want her to lay her cards on the table so the EU can shag us I want a strong Prime Minister who will get the best possible deal for this country, my preference if I am honest, would be for her to say we dont need you, we have plenty of trades deals with the rest of the world so sod off!!
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 4, 2016 16:49:40 GMT
I think Cart's bluff should be called by a crowd funded judicial review. Get your funding organised first, if you want to go this route, THEN make a stand over the box-ticking. You will have 3 months maximum from final refusal by CaRT to issue your licence, to bring the Judicial Review. Best to get all the legal ducks in a row, and legal submissions prepared well beforehand. I am ambivalent over the need for this, for reasons I have spelt out on relevant topics in CWDF โ but I can definitely see areas of potentially nasty confrontations arising because of erroneous staff training regarding the issue. There are more connotations to this than whether or not a licence is issued. Whatever โ I would not count on financial support for an already launched challenge. At least, as Cotswoldsman did when we organised getting the Wingfield transcripts, get firm pledges of definite amounts beforehand. If the will is there, then as with that instance the full amount could be committed to within 24 hours; but I would want to have at least that commitment first. Do not forget that several members have posted willingness to contribute to crowd funding for helping out with Leighโs case โ and he currently has around ยฃ10,000 of interim Orders against him despite the acknowledged strength of his claim โ but nothing has been taken further; so there is a need to be very careful, and realistic with your expectations. The alternative is to have the case brought by someone with nil assets other than a โsacrificialโ boat, on certain qualifying benefits โ www.gov.uk/get-help-with-court-fees Remember that this is not the end of the story; CaRT and Shoosmiths are past masters at wangling things so that interim costs Orders, as with Leigh [and as happened with me] can be gained on utterly specious grounds, still within the โrules of the gameโ. There is, moreover, the โhuman costโ to the endeavour, which might take years of your life. You will also be grabbing a tiger by the tail - you will not be able to let go and get away scot-free, if you change your mind about carrying on with it down the line. If you are enabled to effectively plead your own impecuniosity, then you will be insulated from the effect of final costs orders in the event of losing out โ and ditto if you were able to get Legal Aid โ but in the latter case, the conduct and choice of representation will be severely limited. Look what happened to Andy Wingfield [not to mention Geoff Mayers]. I am not seeking to discourage you, or anybody else, because I firmly believe in the rightness of any such challenge, But I certainly am seeking to ensure that you are fully apprised of the risks and potential consequences before rushing into things. It is never a matter to be entered into lightly; it can consume your life, and leave you afterwards โ even if successful โ with little appreciation of your efforts from those you will be benefiting. Just ask Geoff Mayers.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 4, 2016 16:58:38 GMT
p.s. it might be worth approaching tuscan respecting any potential interest from NABO. Never did me any good, but it is always worth trying all avenues.
|
|