Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Lord Hamilton enters the UK Supreme Court row, where did he get his law degree, at a Bangkok Whore House, remedial class in ethics wouldn’t go a miss!
Scotland’s most senior judge is Lord President, Lord Hamilton, he has written a letter to the UK Parliament into the Supreme Court looking at Scottish cases brought before them under the auspices of human rights.
His take on the Supreme Court row is to urge Westminster to give the judiciary north of the border equal powers to the rest of the UK.
What does that mean?
It means that Lord President, Lord Hamilton is arguing for the removal of a human right that accused and convicted Scots or those held in Scottish jails currently have.
He is arguing the removal of a human right, something you would think he would uphold as his first duty should be to justice, not the establishment or indeed any government.
In a bizarre statement he says that:
“Being closer than a court of further appeal to the day to day operation of criminal jurisdiction it will, I suggest, have a better appreciation of the operation of the criminal law in the community is serves”.
If that was the case as Lord Hamilton suggests how can he explain the miscarriages of justice away in Scotland? How can he explain away seven judges sitting on the Appeal Court refusing to uphold the rights of people to a fair trial?
Frankly he can’t, this is all about protectionism which leads to injustice for ordinary people, unfortunately this row between the Scottish Government and Westminster seeks ignore that pertinent fact.
What has happened here, is that human rights have been replaced to ‘gifts’ or ‘concessions’ which in the minds of the Appeal Court Judges have been deemed acceptable to replace human rights enshrined in law.
That is the Scottish problem that Holyrood has failed to address, acknowledge or fix.
Lord Hamilton is backing Lord McCluskey, who led a review on the Supreme Court’s role in Scottish law, as one of the four wise men appointed by the Scottish Government.
The report by McCluskey was disappointing but not unexpected; he went for the cheap option of wanting appeals only referred to London with the agreement of judges in Edinburgh by way of a certificate.
Such a situation is in my opinion completely untenable, what does society, the Scottish Government and the Scottish National Party fear from justice being done and the law upheld?
This why it is important that the UK Supreme Court who give flawless legal judgments should be retained at present, we in Scotland are too small minded, poor mentally and plain stupid.
The proof of the pudding is rendered in such high profile cases as Peter Cadder and Nat Fraser.
If the Holyrood Parliament and legal establishment were so interested in adopt a similar position to the high Courts of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland then why didn’t they adopt the same system of allowing subjects access to a lawyer which English suspects enjoyed since 1986.
The answer is simple; they didn’t care about being proactive to uphold people’s human rights until being forced to do so.
The reply to Lord Hamilton’s letter should be no thank you!
The Campaign forHuman Rights at Glasgow University