Secret Squirrel On The Sale Of Court Orders.

Secret Squirrel has seen a development in England.of a disorder in the court, where it seems judges have misadapted contra mundum orders and issued them in such a fashion that they are useable by, and favor only, those of substantial financial means,virtually exclusively.In short rendering selling legalities,through the judiciary.Originally these orders were meant for cases of national security,wherein the nation did not wish disclosure,agents names,activities,official secrets,secret technologies etc etc et all.Also it was applied to those beneath legal age for whatever crimes they perpetrated,participated in, or witnessed.However, in those cases,it is believed THEY were not specifically charged for these orders.But this was suddenly evolved,by the judges,and applied,in all their wisdom,or whatever one prefers to call it, and they used it,sold it actually,to apply to cases where the
lives of particular court "luminaries" or various sorts, savory or not,such as Footie(soccer) players,actors and actresses,such as, say, Lindsay Lohann, or the baglady of music,Amy Winehouse, would otherwise have had their lives threatened with disclosure of their participation in necessary specific court events.I short, we're being deprived,we the public,of the juicy tidbits or their lives and doings affecting that and any other specific court case,should they decide to buy,purchase as it were, at their level, the contra mundum orders,unaffordable by those of lesser means. However, it seems some disorder that has emerged concerning these
much more prolific orders,which it seems, spawned yet more and more, emerged and were mutated in the light of the courts and the day, such that they are becoming illuminated by those members of Parliament such that they are considering wresting the abilities to issue such orders from the judges and placing said ability to issue, firmly in the hands of Parliament,in the hands of the people,where it most directly belongs, out of specific necessity.In short judicial equality may emerge at all levels, such that it can be enjoyed in the courts by all,fairly, or thence by none, in interesting civil and other issues.

The Telegraph,and the Daily Mail,reveal that David Cameron is himself 'uneasy' about creeping use of these injunctions to gag press and has said he feels 'uneasy' about judges increasingly using these so called super-injunctions to create privacy law in Britain.David Cameron has voiced his concern at the increasing use of injunctions,actually misuse.His comments follow a number of recent injunctions which have prevented the press from reporting the identification of celebrities.
Mr Cameron said it should be up to Parliament not judges to decide the extent of press freedom and said recent judgements had left him feeling 'a little uneasy.'

On Wednesday, High Court judge Mr Justice Eady agreed to issue a "contra mundum" order - effectively a worldwide ban - in the case of a man who sought to prevent publication of material about his private life.It is thought to be the first time such an order has been issued in a privacy case.However,there is the right to privacy, but also the right for the public to know,the right to a public trial,totally open and above board,there must be open justice, and evidence presented open to all,the trial entirely being recorded and on the public record.What is effectively occurring is that the rich and famous can openly buy their way out of scandal, while the common everyman,Joe The Plumber,cannot,and the law shouldn't be just for the rich and famous.The entire event as the judges are running things, is utterly and completely unfair to the average citizen,the true peers of the realm,of whom there is the very greatest of majority,and much more so to those of extremely limited means.The law should be accessible to,in it's entirety, to all, in all fairness and equality,both judicial and financial.It must not consist of court orders only to those who can afford them,judgements for those who can afford them.The British judiciary must be open to, and affordable by all, in all equity,baring inequity, and inequality.

The latest 'contra mundum' decision marks yet another step in the move by the courts to extend protections for the right to respect for privacy and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.However such an order is
accessible only at cost, not free to all, only those of greater financial means can enjoy such a freedom, whereas the European convention is in the spirit of things and the law, supposedly available and accessible to all equally, in equality and equity, and not at cost, not a right available to those of financial means by the abilities to purchase said right in order to secure it.)The gagging order is also preventing miscarriages of justice from being investigated, according to an MP campaigning against secrecy in Britain's courts.John Hemming said the rising tide of injunctions granted by the courts threatened to contravene the Magna Carta.It has the effect of preventing journalists from speaking to people subject to this injunction without a risk of the journalist going to jail. That is a recipe for hiding miscarriages of justice.They are not compliant with the rules of a fair
trial"The rich and famous can pay their way out of scandal. But it also marks a further advance in the steps the courts are prepared to take in restricting the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.Most assuredly this order as it is is thence a violation of the right to freedom of expression, particularly with respect to actual disclosures in a free and open trial, or judicial proceeding.

A contra mundum order is intended to apply forever, and it applies to all those who might come to know of it - as opposed to forbidding the publication of details by a specific newspaper or journalist.The cost of obtaining an order varies but can run
into the tens of thousands of pounds.It's not something that the man on the street can do without any thought.These things are still few and far between. There was a rash of them but they're still comparatively rare.

In short the order provides "privacy of disclosure", for those who can afford it,and incorporates the hidden land mine of affecting all those who might come to know of it,or in a sense over hear details of it, in a rather unfair manner as they become subject to suits.The order is also only really accessible to those of means, not to all regardless of financial statures and abilities.In short an order by purchase,justice can be purchased, thence,at least in part.It is wrong to have a system whereby people can buy the sort of justice they want. That is a contravention of the Magna Carta." Clause 29 of the Magna Carta states that "we will sell to no man ... either justice or right".

Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has voiced concern over the process, pointing out that if the gagged party wishes to contest an order they risk incurring a large cost.This particularly unbalances the judicial process further, making justice
accessible,achievable, and purchasable, by those only who can afford it,not an equality for those who can't, those of meagher means."It's a very unbalanced system won by the force of money and not by the force of arguments," he said. "The system is weighted in favour of those with the money.

"I'm not a big fan of kiss-and-tell but I'm not in favour of 'if you tell you go to jail'."Will the Government have a debate or a statement on freedom of speech and whether there’s one rule for the rich and one rule for the poor?”
"What we've got in this country now is a privacy law that wasn't brought in by Parliament but the judges have decided what they want and that's what they've achieved.Sometimes the privacy of the rich and famous - or anyone - does deserve to be protected but only the rich can afford this, so it's purely a law to protect the rich and in a democracy that's not right."

Over the past few years, British courts have been strangely eager to grant these gagging orders, whose basis supposedly lies in human rights legislation inspired by Europe,but it is hard to avoid the view that judges are forging a privacy law on the hoof,as pleases them ,with privilege for some,for a fee, a large fee,available and affordable by only a very elite few,hardly justice and equality, and civil and human rights for all,which is as it should be,but so very sadly, isn't.

Secret Squirrel Finds Britons At The Mercy Of Criminals.

Secret Squirrel has pondered the expression, "A man's home is his castle.", and finds that in Britain it is not so,nor are his possessions his,indeed they belong to anyone in particular who cares to make the effort to break in to his castle.Indeed in a burglary event, the common Englishman had best help the burglar carry the possession he takes out to the car,and woe betide those who dare to lay a hand on said burglar, in any way shape nor form, in any manner whatsoever,nary lifting a hand to defend themselves nor their possessions,else they face the long arm of the law, and the lawsuit in the court,brought about by, and initiated by, the burglars themselves.Read on a tale of one who did attempt to go against the directives of complete passivity.........



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2600303.stm

Burglar sues farmer
The farmer jailed for the manslaughter of a 16-year-old burglar is being sued for up to £15,000 by one of the people who broke in to his home........But more details of the compensation claim have emerged as Fearon sues Martin for being unable to work since being shot in the legs during the raid........
In October last year, his conviction was reduced to manslaughter by the Court of Appeal and his sentence reduced to five years for the killing and three years for injuring Fearon.

And consider now.....

In 1988, Ted Newberry, a 76-year-old from Ilkeston, Derbyshire, lay in wait on his
allotment shed for an expected intruder, then shot a 12-bore gun at a Mark Revill when he tried to enter. Revill was badly injured and Mr Newberry was prosecuted on charges of wounding, but was acquitted by a jury.........In the allotment shed case, although the jury acquitted Mr Newberry of the criminal wounding charge, the injured intruder won compensation for his injuries (the award was £12,000 reduced to £4,000 because of his contributory negligence) even though he’d been acting criminally...

In short the misrule of the day is " I'm here to rob you, defend yourself and I'll
sue."...........and he'll win too.

In America, it's different,while American law on defense of the home differs somewhat from state to state, the millions of residents of the large, "liberal" states of California and New York, for example, can presume anyone who breaks into their homes means to do them harm and can act accordingly. A more explicit Oklahoma statute, passed in response to a spate of violent burglaries, allows householders to use force no matter how slight the perceived threat. Has this "vigilante" legislation resulted in "excess violence"? Just the opposite, the American burglary rate is less than half the English rate. And while 53% of English burglaries occur when someone is at home, only 13% do in America, where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. Violent crime in the US is at a thirty-year low.

In Britain, there is an unrelenting tide of thievery and burglaries sweeping the land. Day burglary is commonplace and dangerous for the homeowners because burglars know that even if the homeowner is present, they are defenseless and at the "mercy" of the thief. There is really no right to self-defense.In Britain, people live in fear in their own homes, afraid of muggers and burglars ­ not even possessing the right to defend their homes, themselves or their families with anything that could be called a weapon,never mind the fireplace poker, even the bumbershoot is not permitted,and the portion of convicted burglars sent to jail, is at only 40%,the rest are let off with suspended sentences or social services.Society's to blame,for
disturbing them.As it is there are 280,000 domestic burglaries in England and Wales last year but clear-up rates are low at just 13 per cent, and a quarter of all burglars caught by police are let off with a caution.There is no justice, their is no defense of the system, nor is there defense of the person.The criminal at large reigns as King of it all.In America it is the direct opposite,the person is King in themselves, and may defend life,limb,and property to the very greatest fullest extent,even to the extent that the perpetrating burglar looses his or her life in the pursuit of their criminal activities.There a man's home is his castle,and he is his own police constable.

The current English law on self-defence favours criminals over those seeking to defend their own home. Joyce Lee Malcolm - Professor of History at Bentley College and author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience - argues that England must return to its common law traditions and that the traditional common law right of self-defence should be restored.The average Briton's traditional right to defend himself and his family must be rescued from a legal policy gone badly wrong.Seventy-two percent of those polled recently branded the current law on home defence "inadequate and ill-defined."In Britain presently self-defence is considered "vigilantism" and burglars sue for injuries sustained(both those at the hands of the person defending,self,home and property, and also should they injure themselves in some fashion during the physicality of the breakin as well, in short property liability).Clearly it is all so very improper and we must readjust the laws,rules, and regulations of these events such that we follow the American sanctity of home,hearth,person and property,and once again make full meaning of the term,"A man's home is his castle."