Reform judiciary

I can hear what your saying and believe there are obvious faults and borderline misappropriations if not "favorable" actions within the Judiciary. The Judges should be an open book and the selection process a public one.

In some towns like Nelson several Police, Lawyers and Judges are Freemasons so what does this say? (You'll be stuffed turning up to court if three came into play !) (The above statement made under the Protected Disclosures Act)

Several Acts come into play here that are all related to the subject matter. The Evidence Act 2000, The Oath and Declarations Act 1957, The Crimes Act 1951 and more I would guess.

The Judicial Conduct Commissioner doesn't even allow for the Judges to be questioned in accepting evidence, accusations and the likes. Even getting hold of the current Principal District Court Judge is literally impossible. Is this Democracy and Openness? Judges decisions cannot be questioned regarding possible breaches of Human Rights and more.

Agree.

I think part of the solution here is again the issue of a yacht with no keel. Country with no formal constitution.

Common law in of itself is not enough to guide judges, and judicial precedents have crippled many sections of acts including sections of the NZ Bill of Rights Act ( NZBORA ), section 30 of the evidence act as two of many examples.

To me the basis of the solution lays with entrenching some laws like the NZBORA as supreme law, and repealing other sections of laws that are completely failing now due to case law judicial precedents that have wrongly altered them to mean something completely different.

With a strong constitution of supreme laws, judges are then bound not to interpret the law outside of the principles laid down in a constitution. Constitutional law comes first, then case law and in that order.

So for example in section 30 of the evidence act states:
"if the Judge finds that the evidence has been improperly obtained, determine whether or not the exclusion of the evidence is proportionate to the impropriety by means of a balancing process that gives appropriate weight to the impropriety but also takes proper account of the need for an effective and credible system of justice."

So if law enforcement have conducted an illegal search of your property, computer etc, generally this would mean that there is a level of impropriety, as in, illegal search, and that in order to allow illegal evidence in court this would undermine the publics belief in a credible system of justice.

This is how I believe Parliament intended this part of the act to be interpreted. However due to case law, it has been interpreted from the most Orwellian version one could dream up. Basically resulting in, the end justifies any means of any level of illegality.

However if the NZBORA was supreme law, then section 21 of the NZBORA which forbids unreasonable search, would trump this section any day, and would trump any case law that historically ruled for the Orwellian interpretation of the act.

It would not stop for example, investigation units from acting illegally to obtain intelligence, but after a while, they would realise that if they want the evidence in court, then they would have to obtain it with the necessary warrants afforded them under the rules of judicial oversight.

So a constitution should in theory begin to self correct these issues.

I went to the "Meet Up" in Wellington last night. Vikram Kumar confirmed that the executive has no plans at this point to implement any democratic voting on decision-making for this party. I'm bugging out now, as I was only here for democracy. I'll check how the party shapes up and come back if it becomes democratic

In the Supreme Court's 2005-2007 case known as Brooker (Brooker v Police SC40/2005 [2007] NZSC 30)) the Chief Justice stated what has been stated often in this and other jurisdictions, namely that citizens should not have to guess at the law. And that is exactly what they have to do if the law is created after the event in the head of a judge, rather than before all events by Parliament.

In this country the appeal process is a lottery, and the way it works can mean that the highest court in the land is the District Court. For example, if the District Court gets it wrong, because the judge was incompetent or careless, you can, in theory, appeal to the High Court. But if the High Court judge is just as bad and upholds the lower court's miscarriage of justice, it is then almost impossible to get further. Because to get to the Court of Appeal you have to ask permission of the same High Court judge who has just underscored and agreed with the bad decision. That is unlikely, partly because of the obvious bias, and partly because the only ground for appeal is a point of law--i.e., has the law been interpreted correctly. Even if it has been, that does not mean the ruling was right, and if the 'evidence' was perjury it most certainly will not be. So if the only ground for appeal was that the 'evidence' was lies, the High Court judge will add to that the personal bias that arises from the desire not to have the ruling trashed.

Then you have to seek special leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal to it, and in statute it only has to consider points of law, NOT whether there has been a miscarriage of justice. That makes success highly unlikely, and usually impossible.

Then you can, in theory, appeal to the Supreme Court, and it does, in statute, have to consider if there has been a miscarriage of justice. But the Supreme Court eliminated that statute by making a ruling in 2004 that says that if the Court of Appeal refused special leave to appeal the Supreme Court does not have to hear an appeal to it. So the attempt will be stopped by the Supreme Court's clerk. It will never been seen by judges.

David Wong is obviously unaware of what actually happens in the real, everyday world, hence his touching faith in it. What I have described is, from real experience more than one, what happens.

Judges think they have the right to make law. They do not. And a famous ruling in the House of Lords by Lord Shaw of Dunfermline (Scott v Scott [1913] A.C. 417, at 477) said so, in ringing terms. So did a former Chief Justice in NZ--Justice Stout in Rex v Ewart [1905] 8 GLR 22, at 27.

Judges are there only to read the law, not make it, vary it, colour it, do anything with it but quote it to those who fell foul of it. Too many of them think that statute does not become law till they have massaged it. Wrong. It becomes law when the Royal assent is given it after Parliament has passed it.

And if there is a law they do not like, such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or the Imperial Law Application Act 1988, they just ignore it, and thus trash your rights before you utter a word.

@peteyoung Appreciate your input so far Pete. Nga mihi.

One aspect of the Evidence Act that should never have been put in, and should be trashed, is the bit that says no corroboration is needed, because that means you can be convicted on the word--the perjury--of one person. At very least that section should be qualified by saying that if there is evidence from one person it must be subjected to rigorous logical analysis--in short, it must have the corroboration of logic. Something of that is to be found in section 25 of Bill of Rights Act, which in sub-section (c) says that we have 'the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law', and proof must employ logic, but it should be made explicit in the Evidence Act.

As a side note it would be good to see a detailed and logical comment with every blocking vote on the topic.

@michelverhagen made a very correct comment on the topic.

I agree with @nobilangeloceramal about appeal process as well.

High Court reviews and appeals managed by the same judges, who are interested in keeping the same system going on.

De facto it is mostly useless to appeal District Court decisions without 'approaching' proper judicial resources first, as they will be upheld by High Court/Court of Appeal/Supreme Court just to protect other members of the law 'system'.

@louiyukich The legislature already has the right to override the common law.

@colindavies The alternative is common law, with a 30-60 day expiration of court findings. The lawmakers either "fix" the law, or the law expires for having conflicted with a court case.

The law will get more complex, but it'll be in one place, without having to consult a near-infinite number of resources to determine if something is or isn't illegal.

@marcwhinery I don't think you really understand what "common law" is, because you have not characterised it correctly here. Common Law is based on two principles "do not infringe on the rights of others" (criminal), and "do what you say you will do" (contracts).

Your statement that "Common law is where a judge can “interpret” the law (even to the direct opposite of the wording of the law) and that interpretation becomes law, trumping the law written" is not characterising it correctly.

Firstly, what we mainly operate under now is called Civil Law:

"Civil law is the legal system used in most countries around the world today. In civil law the sources recognised as authoritative are, primarily, legislation—especially codifications in constitutions or statutes passed by government—and custom. Codifications date back millennia, with one early example being the Babylonian Codex Hammurabi. Modern civil law systems essentially derive from the legal practice of the 6th-century Eastern Roman Empire whose texts were rediscovered by late medieval Western Europe. Roman law in the days of the Roman Republic and Empire was heavily procedural, and lacked a professional legal class. Instead a lay magistrate, iudex, was chosen to adjudicate. Precedents were not reported, so any case law that developed was disguised and almost unrecognised. Each case was to be decided afresh from the laws of the State, which mirrors the (theoretical) unimportance of judges' decisions for future cases in civil law systems today."

What you have said about Common Law is actually the very opposite of what is true. Judges are not allowed to render arbitrary decisions, but must render decisions that are consistent with previous decisions made under similar circumstances:

"Common law and equity are legal systems where decisions by courts are explicitly acknowledged as legal sources. The "doctrine of precedent", or stare decisis (Latin for "to stand by decisions") means that decisions by higher courts bind lower courts. Common law systems also rely on statutes, passed by the legislature, but may make less of a systematic attempt to codify their laws than in a "civil law" system. Common law originated from England and has been inherited by almost every country once tied to the British Empire (except Malta, Scotland, the U.S. state of Louisiana, and the Canadian province of Quebec). In medieval England, the Norman conquest led to a unification of various tribal customs and hence a law "common" to the whole country. The common law developed when the English monarchy had been weakened by the enormous cost of fighting for control over large parts of France. King John had been forced by his barons to sign a document limiting his authority to pass laws. This "great charter" or Magna Carta of 1215 also required that the King's entourage of judges hold their courts and judgments at "a certain place" rather than dispensing autocratic justice in unpredictable places about the country."

If you get rid of common law, you end up with a legal system is so enormously large and out of control, that it becomes a haven for all kinds of legal mischief. I can tell you many stories and examples of this that have occurred in California, and other places.

Bottom line...common law is not the problem. Corrupt judges is the problem, so let's fix the problem correctly, and we'll then have something that will really work.

@marcwhinery The essential difference with "common law" is that people have freedom, and they only come under the law if they a) prevent someone else's freedom, or b) don't do what they said they would do, thereby breaking a contract.

You CANNOT cover everything in life through an exhaustive set of written do's and don'ts...life is way to complex to legislate everything that man does, or CAN do through a complex system of specifically written legal determinations. If you want to see what happens when people try to do that, just look at the Jewish Talmud. There you are told precisely how many sticks (and what size) you can carry on the Sabbath.

So, for example, I put up a fence blocking my neighbour's lovely view he used to have. I do this because of security reasons. Shall the law stipulate how high my fence is allowed to be? Can it be 10 feet high? How high is too high? Doesn't it depend on how short the people are who live there? What is one is short and other is tall? How high must the fence be for deterring criminals? How tall of criminals? The fence is on my property, but it blocks his view. Does a person own the view from their house? What if they bought it for the view? What if the view or lack thereof affects the value of the house? Is there real financial damage to the owner? If so, who should pay for the damages?

As you can see, this process can go on forever. You can't write down all the decisions that affect or get affected by all the factors in life. You need principles to go by, a history of how things were decided before, and then you need HONEST JUDGES who will give just and fair rulings based on all of the above. Anything other than these things will end up in judicial and legal mischief...as it already has.

I argue that where we are now suffering is in the area of truly accountable, honest, and unbiased judges. This is where the fix needs to come in. Any legal system depends on a solid judiciary that is there to uphold truth and justice for ALL. Judges who can't be bought or coerced, and who have a solid moral commitment to the grave duty that befalls them every time they sit on the bench.

Going back to the discussion point ( not the proposal ) about reforming the judiciary, another big problem with the current system is this public defence service with meagre funding, removing access of defendants who need legal aid to specialist lawyers, unless those lawyers are signed up to the public defence service, which most of those will not be due to the rates they charge.

Meanwhile the crown law office is government department where all indictments are handle by a private company holding a crown warrant, with what appears to have unmetered funding and the pick of the litter of QCs and high paid lawyers to stack up against a defendant, unless of course the defendant can afford to match their defence bench with the skill-set being stacked against them by the prosecutions, or specialist defence lawyers volunteer their time and efforts - pro bono.

The combination of this I believe has lead to miscarriages of justice and cases pursued by crown law beyond reason due in part to a private company benefiting from maximising profits from a length of a case, over the profits from a short case.

@kennethkopelson "I can tell you many stories and examples of this that have occurred in California, and other places."

California is common law, not civil law. That there are so many abuses in California is an agreement of the failures of Common Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

I don't believe I was mistaken. They are the ones I thought I was talking about. Common Law takes court cases to have "influence" over the written law, expanding and defining it.

Read the first paragraph of each Wiki page and let me know what you think. You don't have to read it all, just a quick read of the first sentence of each.

@marcwhinery Actually Marc, California is NOT exclusively common law, and in fact there are two court systems, this I know for a fact. 99% of the people who go to court end up in the Civil Law courts, where they have no rights, and any pretence that they do is only for show, and to bamboozle the citizenry. I know one chap, however, who refused to sign the papers which would end up waiving his rights, and he was taken to another court of common law. He was the only person in there...and the judge. The judge treated him completely differently, with respect, and with full admission to the guys rights. It was a completely different situation, and the sad truth is, nearly everyone (with VERY few exceptions) know nothing about this.

@marcwhinery Yes, it takes "precedence" into account, simply because justice should not make arbitrary decisions. For example, if a judge decided 10 years ago that a father punching his child was wrong, given those circumstances of that case, a judge today would be compelled to make the same finding, given the same or similar circumstances. That world "similar" is very important, because any legal system that depends solely on the written laws will ALWAYS, ALWAYS be manipulatable.

For example, if the law says "A father shall not punch his child in the face, except in the following cases:", and it would have to list every POSSIBLE case, otherwise, a smart lawyer will find a way around it. This is where people become LEGALISTICALLY minded instead of LAWFULLY minded, going strictly by the "letter of the law" instead of the "spirit of the law." Words are easy to mess with, but principles are much harder to do so.

Can a father ever punch his child in the face? What if the child is 35, with a baseball bat in his hand, just about to kill the father? What if it's not a baseball bat, but a plastic spoon? I'm hoping I don't need to go into endless examples here to make the point that human evaluation and JUDGMENT when it comes to JUSTICE is 100% necessary. Plus, there are often mitigating circumstances that require the judge to either be extra-tough, or to show some mercy. These are all valid concepts, and perish the day when we lose these. If we have bad judges, let's fix that problem. Changing the system at its fundamental core should only be considered if the system itself is morally or philosophically flawed. I do not believe it is when it comes to the judiciary. I DO believe the financial system is broken, however, and requires a complete rethink.

@marcwhinery I like this statement from the article on "common law":

The common law evolves to meet changing social needs and improved understanding. Justice Holmes cautioned that “the proper derivation of general principals in both common and constitutional law ... arise gradually, in the emergence of a consensus from a multitude of particularised prior decisions.”[21] Justice Cardozo noted the “common law does not work from pre-established truths of universal and inflexible validity to conclusions derived from them deductively,” but “[i]ts method is inductive, and it draws its generalisations from particulars.”[22]

So, it is a more "bottom up" approach, based on grassroots understanding over time. That being said, however, there is also the civil code coming from the "top down" which the judges MUST also adhere to. So, in practice, you get a mixture of both, and when they conflict in such a system, the edicts from parliament/congress take priority.

@kennethkopelson I've lived in CA, so I don't believe you. They use the same common law framework the rest of the US uses (except LA, based in France's Civil law).

The other option is Civil law, used by everywhere on the planet that didn't have common law forced on them by England. It works well in more places than common law works. So there are other options.

"For example, if the law says “A father shall not punch his child in the face, except in the following cases:”, and it would have to list every POSSIBLE case, otherwise, a smart lawyer will find a way around it. This is where people become LEGALISTICALLY minded instead of LAWFULLY minded, going strictly by the “letter of the law” instead of the “spirit of the law.” Words are easy to mess with, but principles are much harder to do so."

Now you are just making up bad laws as straw men. The law would say something closer to "an adult who hits a child has committed battery, unless the striking would otherwise be exempt as per the battery statute." Defending ones self is explicitly stated in the law in common law places. You do list every possible scenario in law in common law places. You just also list an infinite number in places where nobody can read them.

Common law is inherently anti-democratic. Laws are "passed" without reading or voting on them. Laws are enforced not based on the written rule of law, but on hidden special rules known only to experts in the area.

Common law is bad for the people.

@marcwhinery I'm an American also...lived in San Diego for 20+ years (La Mesa, El Cajon, Downtown, Oceanside), and in 8 other states including Alaska for 7 years. So, whatever advantage you think you have by "living in California" is just another thing you are mistaken about, and I frankly don't care if you believe me...I know what is true and what isn't from my own existence and experience.

@marcwhinery Marc, I can see how what your saying may see correct. I do think, however, that a combination of the two systems is what we find in the U.S., and that both have something to offer. I am willing to be convinced of your position, however, and will not be dogmatic about a position. I do hope you will do the same when it comes to a new economic system...

I think these are pretty good descriptions of both systems:

"Common law is generally uncodified. This means that there is no comprehensive compilation of legal rules and statutes. While common law does rely on some scattered statutes, which are legislative decisions, it is largely based on precedent, meaning the judicial decisions that have already been made in similar cases. These precedents are maintained over time through the records of the courts as well as historically documented in collections of case law known as yearbooks and reports. The precedents to be applied in the decision of each new case are determined by the presiding judge. As a result, judges have an enormous role in shaping American and British law. Common law functions as an adversarial system, a contest between two opposing parties before a judge who moderates. A jury of ordinary people without legal training decides on the facts of the case. The judge then determines the appropriate sentence based on the jury’s verdict."

"Civil Law, in contrast, is codified. Countries with civil law systems have comprehensive, continuously updated legal codes that specify all matters capable of being brought before a court, the applicable procedure, and the appropriate punishment for each offence. Such codes distinguish between different categories of law: substantive law establishes which acts are subject to criminal or civil prosecution, procedural law establishes how to determine whether a particular action constitutes a criminal act, and penal law establishes the appropriate penalty. In a civil law system, the judge’s role is to establish the facts of the case and to apply the provisions of the applicable code. Though the judge often brings the formal charges, investigates the matter, and decides on the case, he or she works within a framework established by a comprehensive, codified set of laws. The judge’s decision is consequently less crucial in shaping civil law than the decisions of legislators and legal scholars who draft and interpret the codes."

@kennethkopelson I have an aunt in La Jolla, and lived on Point Loma, and a summer in Pasadena.

Louisana is the only state in the US not officially on Common Law-only. Civil Law is used in more places than Common Law. The role of judges is roughly the same in both. But in Civil Law, the written law wins. Decisions change the law, rather than hiddenly changing how the law is applied in a hidden anti-democratic anti-open manner.

It's a good thing to have a codefied law, rather than an ephemeral one that changes every time it's applied.

@marcwhinery Well, having written laws has its problems as well. Most places in the U.S. still have all kinds of laws written down for obsolete things. Here is a website dedicated to listing a great many of them:

http://www.dumblaws.com/

Here is a good article comparing common law with civil law:

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html

With the exception of the High Court*, the Judicial system can only hear Statute Law (legal/contract/corporate/commerce) and only deal with Legal Fiction persons. Statute courts work with assumptions and arguments and are 'Private' whereas Common law courts are on the 'Public record' and deal with the living being not the Legal Person.

Common law courts can be established by the People without the Judicial system hence why none of this is taught in schools. Since Common law is superior to Contract law and may be used against Government and Corporate employees personally, huge efforts have been made to mute knowledge surrounding Common law.

Our Bill of Rights which includes parts of the Magna Charta 1297 and Schedule 1 of the Imperial Laws Act 1998 relate to the living being not the Legal Person. Therefore under Statute law most if not all of those rights do not apply since you agreed to waive those rights when you consented knowingly or unknowingly to them.

The Courts are just a giant Bank processing 'Charges' that came about from a 'Bill' and made into an 'Act' which is all Contract law that requires CONSENT to have any power (Bills of exchange Act 1908 section 23).

Here's some famous Maxims of Law that relate to Statues;
- The contract makes the law.
- Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.
- Consent makes the law: the terms of a contract, lawful in its purpose, constitute the law as between the parties.

Great discussion people, there are lots of issues here that can't really be done justice (lol) in just one thread. How about exploring some of the issues further in separate discussions with their own proposals? This is important stuff

@malcolmwelsford Excellent and true analysis. This is what I should have told @marcwhinery as I was explaining about the two courts in San Diego, both located in the building, but in separate courtrooms. What happened in the case that I mentioned, is a friend had to go to court for a statute violation. When he got there, he was told he had to sign some papers, which he refused to do. They put much pressure on him to sign, but he flatly refused. After many attempts, they reluctantly backed off, and told him to go to another courtroom. In that room, Tim Sprague (the person I'm referring to), found a judge sitting on the bench. Nobody else was in the courtroom, except for a stenographer. Unlike the other courtroom, which was filled with people who were not finding anything except rubber-stamped "justice", in this courtroom, the judge called him Mr. Sprague and sir. He asked Tim how he pleaded with regard to breaking the law. Tim asked the Judge if there was anyone harmed, or any damage done to any property. The judge said not to his knowledge, no, to which Tim then said that he was not guilty of breaking any laws under the Common Law. The Judge then apologised to Tim, and said he was free to go.

So, yes, there are two legal systems operating in many places on earth...one is dealing with the human being person (natural person), and the other, which is predominantly the one people go to, is dealing with the LEGAL PERSON, which is created when a person is born...in essence a personal legal entity, not unlike a corporation.

This is a ridiculous proposal. Common Law is one of the only freedoms we have left!!!

@kennethkopelson Unfortunately everyone makes this so complicated that's it's no wonder it's difficult to get our heads around how Government is pillaging the people via commercial laws. Fortunately there are many good Police and Judges who oppose the corruption and are working inside the system to make change.

The instant you identify yourself as the Legal Person your committing fraud by assuming another identity; think about that for a minute. Your Birth Certificate clearly states that you cannot use it for identification and that's because it's the Legal Fiction not you. That's how they trap you. In reality it's all fraud since there's no 'full disclosure' regarding the commercial contract anyway.

We've all been brainwashed into the thinking that only Statute/Commercial law exists which is obviously a lie and an incredibly deceptive way of imposing unlawful taxes. Common law is our only defense against commercial law and it's imposing agents.

It is important to distinguish between commercial law and maxims of law, when quoting from their law. Maxims of law are not commercial law, but are mostly based upon scripture and truth.

Never ever 'consent' to an act by giving a name because in truth you are the witness not the legal person.
Maxim of Law states: "They who consent to an act, and they who do it, shall be visited with equal punishment"

Law-merchant; law of merchants: The rules applicable to commercial paper were transplanted into the common law from the law merchant. They had their origin in the customs and course of business of merchants and bankers, and are now recognized by the courts because they are demanded by the wants and conveniences of the mercantile world.

@kennethkopelson I had a similar experience in Texas. The criminal court for rubber-stamp justice didn't listen or care. I pled guilty to a crime. Then appealed. Two weeks later, I was in a court closer to what you describe. The conviction was overturned.

The crime was speeding. Yes, 1 kph over the limit was a "crime" at the time in Texas.

I could have demanded a jury trial and such for it, but the legal advice I was given was to plead guilty and plead ones case at the appeals court. Because it was a "crime" it was possible to take a speeding ticket to the high court, but nobody ever did.

But I agree with the sentiment that there are a large number of complaints with the current legal system, and that would be a separate subject.

We don't have a constitution. And that's something that keeps coming up.

The manner of selection of judges is another issue that's common.

We could have a whole separate section on law, and fill that with many of the comments made so far.

@malcolmwelsford Common law is based on assumptions (Assuming the judge you get for any dispute will not set precedent, but instead follow your understanding of the vague case law around the legal points). Civil law is based around fact, verifiable in statute and available to all.

Since the creation of civil and common law, every "new" legal system has been civil. The only common law places were "conquered" by England, who is the only independent country to "choose" common law (and did so before civil law was in use). Common law was the first (and most depreciated) modern legal system. Given a free choice, no people have chosen it, other than those that created it.

@marcwhinery @kennethkopelson @merrynbayliss
Statue law (law of the sea) contains 4 main assumptions; you are guilty, you're a Legal Person, you have consented to the Act/law and you're treated as a public servant (trust law). If allowed to remain un-rebutted, you'll end up paying the price. (e.g traffic fines which simply means; Commerce; trade; dealings in merchandise, bills, money, and the like *Blacks Law Dictionary).

Common law (law of the land) contains 3 laws; do no harm, do not steal and do not swindle. Common law does not require the use of the Government Judicial system, instead any 3 good people and a Jury can sentence Government agents for example. With this in mind, why would you want to remove the only defense we have?

If it's Legal it's most probably unlawful and if it's Lawful it's illegal. Keep in mind, with the exception of the High Courts ALL NZ courts hear commercial statute law and cannot hear Common law, big difference.

NZ Courts/Statue/Commercial Law is a direct OPPOSITE to Common law;

Statue law=
Gulity
Fictional
Dead
Legal
Artificial
Limited Liability
Corporate Soul
Paper Person

Common Law=
Innocent
Real
Living
Lawful
Natural
Full Liability
Non-Corporate
Incarnated Soul

Food for thought:
One of the differences is Precidence; In English Law a decision made by one judge is binding on other judges who have a case of the same nature; so, if you break the law the judge might say "I want to send you to Jail for life but the precidence for such a punishment is two years" and he gives you two years in jail.

The Brehon law was somewhat similar in origin. The work Brehon is the English spelling of the Irish word for Judge. The difference was however, that the Irish law tracts were written down (originally memorised off by heart) so that the Judge was restricted to the enforcement of the law according to these tracts. Rather than the prescidence being set by the Judge, the books dictated the ruling.

Another factor that is important to history is primogeneture. In English law the first born male inherited all the father's property, so the lordship was passed down the direct male line. In Irish Law the property was divided among all the males, the oldest divided it and the youngest got first choice (other the youngest divded it and the oldest got first choice, cannot remember) which resulted in ensuring that the division was fair. Also inheritance of the Lordship was not to the direct male heir but to all who were descended from the same great-grandfather (not only your brothers, but first, second, third cousins, uncles etc. were eligible to inherit). Usually it went to a son, but, like the godfather movies, not necessarily the elder (Freido) but the better (Michael).

Brehon law permitted divorce. The woman leaving took her property with her. In English Law, and in most countries, when a man married a woman, he was given a dowry (paid to marry her) and the wedding ceremony consisted of the father walking his daughter and physically giving her to the man. In Brehon law, while this happened, the dowry was not handed over, but was her insurance that she would always be able to feed herself and children should the man be a waste of space.

In Brehon law, children were eligible for inheritance even if the man was not married to the mother. Disputes about the child's true father were settled by waiting for the child to grow up and seeing who he looked like (in English law, the child's father was irrelevant if the mother was not married to him).

A major difference was that there was no death sentance. In English law if you killed a man you were hanged. In Irish law you had to pay a price for the body, and then pay compensation for his rank. The Irish did not use coins (they knew about them from contact with the Romans and the Saxons but they did not take to them), the basis of currency was a Cúmal, a female slave, and a milsh cow (a cow producing milk) so if you killed a man you paid 7 cows, and if he was a lord, another 7 Cumal's (I think) or 49 cows. To be a free man you need to own 7 cows and a bull. Anything less and you were a dependent. If you did not pay then the family had to pay, and if they refused then you were an outlaw (outside the law) and could be hunted, killed or enslaved by the other family and there was nothing your family could do about it. If you killed a priest, woman or child (known collectively as the innocents) you had to pay a high honour price.

There is quite a lot more, but there are books written on this, check if your library has a book by Fergus Kelly called "Guide to early Irish Law".

In both common law and civil courts, it is the jury that makes decisions about the case and the law. They can't create new laws, but they can decide that a particular law is unjust, and find the accused not-guilty even if they did do the thing they are being accused of. This is really the only and best defence against wrong or corrupt legislators. It is also a good balance against corrupt judges, though the judges can grant a mis-trial on technicalities, and also to not allow crucial evidence because of technicalities that may or may not be valid. The beauty of this system, however, is that the jury is virtually politics-free, and the jurors are listening to the facts of a particular situation, one that was perhaps not even considered by the people who decided the law in the first place.

Also, common law has been codified in many places, as this wikipedia article explains:

"Contrary to popular belief, the common law has been codified in many jurisdictions in many areas; examples include the Law of General Obligations of New York State, the English law relating to marine insurance in the Marine Insurance Act 1906, which was originally judge-made common law, and the California Civil Code."

It's interesting to note how the California Civil Code was a revolutionary thing when it was written, because the codifier took the common law principles and converted them to written statutes...which was HIGHLY controversial within the legal community, bringing a great deal of argument and flurry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codification_(law)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Civil_Code

One of the VERY BEST defences against corrupt judges is proper jury training. All eligible jury members within a society need to be told of their power to judge the law, in addition to the facts of the case. Once they understand this, THEY can decide if a "guilty" person should go free, or a "non-guilty" person should be locked up. The judge really has very little to do with it once they get into deliberations.

@malcolmwelsford Yes, the civil code is primarily based on the Uniform Commercial Code, and deals mainly with governing business transactions. In other words, if I steal from you under civil code, it is wrong mainly because of the financial loss you would face. Under common law, stealing is wrong because of the moral offence it causes. So under common law, stealing a precious object, one left to you by your dead grandmother (let's say), could be determined as a serious crime. Under civil law, however, only the financial impact would be considered...in other words, what was the object worth in terms of $$$?

This is why civil law deals with a legal person, which is a legal fiction. Civil law is about business, so in order to use civil law against human beings, each person is given a legal fiction with a name that is spelled just like their human name, but uses all capitals for each letter. In essence, this is a private one-person corporation that each natural person has.

One thing to be careful, in regard to this, is if you ever draw the distinction between the natural living person "Joe Blogs" and the fictitious entity "JOE BLOGS" while in court, be sure to say these are two different STYLES, and not two different SPELLINGS. They are both spelled identically! People have been caught by this one many times. In a case that I'm familiar with, the plaintiff wanted the court to deal with him as a natural human being, so he complained that the style of his name uses incorrect capitalisation. The judge then asked the prosecutor "Do you have any problem with the way Mr. so-and-sos name is spelled?" to which the prosecutor said "No your honour, the state is fine with its current spelling". Because the plaintiff was not quick enough to catch what the judge did, he failed to object, saying "I object your honour, as I complained of the type styling, not the spelling. I am requesting that all references to me be changed to use proper human name capitalisation."

For anyone wanting to understand Common Law in more details, here is an excellent audio series by an American Common Law expert who has much experience operating inside of common law courts.

http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/introduction/index.html

Originally posted by Rangi Kemara:

[So if law enforcement have conducted an illegal search of your property, computer etc, generally this would mean that there is a level of impropriety, as in, illegal search, and that in order to allow illegal evidence in court this would undermine the publics belief in a credible system of justice.

This is how I believe Parliament intended this part of the act to be interpreted. However due to case law, it has been interpreted from the most Orwellian version one could dream up. Basically resulting in, the end justifies any means of any level of illegality.]

It just means that there is nil recourse to prosecute Corrupt & Criminal Public Servants under the current 'One Way Street'.Terribly convenient.Yet,Terribly wrong.