manxman1980 Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I have seen several references being made to the establishment of "peoples courts" through the use of common law being made on this site and other forums and websites. I must admit I am somewhat puzzled. Common Law (in the UK) is essentially case law or precedent which comes from the decisions of judges in certain courts and tribunals. Essentially common law means that cases with the same facts are treated the same throughout the legal system. Common Law typically fills the gaps between "statutory law" or interprets the statutes into practice. The introduction of new statutes can then "over rule" common law. So this is where I struggle. How can Common Law be used to establish a "peoples court" outside of the existing legal system? I have seen reference made to this being the case where the government is acting illegally, however, I can find no precedent for the establishment of such a court or evidence that such a court would have any legal standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 They have them in parts of the USA and I have had dealings with one in Texas many years ago...They are like our Magistrates Courts and in Texas anyway the "judges" are elected...Or the elected Sheriff acts like a judge handing out fines and running a small lock up..The "people" refers apparently to the courts handling low level matters of simple nature that are closer to "the people" as opposed to the higher courts..ie courts of summary jurisdiction...They have them in Europe also at various levels...Look up people's courts Texas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 I mean People's Courts are like courts of summary jurisdiction not made that clear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 Thanks for the reply Barry. I had seen reference to the ones in the US and particularly the television series based around one. As I understand it they are as you say the low level courts that deal with minor offences and therefore include the Magistrates Courts and Employment Tribunals. What I have seen reference made to is a group of people allegedly unhappy with the legal system being able to set up their own "peoples court" in which to try others. I can find no legal precedent for this in the UK and as common law is always the reference point I was hoping someone might shed some light on the matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 There are courts outside "the system" such as religious based courts run by Jews and Muslims in relation to their affairs and even divorces...Anyone can probably set up a court if all agree to participate but even the Beth din (or whatever it is) and Sharia courts are subordinate to the law of the land...Then there are the professional bodies on law and medicine which act like courts...Then there is arbitration which is big business in the City dealing with commodities, shipping and etc globally...I have this morning won a case with insurance giant AVIVA using an informal system having no force of law but which got justice ie The Pensions Advisory Service...No force of law but they hit hard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Is there a Taxpayers Advisory Service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 Maybe instead of Judge Judy we should have Judge Juan in a peoples court! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossRoss Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 some sensible comments, well done manx forums. though it may opportune to recap on what it means to be a common law jurisdiction as opposed to a civil law jurisdiction. Please enlighten us Barrie Stevens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 some sensible comments, well done manx forums. though it may opportune to recap on what it means to be a common law jurisdiction as opposed to a civil law jurisdiction. Please enlighten us Barrie Stevens. An answer can be found here; http://solutions.wolterskluwer.com/blog/2010/10/research-myths-about-common-law-civil-law-jurisdictions/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossRoss Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 some sensible comments, well done manx forums. though it may opportune to recap on what it means to be a common law jurisdiction as opposed to a civil law jurisdiction. Please enlighten us Barrie Stevens. An answer can be found here; http://solutions.wol...-jurisdictions/ not much of an answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted November 16, 2012 Author Share Posted November 16, 2012 Perhaps you would like to highlight a more appropriate source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I suspect they are at least a load of bollocks, and, at worst, dangerous and most likely illegal. I watched the clip of some guy revealing the heinous bunch of conspirators that run the UK with his bold statement of establishing a people's court as it was in the constitution. Well, top marks for finding the British constitution; it is only exists through common law and is the collection of disparate decisions which, when tacked together, can be described as a constitution but there is no written, codified constitution. Most of all, I sincerely doubt there is any provision or avenue which would give legality to something purporting to be outside of the existing legal framework. There is only one legal system. If you don't like its decisions then you have the appeals process to the highest court in the land which, by the way, will only really consider appeals based on misinterpretations of the law being the law set down by that sole legal system. I will go and read Barrie's arguments now as I am sure he is much more au fait with these matters than I am having studied constitutional law and jurisprudence 30 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I see Barrie's arguments now and what he is referring to are actually processes within the wider legal framework, mostly inferior local courts or quasi-judicial processes arising from an agreement to be subject to those rules, such as professional hearings, all of which are part of the mainstream legal system. They have the force of mainstream law applied to them in terms of their procedures to ensure fairness measured against the mainstream legal system; a failure to do so renders the matter to the mainstream legal process. Even Judge Judy is not a people's court; it is a process that each side has signed up to and has agreed to abide by the decision. That it is a contract is made clear in the introduction. So no, I cannot see any real thing as a people's court. Much less any grounds that could take the targets mentioned unwillingly in front of any kind of tribunal. But a kangaroo court, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 Fact is one of these "Peoples Courts" this am awarded me £8,000 go figger! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 I don't need 'to figger'; fact is they are not peoples' court as proposed by these conspiracy theorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.