B1538 - Useless Courts Abolition Bill 2019 Watch

This discussion is closed.
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 months ago
#1
B1538 Useless Courts Abolition Bill 2019, Aph MP
A BILL TO abolish the Barmote and other such courts that are a drain on public funds without providing public good.

1. Abolitions
1] The High Court of Chivalry is abolished.
2] The High Peak Barmote Court is abolished.
3] The Low Peak Barmote Court is abolished.
4] The cases that would have been heard by these courts on first instance shall now be heard by the Chancery Division of the High Court.
5] The High Peak Mining Customs and Mineral Courts Act 1851 is repealed.
6] The Derbyshire Mining Customs and Mineral Courts Act 1852 is repealed.

2. Short Title, Extent and Commencement
1] This Act may be cited as the Useless Courts Abolition Act 2019;
2] This Act shall extend across all of England and Wales; and,
3] This Act shall come into force immediately following royal assent.

NotesThe Barmote court is a court that exists solely to decide on cases of lead mining rights in Derbyshire. The last case the court heard was in 2013 yet the court still has two employees and 12 jurists who meet every year and are provided with free bread, milk and tobacco. As such this court should not exist anymore.

The High Court of Chivalry was last convened in 1954, in said convening the court was first required to make a ruling that it did indeed still exist before it could proceed as it had not sat for more than 200 years before this case. This court is also a Civil law court whilst the U.K. is a common law country. As such the court has even less use.
Source: https://www.theheraldrysociety.com/a...december-1954/

Last edited by CatusStarbright; 3 months ago
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 months ago
#2
CatusStarbright there should probably be a 2. by short title etc.

I obviously completely support this
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 months ago
#3
(Original post by Aph)
CatusStarbright there should probably be a 2. by short title etc.

I obviously completely support this
On it. I've had a nightmare with your coding - I think on the document you linked me there was some residual formatting behind the text that TSR didn't understand.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 months ago
#4
I would have preferred a better title 'The Historic Courts Abolition Bill' perhaps. An aye anyway.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 months ago
#5
:ditto:

Also interesting choice of square brackets :beard:
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 months ago
#6
As said above, the title could have done with being less blunt. But I see no issue with its content at face value.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 months ago
#7
I don't really see the problem with abolishing the courts, so Aye.
0
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 months ago
#8
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
[field="B1538 Useless Courts Abolition Bill 2019, Aph MP"]
[center]A BILL TO abolish the Barmote and other such courts that are a drain on public funds
These courts and others like them cost no public funds. They are invariably supported by those who wish to keep the ceremonial traditions of the courts alive.

There were two comprehensive reviews of obscure minor courts in the 1970s and these courts survived primarily because they did no harm.

The last historic court that I am aware has disappeared is the Board of Green Cloth which carried out licensing functions in small parts of central London until 2005.
Last edited by nulli tertius; 2 months ago
0
Glaz
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 months ago
#9
Sounds good :yy:
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 months ago
#10
(Original post by nulli tertius)
These courts and others like them cost no public funds. They are invariably supported by those who wish to keep the ceremonial traditions of the courts alive.

There were two comprehensive reviews of obscure minor courts in the 1970s and these courts survived primarily because they did no harm.

The last historic court that I am aware has disappeared is the Board of Green Cloth which carried out licensing functions in small parts of central London until 2005.
Let's keep ceremonial traditions for the Royal Family and make the courts more realistic and accessible. Courts should be for justice not ceremony.
1
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 months ago
#11
(Original post by barnetlad)
I would have preferred a better title 'The Historic Courts Abolition Bill' perhaps. An aye anyway.
Seconded.
0
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 months ago
#12
(Original post by barnetlad)
Let's keep ceremonial traditions for the Royal Family and make the courts more realistic and accessible. Courts should be for justice not ceremony.
That point hardly applies to courts that effectively only have a ceremonial existence.

However, I do not agree with you generally. Beeching didn't only take an axe to the railways. Afterwards, he was called in to modernise the courts system. His report led to the abolition of Assizes and Quarter Sessions and their replacement by the permanently sitting Crown Court. The major unexpected consequence was that the criminal justice system was pushed from the centre to the periphery of public life. Trumpeters and javelin men were unimportant for the administration of justice but meant that the public could see that justice was being administered.

Public galleries are empty. Press coverage was minimal long before the local press was subjected to internet pressure. A local flower show was more likely to be reported than a Crown Court burglary trial. Public understanding of the criminal justice system shrank. The courts became a bureaucratic process confined to those (including criminals) with a professional interest in them.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 months ago
#13
(Original post by nulli tertius)
That point hardly applies to courts that effectively only have a ceremonial existence.

However, I do not agree with you generally. Beeching didn't only take an axe to the railways. Afterwards, he was called in to modernise the courts system. His report led to the abolition of Assizes and Quarter Sessions and their replacement by the permanently sitting Crown Court. The major unexpected consequence was that the criminal justice system was pushed from the centre to the periphery of public life. Trumpeters and javelin men were unimportant for the administration of justice but meant that the public could see that justice was being administered.

Public galleries are empty. Press coverage was minimal long before the local press was subjected to internet pressure. A local flower show was more likely to be reported than a Crown Court burglary trial. Public understanding of the criminal justice system shrank. The courts became a bureaucratic process confined to those (including criminals) with a professional interest in them.
I was unaware of Dr Beeching's role re the courts. If you want to increase interest, surely some limited access via tv or streaming of some court proceedings would be appropriate?
0
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 months ago
#14
(Original post by barnetlad)
I was unaware of Dr Beeching's role re the courts. If you want to increase interest, surely some limited access via tv or streaming of some court proceedings would be appropriate?
I entirely agree. By far the least problematic would be the routine streaming of judge’s sentencing remarks. Every day judges are making public pronouncements about crime and criminals to a public that is largely absent.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#15
Aph you've conflated the two meanings of 'civil law' in calling the court of High Chivalry a civil law court. Civil law can be opposed to common law in terms of systems, but it is opposed to criminal law in terms of types of law. In this context, the latter is meant.

Nevertheless, and despite the added issue of the unfortunate title, I support the bill. Modernising our court system has been and is a long march, and this is another step in the right direction.

Edit: I've just spotted another issue in that you haven't specified where appeals on the decisions of the High Court in these cases go. On this basis I will now have to abstain unless this is amended.
Last edited by CatusStarbright; 2 months ago
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 months ago
#16
Mr Speaker, as I have no strong view on this bill I shall abstain.
0
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 months ago
#17
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Aph you've conflated the two meanings of 'civil law' in calling the court of High Chivalry a civil law court. Civil law can be opposed to common law in terms of systems, but it is opposed to criminal law in terms of types of law. In this context, the latter is meant.
That isn't right.

The court has a criminal jurisdiction but only when it is presided over by both judges, the Earl Marshall and the Lord High Constable and the latter office is rarely filled. The last time a Constable presided in a criminal case before the court was in 1631.

The court's procedure is that of the civil and not the common law.

When Lord Goddard sat as the Earl Marshal's surrogate in 1954, he wore his Oxford Doctor of Civil Law robe of red and scarlet.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 months ago
#18
Catus being challenged on law knowledge? Where's my popcorn? :teeth:
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#19
(Original post by nulli tertius)
That isn't right.

The court has a criminal jurisdiction but only when it is presided over by both judges, the Earl Marshall and the Lord High Constable and the latter office is rarely filled. The last time a Constable presided in a criminal case before the court was in 1631.

The court's procedure is that of the civil and not the common law.

When Lord Goddard sat as the Earl Marshal's surrogate in 1954, he wore his Oxford Doctor of Civil Law robe of red and scarlet.
Well you seem to be wrong it doesn't have a criminal jurisdiction but deals/dealt with heraldic disputes, unless you're reading thing I'm not seeing in which case please share.

Yes more reading states that it is a civil law court in that sense, but if you look at the operations it's no civil court I recognise. It had a lot of procedures and proceedings in the beginning which is quite a common law characteristic. There was a reform which gave civil lawyers exclusive access to the court, but proceedings were still loose and informal, which is not a civil law characteristic at all.

This is a very weird court in sum and really, really shouldn't exist!

(This was a handy resource, though I confess not to have read all of it: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no...ry/intro-court)
0
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 months ago
#20
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
Well you seem to be wrong it doesn't have a criminal jurisdiction but deals/dealt with heraldic disputes, unless you're reading thing I'm not seeing in which case please share.

Yes more reading states that it is a civil law court in that sense, but if you look at the operations it's no civil court I recognise. It had a lot of procedures and proceedings in the beginning which is quite a common law characteristic. There was a reform which gave civil lawyers exclusive access to the court, but proceedings were still loose and informal, which is not a civil law characteristic at all.

This is a very weird court in sum and really, really shouldn't exist!

(This was a handy resource, though I confess not to have read all of it: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no...ry/intro-court)
On the site to which you linked read the case of Reay v Ramsey, which is the last criminal case before the Court.

The procedure is very much that of a civil law court with a petition, libel, proxies, citations. Compare the language of that court with the Non-Contentious Probate Rules or an Admiralty Action in Rem.
Last edited by nulli tertius; 2 months ago
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (204)
67.11%
No (100)
32.89%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed