STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Britain Takes Step Toward Private Justice With Online Court Suggestion
By Daily Bell Staff - July 29, 2016

Judge calls for online court without lawyers to cut costs …  Lord Justice Briggs, a Court of Appeal judge, who drew the package of reforms to the civil justice system ALAMY A senior judge has called for the establishment of an online court that does not have lawyers and can deal with claims of up to £25,000.  The move would give “effective access to justice without having to incur the disproportionate cost of using lawyers”, a report says.  – UK Times

We’ve often made the point that the current Western law system is an illegitimate, expensive botch that would not be practical without monopoly central banking.

It is the counterfeiting and debasement of currency that allows countries like the US and to a lesser extent the UK the ability to rip apart families and imprison people for years for “criminal” activities harmful only to themselves.

The US alone imprisons 25 percent of the world incarcerated population. It pays for this insanity by the over-printing of money.

To add to the obscenity of the US “justice” system, many prisoners are virtual slaves since the system in many cases has been “privatized.”

This means prisons are run by for-profit ventures that may demand prisoners work long hours in increasingly abysmal conditions.

In fact, in various municipalities it has been reported that representatives of private prisons demand the incarceration of a certain amount of prisoners per year.

In Afghanistan, the US pays families for the men, women and children it slaughters by mistake via bombs and drones.

While this is seen as “quaint” by the Western mainstream media, this is the way justice was traditionally carried out from a historical perspective.

In fact, violent alternatives like duels were created to impel people to speak to each other and settle their differences.

Often there were no third-parties at all. The sides involved in a criminal or civil quarrel came to a resolution as best they could.

Probably concepts of “justice” were somewhat foreign to these discussions as was the idea of paying one’s “debt to society” – a wholly awful and rhetorical assumption.

Societies practicing private justice simply wanted to see quarrels resolved and individuals responsible for difficulties quieted.

Alternatively, in various venues at various times, there were professional third-parties who would resolve differences for a fee.

These individuals had every incentive to be fair and practical because they wanted to maintain a good reputation in order to be hired again.

Now Britain – the place from where the current, horrible, state-run, “justice” system emerged – seems to be taking tentative steps to return to private justice.

It’s not much but anything is better than the current system.

HERE, from Family Law:

Lord Justice Briggs has … published his final report into the structure of the civil courts: The Civil Courts Structure Review: Final Report.

It was commissioned by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in July 2015 to coincide with a programme for reform of the courts by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and looking at civil court structures and judicial processes more generally …

The proposal is the centrepiece of a package of reforms to the civil justice system, drawn up by Lord Justice Briggs, a Court of Appeal judge, and commissioned by the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the master of the rolls, Lord Dyson.

The Family Law article goes on to make a number of recommendations on different aspects of the civil justice system, such as enforcement of court rulings, the structure of the courts and deployment of judges.

  • The Online Court – a new court, designed to be used by people with minimum assistance from lawyers, with its own set of user-friendly rules … Complex and important cases to be transferred upwards to higher courts. Open justice and transparency issues to be addressed.
  • Case Officers – senior body of court lawyers and other officials who can assist with certain functions currently carried out by judges, such as paperwork and uncontentious matters. To be trained and supervised by judges, and decisions subject to reconsideration by judges on request by a party. To operate independently of government when exercising their functions.

    Mediation/ADR
    – re-establish a court-based out of hours private mediation service in County Court hearing centres prepared to participate, along the lines of the service which existed prior to the establishment and then termination of the National Mediation Helpline.
  • Deployment of Judges – the principle should be that no case is too big to be resolved in the regions. The current acute shortage of Circuit judges specialising in civil work in the County Court needs an urgent remedy.

The idea seems to be that people ought to try to settle their grievances within certain provided parameters and with the help of “case officers” rather than judges as much as possible.

The idea that people can actually negotiate and resolve their own problems without less rather than more state interference is certainly a step forward.

In fact, that is a step toward private justice – the idea of removing the official bureaucracy from resolution process.

Conclusion: Ironically, these ideas are being greeted with solemn praise for their “mastery” of innovative approaches. The system is so corrupt and officious that it does not realize it is reinventing solutions that were commonplace for thousands of years.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Praetor

    Do you think maybe someone open up the old books and is now making a case they had a brilliant idea?

    Just maybe an ordinary citizen can make new law and over through the tyrannical judiciary, plus bring some commonsense to the courts of circular logic.

    Look up and case in a law book, follow the case logic and you will end up where you started!!!

  • Samarami

    The human family is the only legitimate ruling class. Having no skills in “anarchist theory” to predict just how, in a totally free society, inept or unfit parenting will be dealt, I’ll have to plead faith in liberty. I have faith that, once the malicious hand of that evil abstraction, “the state”, is finally and irrevocably severed, family resolution will succeed.

    I do know the nature of the human newborn (father of 7, grandpa of soon-to-be 26) and the love and devotion of natural parents.

    The human newborn comes into being totally, 100%, dependent upon adult caregivers — hopefully loving and dedicated Mums & Dad’s. Family Law. Tiny babies are bereft of that phenomenon we refer to as “instinct” when thinking of “the animal kingdom”. Each skill and virtue must be learned — until that time that, when parents become elderly and neurodegenerate, the children sit on the bench of family law; at which time they will provide governance to and for the parents.

    Central political “authority” is the adulteration of loving, legitimate government. Sam

    • Bruce C.

      I agree about how most things are dealt with ideally.

      However, there seems to be “experiments in consciousness” on a larger scale in which different social structures are tried. I really like when the DB points out that some social structures of the past have in many ways been better than what we have today – case in point being the incarceration system vs other ways of dealing with issues more personally (like animals do). It’s as though the human species engages in experiments literally. Not as objective observers but participants, so they experience the “experiment” from the inside.

    • Fred Bastiat

      Sam, Your cup runneth over! I’m jealous and I’m waiting impatiently for grandchildren. Keep carrying the light.

  • Bruce C.

    “It is the counterfeiting and debasement of currency that allows
    countries like the US and to a lesser extent the UK the ability to rip
    apart families and imprison people…”

    Would you please elaborate and explain that. I don’t like central banking and currency debasement, etc. either, but I don’t see how the current incarceration system is practical only because of “monopoly central banking.”

    My understanding is that prisons are paid for out of taxes and whatever can be borrowed via the sale of bonds, but only recently has the Fed/CBs been buying so many bonds (debt monetization). I can see your statement saying ‘an expensive botch that would not be practical without high taxes and bond sales’, but central banking? Please elaborate, if you would.

loading
Sign up now and join our exclusive international network for free-market thinkers
Privacy Assured: We will NEVER share your personal information.