Happy to hear it. Now can they ship Anne Sacoolas over here?
Point of information: it’s the High Court that will perform the service: this is an intermediate-level civil court distributed across England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate equivalents; the UK is weird like that).
The actual UK Supreme Court (which itself doesn’t have full jurisdiction in Scotland) is much more like SCOTUS except it can’t strike down primary legislation (parliamentary supremacy and all that). It’s less than two decades old, and was formed out of the old Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, back when Tony Blair thought that there may be a little something to this “separation of powers” notion after all.
Off-topic, with apologies. Has anyone heard anything about Cory Doctorow? I imagine many here were reading his blog since he left bb: pluralistic.net. He had been doing updates every day since starting the blog, but suddenly stopped on Sep 4th.
[EDIT] ah never mind I just remembered twitter and saw he is happily posting there.
I would love to see this smug and sleazy parasite publicly branded as a paedophile for the rest of his useless life.
Fun fact: the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court were previously collectively described as the Supreme Court of England and Wales. (Since the creation of the Supreme Court of the UK, the three are now known as the Senior Courts of England and Wales, in a very un-British attempt to reduce confusion.)
And then there’s the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which is mostly the Supreme Court justices in different hats, and which is, I believe, the only remaining UK judicial body that can (and does) confirm sentences of death.
If these inbred losers are supposed to represent the British nation, it’s no wonder that Britain has been in steady decline for the last 75 years. I can see no functional reason why the nation continues to underwrite such an out-dated and useless institution as the monarchy.
Because … err … tourism! And the monarchy more than pays for itself, with the money it graciously gives us from the Crown Estate!
(/s, if necessary.)
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council refuses to impose death sentences, which is one of the reasons why some Commonwealth member states have replaced it with the Caribbean Court of Justice.
Do they refuse to allow it at all, or only for those who have spent more than five years on death row? Or is that a distinction without a difference?
Actually the ruling appears to mean that death sentences would be fine if the appeals process took no more than five years. Perhaps the judges figured that the Jamaican courts would never meet that target and that they could use it to abolish the death penalty by the back door.
Is he sweating yet?
This is what happens when you haven’t been in Britain much for ~25 years… We used to call it that, in those days, but probably incorrectly all the same.
A request for a correction to the correction: the article now reads “the UK’s High Court”, but this is England’s and Wales’ (or England-and-Wales’s, if you prefer) High Court. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own, completely separate High Courts.
I still think they would have had better luck serving papers if they had sent a teenaged woman.
Don’t whitewash it.
“Teenage woman” is just a nicer way of saying CHILD.
What would you call a nineteen year old female?