At 08:42:59 on 08/09/2006, John Shocked delighted
uk.sport.football.clubs.liverpool by announcing:


And it's now clear that you don't understand the legal system in
England.

--
"The Liverpool fans are something special. I remember that, when we
were struggling a couple of years ago, they were still supportive and
patient." - Gérard Houllier

"Alex" <no.spam@mail.com> wrote in message news:4mcpsjF5iii8U1@individual.net...

And what is the difference in the UK legal system ?

John

At 10:11:57 on 08/09/2006, John Shocked delighted
uk.sport.football.clubs.liverpool by announcing:


Apart from the statutory laws - or legislation - which are made by Acts
of Parliament, a lot of the law in the UK is 'case law' (or 'common
law'); that is, it is based on previous judgements or precedent. Much
of case law is actually based on judges' interpretations of
legislation. Judges, therefore, can and do make law although the court
does have to be sufficiently senior (such as the High Court or Court of
Appeal).

Juries can also find a defendant 'not guilty', even if they know he is
guilty, if they do not agree with the law.

--
"The Liverpool fans are something special. I remember that, when we
were struggling a couple of years ago, they were still supportive and
patient." - Gérard Houllier

"Alex" <no.spam@mail.com> wrote in message news:4mcs85F5e3ojU1@individual.net...

I am aware of Case Law, but normally that is the origin of Tort Law
and general Contract law one finds when people sue in civil court.
What many states in the US have done is pass statutes to codify
much of this law (and modify certain details since most Case Law
is written by judges to favor their wealthy fatcat friends).

A problem occurs when the judge claims his law is preeminent over the
people's laws, or the statutes passed by that State's Statehouse
or Congress in the federal system.
Since most legislators are attorneys, they are more inclined than
the people they represent, to look the other way when judges do this.

Congress still can pass a law to strike down an interpretation of law
made by judges, but often these decisions do not have the
public interest level, which requires press involvement, to force
the legislature to act.


In the US, this (jury nullification) is generally not legal, though it likely
happens quite often, without the jury admitting to it.
This is a favorite subject of libertarians, especially
those who disagree with the drug laws.

As is obvious, I do not believe that it is in the interests of non-criminals,
who are the majority, to have any decision maker, judge or Referee,
making up the Law as they go along.
That favors only those able and willing to pay cash bribes to
the referee to fix the match.

John

Coo-koo, coo-koo.