Responded "to all"
presuming the list to be debate oriented, on a topic of mutual interest -
however my sincere apologies to anyone who may not really wish to be
included in ongoing discussions.
Dear "succeed"
Many thanks for your email, it was appreciated. You
are indeed correct - I did, inadvertently, overlook those instances where
the defendant is an individual confronting a plaintiff bank and for
this I genuinely apologise: should have elaborated but had hoped the
former went without saying! An individual,
defendant or plaintiff, currently has little if any chance whatsoever
against a major corporation. A situation which must be rectified....and unless
those individuals among us who have the courage and perserverance to stand up
to improper actions then these practices will continue, ad
infinitum.
For what ever it's worth I would like to add something to
the collective pool please. My personal view is that change is only ever
effected when all the facts, from both perspectives, are fully
assessed, properly comprehended, and then appropriately addressed and
challenged. Unquestionably the present judicial system permits injustice:
if we wish to improve matters, my belief is that we must
prove beyond doubt, that it truly causes
unjust results....between us we therefore need to collate, in proper legal
fashion, positive, undeniable proof. There are many methods of
achieving this - radicalism is not one, nor getting the facts wrong
(including incorrectly interpreting Acts and being unaware of repeals).
Among us there are many victims and rightly angry people, but let's use
our heads.
Although I wholeheartedly agree that in instances where
individuals come up against corporations (particularly banks - and in
that regard we have, for starters, information from a party to one
of the financial system enquiries who advises of "the special benefits
secretly offered by banks to government employees" [lower than public
interest rates etc, "mortgages/loans" which never show up, etc.....]:
sadly, a just outcome presently seems ensured
only through jury decision. No mention was made of juries to
keep response brief, however civil cases infrequently have that option:
whilst agreeing (first-hand) that juries, given the current state of the
judicial system, should properly be available in many civil actions, on the
other hand cost etc considerations exist with jury panels who are
comprised of people compulsorily required to serve/take time off work for an
unknown duration....in some instances jurors (who might be dismissed) run
small businesses, or are key employees - absences from work are
costly. As a juror myself, I have met few people who have
ever been pleased to serve but indeed dreaded the inconvenience.
Maybe some of us need to get together and really tackle the problem,
collect and encourage input, and then make a meaningful submission -
meet them on their own ground????? In such circumstances, the media
should also then pay proper attention and momentum will grow?
Just a few thoughts and I look forward to feedback.
Kind regards,
Robyn
Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, 9 June 2000 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: Salaries of State
Judges
Robin makes some valid points, but missed one important one.
she said
"that our judges must be required by law to
publically declare personal/ family (direct and indirect)
interests/investments/assets, and where a judge has even the
remotest such interest or link with any matter subject of a
case coming before them then this must be divulged in open court, noted on the
transcript and left solely for the plaintiff, rather
than the Judge, to decide whether or not they should properly hear that
case:
The words "and or defendant" is
missing. In the case of a bank being the
plaintiff and the Judge having shares in or a loan from the bank the defendant
is exposed.
No mention is made of the right to a choice by
either one of the parties for a jury.
Everything that transpires in the proceedings should be
recorded on fixed video camera. As the attitude and body language of judges in
particular is of the utmost importance, as it very often is the opposite to
the words spoken.
As for costs, average solicitor costs are more like
$250 per hour not $350. The question of the salary of a public
servant only arrises when there is neglect or abandonment of duty. As is
no doubt the case in this instant.
I was not aware of the switch in the transcript recording
system. I have found voice recorded transcripts to be in
full.
This is not the case with hand taken transcripts, which are
always incomplete and often in error and subject to bias editing of which I
have substantial proof. Worse still many courts proceed without the
court transcript recorder in the court. I have been placed in all these
situations. On a number of occasions, the now Chief Justice In NSW, as a silk,
my advisory on one such occasions, he did not support my demand that the
court reporter be in place before the proceedings proceeded and was happy
with the case proceeding for a half hour before the recorder was available.
Six months later he is the Chief
Justice.
