Went to court today
Guest
Posts: n/a
Went to court today
I went to court today involving a case dealing with divorce. I witnessed a tarvisty of justice. I sat there wondering whether our profession should be judged by anything other than professional jury's. Alhough i was in a district court, the judge had already made his mind up before the hearing and therefore was not interested in listening to legal argument.
If a judge behaves like this, what about 12 good men and true from isleworth who are bored to tears about JAR-OPS and transgressing aviation law. We are getting inundated with technology in our profession that to an extent is confusing to the guy who has had thousands of pounds of training thrown at him. Is it really right that we should then be judged by anyone other than a professional jury in the likely event that we are involved in an incident? I hope i never have to find out.
------------------
Big Johnson Casinos "Liquor up front Poker in the rear"
If a judge behaves like this, what about 12 good men and true from isleworth who are bored to tears about JAR-OPS and transgressing aviation law. We are getting inundated with technology in our profession that to an extent is confusing to the guy who has had thousands of pounds of training thrown at him. Is it really right that we should then be judged by anyone other than a professional jury in the likely event that we are involved in an incident? I hope i never have to find out.
------------------
Big Johnson Casinos "Liquor up front Poker in the rear"
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm sympathetic, although I'm lucky in that the only time I've ever been in court was as a witness.
I think that good expert witnesses are probably the only way to solve your dilemma, because you'd be hard pressed to find a "competent" jury in every technical case from computer fraud to flight safety to medical malpractice. We certainly have no monopoly on complications in our profession.
My biggest concern as an outsider to the system, is that it is hard to justify the cost of the whole thing. My partner went through a messy divorce before I met her, the total fees for which would pay for a reasonable second hand Cessna (or something nice to fly). Somebody needs to solve this problem, of the sheer cost of the legal system, as a first step to making it fairer. Until they do, too many court cases will be won by the participant with the biggest wallet, and not the one in the right.
How is beyond me, I'm only an Engineer, not one of these clever lawyer chappies. Anybody got any bright ideas?
My private opinion only, with little evidence to support it.
G
I think that good expert witnesses are probably the only way to solve your dilemma, because you'd be hard pressed to find a "competent" jury in every technical case from computer fraud to flight safety to medical malpractice. We certainly have no monopoly on complications in our profession.
My biggest concern as an outsider to the system, is that it is hard to justify the cost of the whole thing. My partner went through a messy divorce before I met her, the total fees for which would pay for a reasonable second hand Cessna (or something nice to fly). Somebody needs to solve this problem, of the sheer cost of the legal system, as a first step to making it fairer. Until they do, too many court cases will be won by the participant with the biggest wallet, and not the one in the right.
How is beyond me, I'm only an Engineer, not one of these clever lawyer chappies. Anybody got any bright ideas?
My private opinion only, with little evidence to support it.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
Difficult one, that. Just suppose you got a 'random' mix of 12 aviation 'experts' and they happened to be some of the pprune posters whose posts make your hair stand on end! Fair Trial?
I THINK I might be happier taking my chances with a random pick of the REST of the world's loonies!
I THINK I might be happier taking my chances with a random pick of the REST of the world's loonies!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I very much agree with my learned friend Ghengis the Engineer.
In the last 10 years I have brought two civil actions in the High Court. The first case started in the County court but went to the Court of appeal. The second was started in the QBD of the High Court. Although both actions were "successful", the costs involved were enormous. In the latter case well in excess of £250,000. Given the time and stress involved, I would never encourage anybody to embark on a course of litigation without seriously considering the consequences. Sometimes there are times in your life it is just unavoidable.
One thing I have always been impressed with is the ability and quality of Judges. Even when judgments have caused us additional problems the ability of Judges to listen to a reasonably articulate claimant ( or defendant) is impressive. It is a shame that the same is not so true of Solicitors and Counsel !
Judgments are nearly always based on precedent and Judges will (in my experience) listen very carefully to legal arguement, since this is usually based on precedent. I am sure that if they did not their judgments would be subject to reversal on appeal.
The jury system is certainly not perfect, but the arguement is that is the best of the worst remedies available.
It is true and indeed unfair that Litigation is perhaps the biggest Poker game in town. You need a strong wallet and even stronger nerves. It will take years to resolve, and your opponent will be probably have every advantage. I take exception to the posts that suggest "everyone sues at the drop of a hat". People don't ! It is a good emotive myth proffered by those who are advantaged by such suggestions.
No right thinking person goes to Court unless they feel compelled to and have the stomach for it. I have a good deal of sympathy with anybody who finds themselves in this position.
In the last 10 years I have brought two civil actions in the High Court. The first case started in the County court but went to the Court of appeal. The second was started in the QBD of the High Court. Although both actions were "successful", the costs involved were enormous. In the latter case well in excess of £250,000. Given the time and stress involved, I would never encourage anybody to embark on a course of litigation without seriously considering the consequences. Sometimes there are times in your life it is just unavoidable.
One thing I have always been impressed with is the ability and quality of Judges. Even when judgments have caused us additional problems the ability of Judges to listen to a reasonably articulate claimant ( or defendant) is impressive. It is a shame that the same is not so true of Solicitors and Counsel !
Judgments are nearly always based on precedent and Judges will (in my experience) listen very carefully to legal arguement, since this is usually based on precedent. I am sure that if they did not their judgments would be subject to reversal on appeal.
The jury system is certainly not perfect, but the arguement is that is the best of the worst remedies available.
It is true and indeed unfair that Litigation is perhaps the biggest Poker game in town. You need a strong wallet and even stronger nerves. It will take years to resolve, and your opponent will be probably have every advantage. I take exception to the posts that suggest "everyone sues at the drop of a hat". People don't ! It is a good emotive myth proffered by those who are advantaged by such suggestions.
No right thinking person goes to Court unless they feel compelled to and have the stomach for it. I have a good deal of sympathy with anybody who finds themselves in this position.
