Lord Scarman direction on critiquing courts is still ignored

Cases centred on pedigree dogs and which ended up in the High Court underline an uncertain focus within the judicial system.

The first case involved dog judging and etiquette at a dog show.

The second and more recent case devolved around the pedigree registration of certain show dogs.

Both these episodes involved the official dog breeder community and its defined rules and regulations.

In both instances the dispute went beyond the established breeder hierarchy and instead wound up in the High Court.

In both separate cases the High Court found itself grappling with the human frailties, rights, wrongs, in addition to the characteristics of exotic pet dog breeds and the required etiquette displayed at show time and also the sale and purchase value of the highly-bred creatures .

How did these two meritless cases which should have been settled at the level of the authorised pet breeder society wind up at the taxpayer expense at the High Court? Note that we are talking here about pet dogs and not the working dog category.

A reason is that there is no screening within the judiciary to eliminate the passage to the court system of such cases involving as they do pastimes which have no bearing on the welfare of the public.

This compares with the judicial system in Scotland in which the procurator fiscal would have intervened and dismissed both cases as trivial and outside any further crown consideration.

With judicial intervention at so many levels now permeating every aspect of daily life many are baffled why relevant authorities as a whole remain paralysed in explaining with any clarity the whys and wherefores of the merit of cases and their subsequent outcomes.

An underpinning reason is a widespread belief at all levels of society that there is a blanket ban on any commentary or conflicting argument to do with anything associated with a judge.

Lord Scarman impatient to the point of being visibly angry was confronted with this issue when the Law Lord toured New Zealand.

“You may criticise the judgement,” he explained.

“But you may not criticise the judge.”

Correctly perceiving that his audience had still not grasped this simple point, Lord Scarman now illustrated it with words to this following effect.

*You may criticise the judgement…

*But you cannot criticise the judge who made it by claiming for example that the judge did so under the influence of drink.

Now much later many who are in a position to comment on judicial activity are struck dumb when requested to do so.

At the time the pet dog trials wended their way through the High Court nobody in any position of authority at all said that the disputes in the public domain were trivial and that they should have been resolved by the individuals involved and the society regulating their hobby.

But everyone held back for fear of offending the bench.

Much of the judiciary is now occupied in delivering verdicts on historical disputes and ancient grievances.

There is the fear of challenging contemporary judgements on these issues and it is exhibited especially by most politicians.

They indicate that having come from the bench the judgement is holy writ.

Two topics now require more than cursory examination.

One is what goes into the court system, especially the High Court.

The other is what comes out in the way of judgements.

For too long those who should ask the questions have become poodles of an expansionary and unchallenged judiciary.