Monday, September 17, 2007
Another post about our beloved judges. Judges in the past used to talk alot. Even when they agree, they must tell the whole world something they already know from the previous judge's opinion. In Ashbury Railway Carriage & Iron Co v Riche, a 1875 case, the following judges did this: LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I am clearly of the same opinion (and since he's "clearly" of the same opinion, he only went on for another 3 pages) But now, in the present day, we have our lovable Baroness Hale of Richmond, who said this in OBG v. Allen: My Lords, I have read your Lordships' opinions with admiration.. On the first two issues, Lord Hoffmann's view is shared by a majority. The least said by the rest of us who take the same view, therefore, the better. There should be no doubt, and no room for argument, about what has been decided and why. Any perceived inconsistency between what I say and what he says is to be resolved in favour of the latter. Indeed, there would be much to be said for our adopting the practice of other supreme courts in having a single majority opinion to which all have contributed and all can subscribe without further qualification or explanation. There would be less grist to the advocates' and academics' mills, but future litigants might thank us for that. And on the subject of Baroness Hale, she really is quite funny. In Campbell v. MGN, a case about Naomi Campbell and her druggie meeting being exposed, this was what she said: "Even the judges know who Naomi Campbell is." "Put crudely, it is a prima donna celebrity against a celebrity-exploiting tabloid newspaper." "One reason why press freedom is so important is that we need newspapers to sell in order to ensure that we still have newspapers at all." And yes, I'm getting quite bored from reading cases to post this up.
LORD HATHERLEY: My Lords, I am of the same opinion. (and then goes on for another 5 pages)
More Fuzzy Logic @ 12:08 AM
Thursday, September 13, 2007
This is the photo thats worth 5 beers.. spot what is so funny abt this pix..
And this is me!
More Fuzzy Logic @ 10:13 PM
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
so mallals is over, at least for me. I wasnt that surprised that i didnt get in, seeing that the judge didnt buy my policy argument, asked me to slow down, and cut me off during rebuttal. But i get the sian diao feeling, esp when i went to time keep and later see who got in. I think its got more to do with your style and your luck as to which room you get, than the strength of your arguments. I cant help but feel that jgan, fangyi and I wasted countless hours prepping for the moots, bouncing arguments off each other and generally left our other halves and schwork cold and lonely, when my judge asked me rather inane questions and later confess to us that she read the judgment 5 mins before coming in. I mean, its really alright because they are busy people who cant be expected to prep for a prelim round, but then they should have at least be given a "cheat sheet" telling them what to expect and what questions to ask. And the judges in the other rooms actually ask better questions.
So in a sense, i think i feel cheated, especially when i think that its the strength of your argument thats ultimately important and not ur style.
More Fuzzy Logic @ 11:57 PM
Monday, September 03, 2007
Now this is why i love walter woon:
" Now, may I say, Sir, that as a matter of drafting technique, it is unwise, and I think undesirable, to draft the section so wide that everybody commits an offence, and the Police decide who to prosecute. This is a driftnet. It is a legal equivalent of a driftnet. You put it out 200 miles into the ocean, and catch everything, and then decide which fish you want, which fish you throw back. That as a drafting technique, I would say, should not be adopted."
"Anybody could go into your house and use your phone. It could be your maid. It could be your parents. It could be a lodger. It could be a house guest. Anybody. Are we going to turn ourselves into something that George Orwell did not envisage in 1984 - a nation of big brother overlooking the phone? This is the point."
"As far as the point on abetment is concerned, may I correct, with respect, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. You are guilty of abetment if you instigate or if you assist. "Knowingly permit" is not abetment. It was not when I last looked at it."
More Fuzzy Logic @ 11:11 AM
Archives
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
