Latest news with #justice system
Free Malaysia Today
a day ago
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Mechanisms to probe judges exist under constitution, says Azalina
Law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said said judicial independence is vital to maintaining public confidence in the justice system. (Facebook pic) PETALING JAYA : The government today reminded all parties that the Federal Constitution outlines clear mechanisms for dealing with judicial misconduct amid concerns over judicial interference and integrity. Law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said said Articles 125(3) and (4) empower the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to establish a special tribunal to investigate allegations of misconduct against judges, on the advice of the prime minister after consultation with the chief justice. She said additional safeguards are provided under Article 125(3A), which allows the chief justice to refer breaches of ethics to the Judicial Ethics Committee, and Article 125(3B), which supports a written code of conduct, currently the Judges' Code of Ethics 2009. 'This framework ensures that the judiciary remains free from political or external influence, thereby upholding the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law,' Azalina said in a statement today. 'The executive and legislature have no power to interfere in issues of judicial ethics. This is essential to maintain public trust in the justice system.' Azalina said the government acknowledged the concerns raised by the Malaysian Bar during yesterday's judicial independence march and pledged to address them transparently and in accordance with the law. She said the Bar would be invited to contribute to an ongoing comparative study on judicial appointments, led by the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister's Department, together with select committees from the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara. 'Furthermore, the concerns raised by the Malaysian Bar must be examined in accordance with the Federal Constitution, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Act 2009, and all other applicable laws,' she said. A document allegedly containing excerpts from a JAC meeting held in May went viral on social media last weekend, raising concerns from various parties. The extract of the purported minutes said that the former chief justice had raised concerns about the integrity of a candidate for an administrative post in the judiciary. Claims were made that the judge in question had once attempted to influence the outcome of a case in favour of a specific party, and had sought the transfer of a fellow judge for holding a differing view. Police are investigating the alleged leak of the JAC meeting minutes under the Official Secrets Act and two other laws.
BBC News
2 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
Small claims court: Delays cause businesses 'chaos and trauma'
A builder from Sussex says waiting since last year for his small claims court case to be heard has caused him "so much chaos and so much trauma".Anthony Harman's expressed anger over court delays as Ministry of Justice data said waiting times in Sussex have increased by up to 36% for the first quarter of the year, with people in Horsham now waiting almost 18 months for cases to be Harman, from Hove, says judges should be replaced by expert panels to rule on claims to speed up the Ministry of Justice said it's investing in a thousand judges and tribunal members, and increasing remote hearings to speed up cases. Cases in Lewes are taking about 16 months to be heard, and claimants in Worthing, Hastings and Brighton wait between a year and 14 Anthony Harman's case relates to work he did last said he was "a very positive person" but his case has made him "very angry at times"."The justice system is meant to make people fear justice, but also to give them hope that justice will prevail," he said. Mr Harman said some tradespeople need to borrow money to cover their loss of income while they wait and the costs of making a added: "You've got the interest on the loan. You've got the trauma, the stress, all that stuff that leads up for a whole year, which is damaging for your health, both physically and mentally." 'Courtroom not needed' Mr Harman, who's been a builder for 11 years, believes reforming the system to move away from using legally trained judges to rule on civil business matters would speed up the said: "I've seen people in the industry that have gone through the same path as me and they've given up after two or three months because they can't cope with that burden of the money they're owed. "And some people won't even go through the court system because they know it's that bad."Realistically it doesn't need a courtroom, it doesn't need a judge." In a statement the Ministry of Justice said around 97% of county court cases are resolved without going to trial, and since 2024, anyone making a money claim under £10,000 must first attend free mediation before going to said this helps people resolve disputes faster and keeps court time free for more complex said it was also funding 74,300 sitting days in the Civil Courts for 2025/26.
ABC News
3 days ago
- Politics
- ABC News
How can we solve the moral problem of indigenous deaths in custody? - ABC Religion & Ethics
There is near universal agreement that the deaths in custody of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are a shocking outrage. But repeated expressions of shock and outrage are of little use if people keep dying. I want to offer a philosophical diagnosis that makes clear why these failures are systemic. They cannot be fixed by cultural sensitivity training for individuals working in the justice system. Some individuals are at fault, but they aren't the real problem. The system is at fault, especially when it promulgates 'tough on crime' crackdowns on crime waves. In a broken system, even good people doing their best can find beneficent intentions come to nothing — or even make things worse. Philosophy has a long tradition of thought experiments that place individuals in morally terrible circumstances. One famous example was advanced in a 1965 paper by the Australian philosopher H.J. McCloskey. It was published at the height of the civil rights debates in the United States and involves an imagined sheriff in a Southern town who must decide whether to frame an innocent black man in order to prevent mob violence or social unrest. The following thought experiment updates this approach to expose how even well-intentioned individuals may be powerless, or even complicit, in an unjust system. This deliberately inverted scenario draws on the stereotype of the racist cop — not to trivialise injustice, but to make visible how systems entangle even those who aim to rectify injustice. The reverse-racist cop Frank is the moral mirror image of the stereotypically racist cop. He is committed to correcting historical harms suffered by First Nations peoples. To balance the scales of justice, Frank decides to be especially tough on crime committed by wealthy people of European descent. Determined to redress what he sees as a long history of disproportionately punishing indigenous people for minor infractions, Frank targets white-collar offences like corporate tax evasion. He petitions his superiors for drone technology to track expensive cars exceeding the speed limit. Once suspects are detained, he resolves to make no effort to accommodate their emotional or cultural needs. His colleagues caution him that two wrongs don't make a right. Frank understands that many of those he arrests have legitimate grievances. But he replies that even the best judicial systems sometimes treat individuals unfairly. His dominant concern is fairness between peoples , not fairness to individuals . However, Frank's new approach coincides with politicians' announcement of a law-and-order crackdown. During such crackdowns, police don't simply pursue justice. They go where politicians and voters want them. The people Frank wishes to target have taken the hint and avoid the areas now labelled as 'crime ridden'. Frank would love to report that there is no crime to pursue. But his is a reported high-crime area during a politically designated crime wave. Needing arrests to prove he's doing his job, Frank finds himself, despite his intentions, arresting the usual suspects for the usual kinds of crimes. I don't mean to morally endorse Frank's policy. It is simply wrong to consign to solitary confinement a Porsche driver for wilfully travelling at 60 in a 50 zone. The thought experiment shows that the system has a biased view about which kinds of crimes to punish and which to tolerate. Its purpose is to illuminate how even those determined to correct historical harms can be thwarted by flawed systems. The thought experiment isn't meant to be an empirically accurate description of policing in Australia. But that shouldn't matter. Consider Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous story about an individual hooked up to a sick violinist for nine months. Her scenario carried a moral lesson that paid little regard to the biological specifics of pregnancy or abortion. Populist politicians understand that identifying specific individuals who have committed terrible crimes can swing an election. Police forces cracking down on crime can apprehend many such individuals. There is a crude-but-effective electoral logic in presenting immigrants as inclined to crime. So long as you can find some actual examples, such claims are not straightforwardly falsified. There is, in contrast, little emotional gratification in blaming the system. Isn't the system just the system? Who should we blame for the system? If we need individuals to blame for the justice system's current failures, we can find them? Today's morally malfunctioning policies and laws were enacted by individuals in the past, most of whom are now dead. Aboriginal peoples have at least 65,000 years of continuous occupation of Australia. But it was the ancestors of settlers who made most of the laws — laws that may have made sense in their own time. We live in another. If we are going to respect the views of the dead, we must not omit the views of indigenous Australians who had insufficient input into our nation's laws. Suppose you could talk to those ancestors and update them on the fact that Australia is now a rich multicultural nation. They are unlikely to suggest logging onto social media to hashtag #CancelThePolice. What might they say about indigenous deaths in custody? What recommendations might they make? Fortunately, we can do better than idle speculation. We can ask their descendants. The Voice to Parliament would have offered a format for that advice to be given on a regular basis. I have avoided the easy trope of the racist cop. Most people in law enforcement are decent individuals doing their best. But, as Hannah Arendt and others have shown, even good people can be slowly reshaped by bad systems. Just turning up to work each day can require moral adaptation. Over time, a kind of moral dulling sets in, required by those who continue to work within the system. For those who want to advance in the system, the path may demand more than compliance. It may demand vocal endorsement of policies they privately know are unjust. We don't need to wait for history to judge the system. We are the system. And we must change it. Nicholas Agar is Professor of Ethics at the University of Waikato in Aotearoa New Zealand. He is the author of How to be Human in the Digital Economy and Dialogues on Human Enhancement, and co-author (with Stuart Whatley and Dan Weijers) of How to Think about Progress: A Skeptic's Guide to Technology.
The Guardian
3 days ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on private prosecutions: access to justice should not depend on people's ability to pay
In England and Wales, anyone can take a suspected criminal to court. Private criminal prosecutions, which can be initiated by individuals, companies or charities, can give people a shot at justice. They can also be open to abuse. The Post Office brought 918 successful private prosecutions against its employees to protect its own commercial interests – at a shocking human cost laid bare by an official report last week. Rail companies take the draconian measure of prosecuting people for mistakenly buying the incorrect ticket: in 2023, a woman received a criminal record for erroneously using her railcard to save a total of £1.60. In the context of a depleted justice budget, these prosecutions appear especially dystopian, allowing the wealthy to pay for their day in court. No official record exists for the number now taking place, though available data suggests there has been a steep increase. In 2014, 32 'costs orders' (the instruction a court gives to pay another party's legal expenses) were awarded to private prosecutions. By 2019, this had risen to 276. Organisations such as the DVLA and TV Licensing have long used these prosecutions for routine violations. But funding cuts to the criminal justice system are making them more common, and creating what the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) calls a 'two-tier justice system'. At their best, private prosecutions provide a safety valve against state malfeasance or inaction. The parents of the murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence famously brought one against the five main suspects in 1994, after the CPS declined to prosecute. For victims of fraud, meanwhile, a private prosecution may be their only route to justice. In 2004 4.1m cases of fraud were recorded in England and Wales – yet just 6% of all cases reported to Action Fraud, the ineffective national hotline, are actually referred to the police. Of these, fewer than 1% result in an offender being charged or prosecuted. In these cases, a private prosecution may be a person's only hope. But the risks aren't hard to grasp. On average, it costs £8,500 to bring one, putting justice out of reach for many. Counterintuitively, they can also be more expensive for the state. Private prosecutors can recover their costs from the Ministry of Justice, which paid out more than £11m to those who brought private prosecutions through the crown courts in 2020. A supermarket chain can bring a private prosecution against a shoplifter and have its costs covered by the taxpayer, while most victims of fraud will never hear back from the police. If the state can afford to pay for the prosecution of financial crimes against companies, why isn't it prepared to ensure the police and CPS have enough resources to prosecute similar offences against ordinary people? This discrepancy sends a message that certain crimes, particularly fraud targeting individuals, aren't a matter for public concern. After the Post Office scandal, the Labour government has recognised the need for new safeguards. A recent consultation from the Ministry of Justice suggested that a compulsory code of conduct and an accreditation system would stop private prosecutions from being abused. But the government must go further. It is only a properly resourced criminal justice system that will prevent justice from being the equivalent of a gated community in Britain – where access depends on your ability to pay.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Trump administration's non-denial denials on Emil Bove
Amid all the Trump administration's efforts to politicize the justice system, few loom larger right now than the nomination of top Justice Department official Emil Bove to a prestigious appeals-court judgeship. Bove, a former personal lawyer to Donald Trump, has been central to a number of high-profile controversies in the early months of the president's second term. But the most significant one right now is a whistleblower's allegation that Bove suggested that the Justice Department might simply ignore court orders. Former Justice Department attorney Erez Reuveni has said Bove suggested at a March meeting that the department might need to tell the courts 'f**k you.' That a soon-to-be appellate judge would say such a thing would obviously be problematic; Democrats have suggested Trump is trying to install a political 'henchman' in a powerful judgeship. We might never know what happened. But what's also clear is that the administration is offering some seemingly very carefully worded denials. You could even call them non-denial denials. Often, they don't directly deny what Reuveni claimed. At other points, Bove has simply said he didn't recall certain things and declined to provide more detail. It's all worth a parse. The latest news Thursday was that the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee released contemporary messages, emails and documents produced by Reuveni that lend credence to his claims. They show DOJ officials repeatedly citing the concept of telling the courts 'f**k you' around the period in question. They don't prove Bove said what Reuveni claims, but they do suggest government lawyers were talking about that precise phrase after the meeting in question. ('Guess we are going to say f**k you to the court,' one text message says. 'This doesn't end with anything but a nationwide injunction,' another text says, 'and a decision point on f**k you.') The top two officials at DOJ soon posted on social media their responses to the new disclosures. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Reuveni was 'asserting false claims.' She added that 'no one was ever asked to defy a court order.' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche added, 'No one was ever asked to defy a court order — because there was no court order to defy.' But the thing is: Reuveni never said anyone was asked to defy a court order. He merely said that Bove floated the idea. 'Bove stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts 'f**k you' and ignore any such court order,' Reuveni stated in his whistleblower complaint. Blanche has also vouched for Bove in another way: by citing his own presence at the March 14 meeting in question – the one where Reuveni alleges Bove made the remark. 'I was at the meeting described in the article, and at no time did anyone suggest a court order should not be followed,' Blanche said last month. But a fast-emerging question is whether Blanche was actually at the entire meeting. Reuveni said in an interview with The New York Times published Thursday that, in fact, Blanche was not. He said Blanche entered the conference room briefly and spoke privately with Bove, but then left and did not participate in the fuller meeting. Reuveni said Bove's remark came after Blanche left. Bove has also talked around this issue, according to written responses to Senate Judiciary Committee members obtained by CNN. In questions for the record posed to Bove after last month's confirmation hearing, Bove was asked if Blanche was at the meeting. 'Mr. Blanche has stated publicly that he was at the meeting,' Bove said, merely referring to Blanche's public comments. Then Bove was asked whether Blanche was 'present for the entire meeting.' Bove declined to answer. He said he didn't want to get into 'non-public specifics about particular topics' and says it would be 'inappropriate' to comment further, since Reuveni's complaint is involved in ongoing litigation. Which brings us to Bove's own answers. While his responses at last month's confirmation hearing seemed to deny Reuveni's claims, it's not so simple. For one, Bove – like Bondi and Blanche – has seemed more willing to deny telling people to actually defy court orders, rather than to actually deny what Reuveni alleged – that he merely suggested it. 'I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,' Bove said early in the hearing. 'I will reiterate, I did not advise any Justice Department attorney to violate court orders,' he said shortly thereafter. But when Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California asked more specifically about Reuveni's allegation – whether Bove suggested such a thing – Bove didn't so firmly deny it. He instead said he didn't recall saying that. 'Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind,' Bove said. When asked if he suggested telling the courts 'f**k you in any manner,' Bove responded, 'I don't recall.' Pressed in the same exchange, Bove said, 'I did not suggest that there would be any need to consider ignoring court orders. At the point of that meeting, there were no court orders to discuss.' Precisely what that means isn't totally clear. It would seem possible to suggest ignoring court orders without suggesting there would be a need to do so. Indeed, top DOJ officials have repeatedly cited how there was no actual court order at the time, as if that made the entire controversy moot. And Bove bookended this comment by saying twice that he didn't recall making such a suggestion. Right now, it's clear as mud. The question before Senate Republicans is if they care to find out more and really drill down on this – say, by getting sworn statements from others present at the meeting, and/or the government lawyers who cited the 'f**k you' concept in the texts Reuveni produced. But for now, this issue hasn't been put to bed. And it hasn't really been firmly denied either.
