There is a time and place for everything and I don't think you can just totally rule out the adversarial form in favor of the investigative.

I believe the adversarial process is more conducive to an amiable result in contract law which can become extremely complex beyond the education and experience of any judge or jury. The only bodies who really understand the issues are the litigants themselves and therefore they are the best ones to come up with a resolution. I have seen cases where after several weeks of courtroom adversity the parties come to agreement. If the case goes on to the jury to decide you take your chances.
On the other hand, tort, fraud, civil and many forms of criminal cases would be best handled by an investigative form of trial as the emotional arguments would most likely be ignored in favor of the facts leading to a much more consistent and publicly agreeable outcome.

I have practised in both adversarial and inquisitorial forums. I found the inquisitorial system so suffocating of justice that it was like a breath of fresh air getting back into the adversarial courts. I can’t understand why anyone would say the inquisitorial system is preferable, unless from academic speculation.

It is true that the lawyers and judges have a cartel. But that is not an argument against the adversarial system; it is an argument against occupational licensing. The same exclusive privileges would affect an inquisitorial profession.

Similarly many of the injustices of the legal system come from the fact that it is run by a monopoly – the state. Rearranging the monopoly will only mean the problems reappear in a different guise. Competition between providers of judicial services – at least in civil matters - would likely lower the cost, reduce delay, and improve consumer satisfaction on both sides.

It is not an argument against the adversarial system that parties can raise or evidence any point. From the standpoint of both seeking truth, and justice, that is as it should be.

It is not correct to say that the adversarial system does not provide for seeking agreement. The purpose of pleadings is to isolate issues before the trial by eliminating matters that are not in contention, in other words, to require the parties to identify points of agreement. Thus most cases settle by consent before trial.

To say that it is an insult to justice for rape victims to face embarrassing questions presupposes that they are rape victims in the first place, which is the whole issue. It is precisely the fact that such a prejudiced attitude can have free rein in an inquisitor abusing his power which makes the adversarial system better.

From the standpoint of justice and truth it is far worse for prejudiced hectoring to come from a judge, dominating the entire proceedings, than from counsel facing the correction of an adversary and a judge. In practice that is the alternative.

The title of the piece was about "Common Law", but most of the piece, and comments, are about the adversarial vs investigative debate. I dont think that is the central issue in discussing common law, is it?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't "statute law" the law enshrined in Acts of Parliament, while "Common Law" is the law enshrined in the age old records of court decisions, going back to 1000AD and before in Britain? Common Law allows for commonsense judgement, and mostly utilizes precendent. Where no exact precedent exists judges or counsel can try to invoke precedent of roughly similar cases.
Can "the common law be scrapped"? I dont think it is possible, whether K Rudd wanted it or not. Even if Parliament decreed that it should be, surely judges would exercise judgement and continue to consider common law argument in their rulings. It couldnt really be scrapped unless all the judges were imprisoned, or threatened with torture to change their ways of making decisions.
But the business of investigative vs adversarial - yes, perhaps Parliament could alter that. But that is not the crux of common law, as I see it.

The analysis by Ironer of the distinction between common law and statute law [ legislation ] is generally correct and the title of the Legal Sceptic article [ replacing the common law ] is misleading . The only manner in which the common law could , indeed , be replaced , would be to codify all law , by legislation - a massive undertaking and the resulting legislative code would not , necessarily , result in greater justice or more speedy results of disputes . Replacing the adversarial system with the inquisitorial system may , or may not , result in an improved standard of justice . Is there a reliable analysis of the comparative merits of the outcomes of disputes , as between adversarial and inquisitorial systems ?

Any changes would have to be made at both Commonwealth and State levels .

Ironer and Jaylex, the author of the original piece upon which I was commenting suggested that the entire common law should be scrapped, and that Parliament should institute a civil code purporting to "cover the field" instead - as civil law countries have done. That is, effectively, legislation would replace the common law. But I don't like calling it "legislation", as the Civil Codes are quite different to what we call legislation. They are extremely general, and attempt to encapsulate the law in as few words as possible, as opposed to our statutes, which can take up volumes when you put in definitions, exceptions, qualifications etc... Our legislation is very, very detailed by comparison.

As you rightly point out, Jaylex, it would be a massive undertaking, and would have to be undertaken at both a State and a Federal level. It would cost an immense amount to achieve, and everyone would have to be retrained.

I was trying to consider whether there were any reasons why such a massive undertaking would be worthwhile - ultimately, I think there may be some benefits of a civil law system, but the detriments vastly outweigh the benefits.

Interestingly, I understand that France is looking at abolishing investigating judges, and there is a great controversy as a result.

The article is well written and informative but on a pragmatic level is asks the wrong question. Instead of” would you like arsenic or hemlock with your corn flakes?” it might have given a better result by asking “What can we do to improve our legal system here are some of the options”.

In essence I fail to see how either or is the only or best option available e.g. the court should decide on the nature of the evidence and combatants which system is likely to give the best justice for each case i.e.:
• Mr Joe Smith V Workcover might gain a more even contest if it were inquisitorial.
• Likewise ATO V Westfield in front of a jury is patently absurd in that the average Juror would compelled to listen to hours of complex accounting much of which they wouldn’t understand. Such cases would be better heard by a panel of appropriately qualified professionals.
• A dispute over a fence would best be heard by a jury.
The other salient factor is to eliminate legal action being used to avoid responsibility on one side, a quick payday for the opportunist, or as a bulling tool by some dubious public figures seeking to use their public position to squash criticism.
It seems to me that the entire legal system is opperating in horse and buggy world where as modern society is into rockets and computers.

THE PROBLEM....with the adversarial method is...

Smart lawyers do not care one iota as to innocence or guilt..they care about winning the case.

If they can do this by attacking valid but 'inadmissable' evidence.... due to a minor technicality...they will do it.

If they can spot a minor procedural error in police methods...they will try to use that to call for dropping the charges.

...and people wonder why Star Chambers emerge?

Examinator, I agree that the current system is far from ideal, and can produce injustice rather than justice.

I'd be interested in knowing what alternative ideas you have as to how it should be organised. It sounds like you are suggesting an approach which varies according to the type of case (correct me if I'm wrong). How would you decide what cases were suitable for what method of decision? Would there be broad categories, or would the decision be made on a case-by-case basis? Who would make that decision? Which cases would be jury cases and which would be judge alone cases?

"Smart lawyers do not care one iota as to innocence or guilt..they care about winning the case.

If they can do this by attacking valid but 'inadmissable' evidence.... due to a minor technicality...they will do it.

If they can spot a minor procedural error in police methods...they will try to use that to call for dropping the charges."

Any lawyer who did not take up a technicality would be derogating from his or her duty to the client. It's not only about winning the case, but also about doing your duty by the client, which means taking all the technical points. That being said, there is also a duty to the court, which means that you have to present those legal arguments which go against your side.

I share your frustration about cases which go awry because of technical rules. In such cases, it's difficult to feel that justice has been done. The argument is that justice is done in a broader sense because the technical rules prevent injustices from occurring to innocent accused. It's the old argument that it's better to let 100 guilty people go free than to imprison one innocent person. The problem is that if you make the law too technical and procedural, the public starts to lose faith in it, because it is no longer doing its job. It is a delicate balance.

It seems to me the question hinges on whether we have courts of law, or courts of justice.
Someone once said there are three forms of law; the law of God, the law of Nature, and the law of Man. Of the three, the law of Man is by far the basest law.
I believe the law (common or statute) should be the means. Justice should be the end.
By this I mean, the law should bring matters to the door of the court, but perhaps it should not enter.
The right to trial by jury of peers, is the strongest defence against a corrupt (or merely decadent) system.
Just as a lot of women hate going to a mechanic, a lot of people hate going to a lawyer; for precisely the same reason.
In a court of Justice, the only questions a jury has to address are,
is someone guilty of causing harm, and "how would I like it, if that happened to me?"
perhaps the jury should also have the right to decide whether time has been deliberately wasted, or whether counsel on either side deliberately tried to pervert natural justice.

I cannot imagine a system that would be better than one of Common Law as flawed as it is, other than making the law more accessible. Surely it is one of the great human rights - access to justice.

"I agree that reforms have to be made which make litigation more affordable for ordinary people."

This sentence resonates with me the most. A friend recently obtained advice from a lawyer and was billed nearly $1000 for 2.1 hours of work including phone calls (even one where my friend rang to thank the lawyer for his efforts). This works out to $400 per hour.

While acknowledging lawyers are professional people, these sorts of exhorbitant costs do limit access to justice for ordinary people who earn too much to qualify for legal aid but not enough to be able to afford legal representation. Is a lawyer really worth $400 an hour compared to other professionals? Even my GP only earns $240 per hour if you add up the cost and duration of consultations.

It is all well to say that lawyers don't collude over prices but like any market forces when there is a price creep and most lawyers jumping on board to imposing higher charges bracket, there is no real competition. Bit like bank fees, which bank do you choose when all of them are ripping off the customers?

How is a middle income earner to cope if they are charged with a crime they did not commit or sued by a malicious litigant. Even if they are proved innocent there are costs incurred. In a recent whistleblower court case, the defendant was found not guilty but had used most of his superannuation savings to pay for his legal defence. The price of freedom is indeed great.

Grim, I wonder how a system of trial by jury would be organised. A practical problem is that, in my experience, most people are not that willing to participate in a jury when they get called up. On my old blog, the post which consistently had the highest hits was entitled "Excuses for getting out of jury duty" - it must have been a disappointment for those searching, because it was simply a list of some of the crazy excuses people had used (eg, "my budgie is sick").

I definitely believe that the jury system has a place, but in some circumstances it would be difficult for it to work - eg, where a trial involves highly technical issues.

It's also more complicated than asking whether someone is guilty of causing harm. Harm is the main questions in a criminal trial or a negligence trial, and it is probably for that reasons that these cases tend to be heard by jury.

However, there may be cases where the questions are not so straightforward - eg, has there been a breach of the Corporations Act? The central question there is not harm to another, but contravention of a statute.

Pelican, I couldn't agree more, and I have written on this issue elsewhere on my blog. I could not have afforded to hire myself at the rates my firm charged out for my services (if you understand what I mean!) And I was a middle income earner at that time.

Part of the problem lies in the way in which legal fees are calculated according to time spent, using billable units. I might cost $240 an hour (fair enough, you might say). So I'd charge $24 for every six minute unit I spent working on someone's case. A 5 minute phone call - $24. Drafting an e-mail - $48. And so forth. It all adds up to a massive amount of money when you calculate it that way. I have long been an advocate for the abolition of billable hours, as I believe they inflate costs for clients, and make lawyers more inefficient (the longer you take, the more you can charge so there's no incentive to be efficient).

The problem is that it's hardly worth seeing a lawyer for a claim of $2000 if the lawyer's going to carve out $1500 in fees. It just isn't cost effective. The only thing ordinary people can do is to see a volunteer at a community legal centre, or to seek pro bono assistance. I sometimes wonder if a "Lawcare" scheme needs to be set up (like Medicare). The fact of the matter is that private law (contract, tort and the like) is essential to a just society and if we can't access the law which enables us to enforce those rights, then they are useless.

I don't know what the answer is. But at least I recognise the problem, I suppose.

Most lawyers have no idea what the common law really is. The Common Law of Britain, was the law set out in the New Testament and the system developed in that small but enormously influential country grew out of its essentially Christian Culture.

I have spent the last five years in Sydney researching the connection between Christianity, the New Testament and the Australian Constitution. I have spent fifteen years observing a parade of hypocrites, spivs and conmen extracting enormous amounts of money from the pockets of their victims, and instead of calling them Legal eagles, they should be called Legal Vultures. The first thing they usually do is bankrupt the victim without trial, and then proceed to pick over the carcase.

What has really happened is that the common law has been abolished, and a system run by lawyers, for lawyers, set in place. Under the common law, truth was always determined by a jury. Lawyers hate juries. A jury was the Church, because all the members were Christians, and blasphemy was a sin. Lawyers were the one profession that were anti Christ. The Court House and Church were side by side, in places like Sydney. When S 116 Constitution was introduced, Protestant Christianity, which gave the English the common law, lost its coercive power. The Roman Catholics wanted the system they had in Europe, and the Irish pushed for it. The maxim, The Pope never sleeps, was a common law given. The Judicial power of the Commonwealth came from the Holy Trinity, Father/Justice Son/ Jury and Holy Spirit to find the truth.

Jury infallibility, adopted by the English in the Magna Carta has been replaced with Parliamentary infallibility, and the lawyers in and out of Parliament are the priests of this heresy. We do not have a common law system, because we abolished it in New South Wales in 1970, in the Federal Court in 1976, and High Court in 1979. Every State has followed suit, and as a consequence, Parliament in Canberra is impotent. No referendum has ever been held to abolish the common law but its gone

@ Legal Eagle

The French president recently announced that the "juge d'instruction" would be abandoned and replaced by a "judge de l'instruction".

Nicolas pointed out that the role of the "juge d'instrution" is to gather evidence for both the guilt and the innocence of the accused before deciding if he or she should be placed in detention and subsequently brought to trial. He observes that this is impossible.

The new "juge de l'instruction" would not be in charge of the preliminary investigation. This role would be assumed by the public prosecutor appointed by the Ministry of Justice. The new "juge de l'instruction" would then exercise the unique role attributed to him as judge on the basis of the elements presented by the public prosecutor and the counter arguments provided by the defendants lawyers.

The announcement of this presidential project has sparked a considerable uproar mainly (but not exclusively) from French (leftist) opposition. The principal point of contention is that the public prosecutor is neither independent nor impartial. He is part of the political "executive" and therefore takes orders from Nicolas and his government. (The courts are a convenient tool for eliminating one's political foes).

In addition, the public prosecutor is unlikely to question anything the police might come up with. He would most likely ignore any evidence tending to prove innocence.

The projected reform should not be interpreted as a simple move from an "inquisitorial" form of justice to an “adversarial” form. It is a little more complex than that in view of the current lack of independence of the public prosecutor. Apart from the outright rejection of the reform, suggestions have also been voiced that the public prosecutor should be spun off from the “executive” and given complete independence.

However, to put all this into perspective, it should be noted that the present “juge d’instruction” only deals with about 4% of all cases brought before the French courts of justice and only about one third of all criminal cases within that total

Magna Carta says: "No free man shall be taken indeed imprisoned, either dispossessed, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, nor pass over him, nor send over him, except by means of the legal judgment of his own equals indeed the law of the land..."
The purpose of the Magna Carta and common law was to prevent persecution. Specifically, persecution by the monarch, and by extension, by the powerful and rich.
In a thousand years, this need has really not changed. Trial by jury is still our best defense against persecution.
Jury trial has always (until 1970, in this country) been a right, that could be waived by mutual agreement by both parties.
We already have specialised courts, for specific purposes. Family law, for instance. If a jury trial is inappropriate in certain circumstances, and IF both parties agree, these courts could be utilised.
Legal Eagle says:"Some lawyers are just not very good at seeing the woods for the trees."
Is not the purpose of statutes (indeed, all laws) ultimately to prevent harm? Either physical, mental, or economic?
How can any statute or law of any kind be broken without incurring harm of some description?
We have come to a cross roads. The next decade will see greater changes -both ecomonic and social- than perhaps ever before.
We must be sure those changes do not further erode individual rights and freedoms.

Legal Eagle,
Let me begin with the caveats.

I am not a lawyer, policeman (or pretend one), bureaucrat, social worker nor in real state. My actual training is 5 legal subjects in a BBus 25 yrs ago. I’ve spent 20 years in business providing ancilinary services to lawyers/accountants. I’ve spent years (volunteer) at the dirty end of crisis intervention neither do I fit the leftie mould.

To me the legal system in its present form is well past its use by date. Horse and buggy systems for the rocket age. Additionally it was designed for a very different social order and legal complexity.
I argue that today the social emphasis is or should be on courts of justice rather than of black letter law. The latter alone spawn a myriad of unjust currently legitimate practices, tactics, bullying and favouring those with the most money.

Justice must be more accessible. One can even argue that this limited accessibility is at least contributing factor to the social divide that threatens to engulf our society. This can’t be achieved with the one size suit no one procedural approach

I question the logic of a sharp lawyer who has made a career from winning by any means being rewarded with a position to the bench.(different skill set).
Then there is the issue of competence in complicated accounting or science based cases. To these ends I would suggest that Judges be separately/specially trained not necessarily from the lawyer community. Nor should the legal community be involved in their selection (lobbing etc).

I would have a committee of these specially trained judges after discovery assess on a case by case basis and allocate the procedure to be applied. (See original post for possible alternatives. In this way reduce the impact of tactics, money and emotionally motivated juries from trials. Like wise Lawyers shouldn’t know who is on the bench in a case until they walk in this would reduce running a case to the judge (tactics). Facts, truth and justice should be the objective not a win.

There is more…but I guess you get the flavour

There must be a way to have a modern, simple, affordable, reliable fast track system of justice that puts the search for truth as the top priority.

Having just one body of statute law for all Australians would be a giant step forward. The madness of thousands of conflicting laws for 22 million Australians has to be addressed if we are to streamline the law and drastically reduce the extreme costs of litigation.

Trialling a good practice inquisitorial system is certainly worthwhile. But why stop there? Science needs to play a more prominent role in criminal law. Leading edge medical research engaging brain scans to detect lies from truthful statements should also be trialled. Why oh why do we perservere with such a broken system of justice that primarily benefits only a small elite?

@ Grim & Peter the Believer

I suspect it is a little too early for a majority of Australian citizens to decide that theoretical concepts such as God, fate, destiny, astrology, superstition, etc. have no place in the Constitution of the new Australian Republic.

There is nothing much we can do about it I am afraid. We will just have to put it all in there and wait another couple of centuries or so for mentalities to mature.

Thanks for your response Legal Eagle. A Lawcare idea might work but perhaps structured to be better than the Medicare system with shorter waiting periods.

I often wonder (and I don't know the answer either) if some form of legal insurance for ordinary people who don't qualify for Legal Aid might be considered. This way we could be protected from malicious suits or be able to bring our own suits for smaller misdemeanours like you mentioned that are not worthwhile bringing to court under the current system.

The premiums would likely be low as the number of people requring legal assistance would be minimal in comparison to say medical assistance or to fix your car after an accident. To ensure the prices are kept low, lawyers who opt in to service the insured would have to agree to a price cap to ensure the insurance premiums aren't pushed so high and out of the reach of those it intends to help.

Hard to say whether this would open up a minefield of disputes and make the system worse. Although if this were the case it would certainly employ the thousands of law students coming out of uni.

I am thinking out loud more than anything and maybe others have better ideas than me, a legal luddite when it comes down to it.

Sometimes it pays to approach these problems with caution as to avoid the solution becoming a problem in itself. Perfection is not possible but there must be some way in which we can make justice more accessible.

On a lighter note, perhaps a Judge Judy style of court for the minor misdemeanours. Although, heaven help you if you get on her wrong side.

Its a no-brainer, a tissue of lies.

Inquisitorial system be damned. No judge in the land should, for one minute, object to an inquisitional system as it suits the rich people, BIG people, media personalities and immigrants who carry the burden of GROWING Australia's wealth and ECONOMY.

Inquisitions worked well for the spanish and should work well for Australia's future economic growth and grand standing in the first world of nations. We should not rule out burnings at the stake either. The more ways we can rid this nation of the weak and vulnerable (people who save and live within their means) the better poised we will be for International greatness & long overdue worship of our Prime Ministers in foreign diplomatic circles.

But let us remember we are here to bury the Legal System not to praise it or raise it from a murky end only to hinder economic growth, political power and endless collection of 500,000 new growth in immigrational GST each year. The current legal system might even examine the hideous external costs of immigration like cuts in services and standards of freedom and free range living that lead to being forced to miscarry in toilet bowls and sit in dead trains and traffic for hundreds of hours. This can not be allowed.

A civilised nation like Australia can not afford the current legal system. Its best laid to rest and we all must hope that the Kevster is true to his grafting ways and tips the last unholy sod in the sepulchre.

RIP law and order.

Ad Economic Growth.

A theme to have an Australian inquisitional system by

Verse 1
Kevin Ruddster and His weevils
Ratting out our Nation
Flying through our Uncle Tobys
Not to bless 'em, but to eat 'em

Verse 2
When Kevster takes a Westpac Pill
The good begin to worry
They can't escape their awful fate
Of loss of interest and money

Verse 3
So come and join us all you kids
For lots of fun and laughter
As Kevin Ruddster and his team
Get all the GST paying migrants they're after

Chorus
Kevin Ruddster, he's our man
Hero of our nation
For mindless violence & gridlock just be sure
And vote Labor at the polling station

The degree of ignorance displayed by some of those who contribute to this forum is an indictment of our education system. One poster has decried the lack of one Statute Law System. We have one Statute Law System, but the public are told we have nine. Each State and Territory and the Commonwealth have a Statute Law regime, and each is held by local lawyers to be paramount. This has made the Commonwealth an illusion. The Commonwealth is only a nuisance, as human rights and human dignity are ground under the jackboot of State Fascist regimes.

The Police State had no place in Common Law. The armed and jackbooted public enforcer, was no better than the common man or woman. In 1970, an unholy alliance between organized crime, the Police and Government was introduced in New South Wales and extended by the Liberal Party, with Labor Party support, to the whole of Australia. The Police State has been funded by criminals, both corporate and common, and the rorts and rip offs, extended to every kind of extortion. Google the Community Law Resource Group, if you are game. A small but determined group of individuals in Victoria, has decided to educate the Australian people through the internet, and expose the patent dishonesty of the State governments, and their paid lackeys, the Magistrates and Judges who have allowed this to happen. For this discussion the Commonwealth is simply another State.

When the Labor Party lost the unlosable election in 2004, by selecting a secular atheist as leader, the thinking Federal Labor leaders, selected a leader from the 65% majority. 2007 vindicated this decision. Christianity does not rely on jackbooted and armed Police and their masters, the legal profession, to govern. It relies on the carrot and the stick. The Magna Carta is the essence of Christianity. The Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) installs Christianity as the State Religion, and the Constitution guarantees that we shall have no police state. Kevin Rudd has shown he is willing to accept the authority of Almighty God and Australia will be blessed.

Banjo
I'm not sure I agree. I would consider the USA to be a far more 'God fearing' nation than Oz (something like three quarters still believe in creationism, and evolution is still considered by most to only be a theory), yet it's constitution, written over 200 years ago, is remarkably secular.
I have always believed the average Aussie to be far more rational and down to earth than the Yanks, and I would hope any republican constitution should reflect that.
BTW, one of our most popular PMs, Bob Hawke,used to describe himself as atheist -although I believe he has now downgraded himself to agnostic.
For the record, I do not believe in a personal god. In fact, I cannot see how anyone who believes in the moral principles of Christianity, could possibly believe in a personal god.
According to the Bible, God just ain't very christian.

Banjo, thanks for the further information about the inquisitorial judges in France.

Pelican, that insurance idea sounds good to me.

On the question of religion and the law. Note that the Australian Constitution says in s 116:

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

In Australia, we do not have religious courts or religious laws that we have to follow, unless we choose to submit to the dictates of a particular religious body (eg, the Jewish Beth Din in Australia). Our courts are primarily secular, although there are religious components such as swearing oaths on the Bible (or holy book of your choice). You can choose to affirm (which, as an agnostic, is my choice).

Historically, of course the law has a religious component, and it has had an important historical impact on the development of the law. I have studied various religious laws (Christian canon law, Jewish halakah and Islamic hadith) and the surprising thing is how similar they are to our law. The fundamental questions remain the same: When is it okay to break a contractual agreement? When is murder legal, if ever? What is the penalty for stealing a man’s cow? Is divorce permitted? How many witnesses are required to prove certain things? All of these religious laws developed in an organic way which is very similar to the English common law.

I am glad our present-day law and our state are secular. We can't ignore the religious background and origin of our law, but if the state privileges a particular religious ideal, this means that those who do not believe in that ideal are somehow less a part of the state.

Hi Grim!

I sure hope you are right. Being "close to the ground" sounds like a compliment under your pen. But, as I recall it, a fine flock of sheep are also pretty close to the ground too aren't they ? A good stockman has no trouble wheeling them into whatever paddock he thinks best. The "shepherd" they used to call him. But that was a long time ago, wasn't it, Grim ? Long before they discovered America.

Hi Legal Eagle !

Thank you for your comments on justice and religion. I guess it all goes back to the civil code Moses chiselled out on those two slabs of rock he hacked off the mountainside on Sinai.

The path Moses took down the mountain seems to have split into three separate directions in the 13th century when the English turned left with their "Magna Carta Libertatum" under their arm, while the Roman catholic church veered right with their "Inquisition", and Islam just carried on straight ahead with those two slabs of rock.

Well, never mind, if that is the case, the world is round after all. All three will probably criss-cross from time to time over the next few centuries or so but you can be sure they will all meet up again one day.

You can bet your boots on it, Legal Eagle ...Euh, or your claws !

Pelecan,
The idea of legal insurance is fine but I suspect the exclusions etc would make it prohibitative consider the following:
the wide diversity of fees (over scale) that are charged. Would it pay scale in which case a defendent would be out of pocket by heaps.

Often those who need legal help are the least likely to be able to afford the premiums let alone the extras.

What would it cover? take nonsense suits by public figures who (ab)use deformation writs to shut valid criticisim down ie letters to the editor. Deformation costs buckets of $ to defend. Paternity? Criminal? land rights etc? against Mega corps

Your answer on S 116 Constitution Legal Eagle is the stock standard lawyers interpretation of that Section. In fact it was inserted in a deal between the Roman Catholics and Anglican led protestants, because unless it was inserted, they were unwilling to participate in the referendum, and their boycott caused the first referendum to fail for lack of numbers. Lawyers see it as emasculating Christianity, and giving them all power. Before it was inserted a Judge or Magistrate was illegal. They still are, because they offend the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) which qualifies their Oath of Office. Once again on the Community Law Resource Group website, you will find that document.

The absolutely immoral and unscrupulous individuals, who sit as Judges and Magistrates, and three quarters of our politicians, are simply men and women without honour of any description. To sit in Federal Parliament a person must take the oath that is the Schedule to the Constitution. To be a Federal Court or Family Law Judge, an individual must take an oath of allegiance. The Prayer out of Matthew 6 Verses 9-13 starts each day in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. That qualifies every piece of legislation it makes.

Men and women starting right from the top in the High Court trained in the Law as they call it are absolutely and completely without any redeeming feature. If your legal education had taught you parsing and analysis, or deconstruction, as they call it in the United States, you would understand that S 116 continues Christianity, that the first three ideas in it allow Roman Catholics to participate in public life, but the fourth is not, in reality a licence to abolish Christianity. S15A Acts Interpretation Act 1901 was inserted to allow a Judge or Magistrate to disregard the illegal bits. Not one has.

Muslims, Jews, and Hindu’s all permit one person to judge another. Christian Law does not. Jesus Christ brought a New Covenant, not accepted by the Jewish Lawyers, and Priests, setting aside Moses Code. To understand S116, read the New Testament as the paramount law.

The original article misses an important point. Namely,that a great deal of law these days is not civil law as used in adversarial and inquisitorial systems but bureacratic/administrative law.

Thus an ever increasing number of matters are dealt with by specialist tribunals or by using alternative dispute resolution procedures.

The most important feature of any legal system is the independence and integrity of the judiciary. That is more likely to be achieved where the adversarial system exists.