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.