i am a student for malaysia,taylors college.I am doing an assignment and my research is about judge should be given more directionary power.Judges given more power is to save money to employ lawyers?Or is it because the judges are not easily influenced,experienced and can understand the case better?

Should judges be given more discretionary power?

Are you kidding?

Pompous asses accountable to no one. Petty little men and women dressed in brief authority who arrogate to themselves power without effective accountability.

What we desperately need is a better class of judiciary.

We are attracting a lot of students are we not? let me tell you what the university of life has told me, no shouted at me!
Those who judge both in local courts and every court should not be expected to hand down justice, and they do not!
You can see true evil crimes bring hand slap sentences and a homeless person get 12 months for a theft not unlike our early settlers who got life here for a loaf of bread.
A young and rich lady in the news shows clearly justice in other country's too is based on wealth, and the personal views of some one who has zero understanding of the community's views.
I will believe in judges after at least ten of them and twenty of the lessor type spend time in gaol for the dreadful insulting rulings they hand down.
Make it fool proof set the outcomes so even these idiots can not get it wrong.

stevenlm, and where would you be getting that better class of judge from, then? not gonna use homo sapiens, i take it? the elf in the bottom of your garden has volunteered to take care of all of us, as soon as we post him our bank account details?

the solution to most political problems is the same: get it out of secrecy, get it out of the hands of professionals, get it into the light of public knowledge, and consult many people from all walks of life.

yep, democracy.

I suggest "no" if you mean usurping the role of other participants.

Judges can be seen as clever legal experts and lawyers as dishonest and juries as not as clever. From this standpoint the solution to the perceived problem is to let the judges have free reign.

However judge's typically overpriveleged background means that their life knowledge is insufficient for the role to extend beyond their legal contribution.

Judges claim that they gain a type of vicarious experience from looking at other people's lives but I believe that that is largely incorrect as they aren't in the shoes of the people that they are judging.

I firmly believe that the ivory tower images of judges is justified.

For example. In one Australian case a prisoner punched a policeman resulting in a scuffle and both falling downstairs onto a concrete floor. Up to an including the commencement of the fall there were adequate numbers of witnesses. However after the fall a type of judge acting in an investigatory / inquisitorial role had to consider whether the policeman's knee hit the prisoner during the fall when they hit the floor. Another police officer said it looked like he fell on top and the policeman involved later figured that must have happened. The prisoner suffered an injury consistent with that (among other things) occurring. The Magistrate decided that the policeman's knee didn't hit the prisoner because the policeman would have later clearly recollected where all his limbs were, immediately after being punched in the face,struggling, while falling at 9.8m/s2 (the acceleration of falling objects), and focussing on the prisoner's head which he said came dangerously close to a filing cabinet. He didn't recall. Another factor influencing the recollection of fine detail of the event for the policeman was that a significant emotional experience occurred between needing to recollect and the incident occurring.

I invite you to consider whether someone with broad experience would form a similar opinion and whether it meshes with real life experience. If you take a certain view you will strongly see my point.

Part 1
It isn’t as simple as may look at first.
My website http://schorel-hlavka.com indicates the various books I have published or will publish about the High Court of Australia.
Constitutionally the judges of the high Court of Australia have defined judicial powers but some of the lawyers now appointed to the High Court of Australia not only lack proper education in constitutional law but I would say are incompetent in constitutional law, and the 14-11-2006 WorkChoices judgment by the Court was if not one of great stupidity then of treachery against the people. My website shows a book I published in regard of WorkChoices and this book canvas the judgment and expose how the judges manipulated statements and ignored “CIVIL RIGHTS”, State legislative powers”, etc.
Because the judges are, as I view it, in bed with the Federal Government, nothing will be done against those judges. Albeit I expose it in my various books.
With judges of other Courts, they are entitled to NULLIFIY Commonwealth law and State law if they deem it in the interest of the general community. In fact this is embedded in the Constitution. However, what we have isn’t justice but where judges are applying DOUBLE STANDARDS in their rulings, often pending on if the party has or has not a lawyer.
I have exposed this in the past with judges objecting me to be listening into the court case because of my conduct to expose it in subsequent cases, but they could not deny my legal right to be in the courtroom.
Slowly, we have had that lawyers have taken charge to prevent any non-lawyer to become a judge and so prevent members of the general community to adjudicate. Hence the injustice. Even with juries, the judges are deceiving the jurors as to their legal rights, and I for one called up for jury service immediately exposed this. Well, they then advised me I was no longer needed and they are not calling me again either. This, as the judges are manipulating the jurors and I was not going to stand for that.

Part 2
The best is to get back to the old system where people who were respected in the community were adjudicating, as then you will get more likely a fair and proper decision! Lawyers may act as advisers but should not adjudicate, at least that is my view.

I did write to the judges of the High Court of Australia regarding their 14 November 2006 judgment having been the product of fraud and hence they could set aside the judgment, but not that I expected them to do so, and they didn’t.

For purpose of writing books, I need to show I followed every possible way to seek to resolve matters but obviously for the writing of the books it is better if they do ignore it. For the general community however it is terrible that judges have, so to say, place themselves above the law.

In my books I publish actual transcripts of proceedings to show how the judges of the High Court of Australia were conducting proceedings that one would normally refer to as KANGAROO COURT and STAR CHAMBER COURT kind of proceedings.
To make such comparison and/or claim can land a person quickly in imprisonment if the court were to hold this to amount to placing the Court in disrepute, to tarnish the reputation of the Court, being it contempt of court or otherwise, hence in my books I make sure to use relevant material to prove what I am stating. Over the years no judge ever was therefore able to get me on this as they cannot disprove the transcripts of proceedings!
In my book
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3
I indicated how in my view John Howard is a mass murderer, etc for unconstitutionally invading the sovereign nation Iraq.
The High Court of Australia so far refused the case to proceed against John Howard, as my books set out.
Seems to me our legal system is up the creek!

Dear Mr Malaysia student. Well you have come to the wrong country to get an honest education on this subject as one thing they will not teach you what is actually happening in the pretend-courts.
The individuals you have described as judges are actually appointed by the various State and Federal Parliaments as judges but when they sit at the Bench in the pretend courts they sit as individuals and not as judges bound by their judicial oath of office because there has not been any curial process to constitute the institution of the COURT. In Queensland the Supreme Court Act 1995 describes what the SEAL of the Qld Supreme Court looks like and when it is to be used and affixed to the Originating Process and orders. The rules of the Supreme Court "UCPR" 968 & 969 also define when the SEAL is to be used on the originating process and the orders from that court.
The judges do not need any further powers of discretion as they are not sitting as a judge who are bound by there judicial oath of office, if you don’t object to this pretender hearing your dispute he will deal with it appropriately and if you provide your implied consent he has all of the discretionary power you are prepared to give him by your ignorance of the due process of the law and the curial process.
I will also say that the hearing that commenced today in Townsville is being conducted in a TRIBUNAL with a JURY and not one of Her Majesty's Supreme Courts because the Registrar of the Court in Townsville has been instructed not to use the statutory SEAL of the Qld Supreme Court on the indictment, the originating process, served on the Police officer. He has not objected to this fraudulent process ( forged document) and the Attorney-General has not objected to this process offered by the judicial scammers so the show will go on but the decision will be in the public interest determined by the Govt policy and not in accordance with the rule of law.

em..so means that judges should not be given more directionary power? Judges are more experienced and not easily inluenced so that they can given more power to examine the evidences and witnesses.and some family cannot afford money to employ a lawyer,so does it means that judge can be given more power by that?

renee, this problem is at least as old as civilization.

judges are human beings, not ethical machines. even when they try to dispense justice, they may be unqualified to do so by their individual life history. and they are often corrupt. or lazy. or asleep. or prejudiced.

the citizens of athens dealt with this problem in a different way: they put legal issues before large juries(several hundred) selected on the morning of the trial. the number of jurors and speed of the trial made bribery of the jury nearly impossible, and the large number meant a cross-section of citizens heard the case, producing a just decision in the eyes of the citizenry.

i think a 'citizen's trial' would be easy to operate nowadays. there could be technical support in assembling reference material, but no need to depend on the personal qualities of a judge. they're obsolete.

By now our student friend could be forgiven for thinking we are a lawless people.
Not true! it is our love of fairness and equity that turns us against the judiciary.
Rich or famous people get wrist slaps, we mostly think some who can show by secrete methods membership of a certain group get a free ride.
Most of us are unhappy to see almost tiny sentences for crimes we are truly offended by.
It is clear some who pass down court rulings have zero idea or concern about community feelings.
I am assured by the number who share my concerns that less power not more to overrule common sense be given to these lost in a space of their own people.

Belly it is not my love of fairness and equity that turned me and many others against the judiciary but our personal experiences in the so called courts as self litigants because we were initially unhappy with the non-performance of the incompetent lawyers paid for with real money that should have been used to feed our families and not wasted on these parasites.
I have personally had forty to fifty hearings and witnessed just as many at six levels right up the High Court at a hearing I witnessed in Brisbane. Not one of the matters lodged (not filed) in the pretend court Registries, was the statutory COURT SEAL ever used or displayed on the originating process. This issue has been discussed with a politician and a Minister in Qld and an independent poly in Sth-Aust and our suspicions have been confirmed by them and the last couple of hearings in the pretend Supreme Court of Qld.
Concerns about community feelings have got nothing to do with the decisions but protecting the ruling regime, State and Federal, rules the day and it does not matter how much you pay the professional bottom feeder for a couple of hours in the Masonic Temple run by the Catholic Brotherhood they are just protecting their foot soldiers. To understand the difference between power, authority and what is an authorised exercise of power is a good starting point. Without using the statutory Seal on the originating process to properly constitute the institution of the COURT they, the individuals sitting as pretend judges have no authority to exercise any power until you allow it to happen by your implied consent or you giving them jurisdiction and that we have tested and they just don’t like it and adjourn the matter for a further attempt to scam you again. Six hearings in the Qld Supreme Court and three judges and number seven to come if they set it for another hearing but I have my doubts I believe that it will be the second matter sitting in the Registry because they refuse the SEAL the process

Renee 38
I feel the whole judiciary system is corrupted to the point where it is completely isolated from the rest of our community. No one would venture near it if they have a choice. The American judge who is suing the dry cleaner for $60 million after the loss of a pair of trousers is an indicator of the future. If I had the power I would close all law schools and divert the resources to Science.
WE DO NOT NEED LAWYERS AND THE JUDICERY AS THE SELF APPOINTED HIGH PRIESTS OF OUR SOCIETY. THEY GET AWAY WITH THEIR CRIMES BY CLOAKING IT IN LEGAL PROCEDURE. DON’T FORGET THE TAX DODGING BARRISTERS AND REMEMBER EINFELDT AND HIS TRAFFIC INFRINGEMENT. THEN THERE WAS JUDGE YELDIN (spelling) WHO SPENT ALL THAT TIME IN PUBLIC TOILETS.

ok..thanks for the reply..really appreciate it.i think i know how to write for my research.thanks a lot

renee38
The answer is NO. The family law court now has this new age idea- BE KINDER TO THE MEN.
Umm
I attended a family law court matter last week with a friend. It was down for hearing- FINALLY.

The other party has NOT RESPONDED TO NE LETTER OR COURT ORDER IN THREE YEARS.
The Lady who was kicked out of her house and would have lived on the street if a friend had not taken her in .
Her friend borrowed thirty thousand to help her with court costs THREE YEARS Ago and to buy her a car [pay for operations etc.
She is also being taken to court by the loan company that she was forced to borrow from to pay for even more! legal costs because this low life has not reponded.
The Judge has now given this creep three further adjournments.
Why- Oh hey thats the best part.
Because he failed to file anything to the court after been given 14 days to do so.
Umm I dont mean once I mean four times now.
He even suggested that this bloke apply to the court to have the original orders set aside of which he is in contempt of for two and a half years.
The lady is a invalid penshioner with severe disabilities.
She partly deaf yet the judge has allowed him to do it by phone. He said he can not travel but has been to Germany twice!
Whatever happens now its too late for this lady and her friend who loaned her the money for lawyers.
So they are soon to be BOTH homeless.
Mind you that wont bother the judge tucked up in his warm bed.

People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, I can very much recognise the truth in your story as I have since 1982 conducted a special lifeline service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® and assisted many in their court litigation as an Attorney (not as a lawyer).
.
Alice Carter whom also acted as legal adviser for the Northern Territory in her report about a visit to the Family Court at Melbourne remarked;

"unfortunately, much of the proceedings I witnessed were repetitive, and general disorganisation,...."
.
Page 22 27-8-1997
.
"Further more the court was disorganised as many files were missing and cases were adjourned early as many counsel failed to turn up."
.
"The counsels and their clients also presented themselves well dressed and I could see that anyone who was not dressed suitably would be extremely obvious. I felt that the emphasis on looking acceptable could easily disadvantage some people. The whole attitude of the court to parties was rather more authoritarian then supportive,....."
.
"Moreover, I felt that the judges were inclined to be slightly patronising and pedantic."
.
"... and the judge's demands that she speak louder reinforced my observations on the authoritarian, patronising attitudes of the judges."
.
"I am now able to understand the general public's fear of going to court and facing judges; I, too, was overawed by the excessive formality and suprised by the appearance, at least of the judges' authoritarian and patronising attitude towards others in the court room."
.
It ought to be noted that Alice Carter is a lawyer!
.
I think you get the message alright.

Mr Gerrit
Thank you for taking your time to comment on this ladies position.
I have not checked this thread for a while so i apoligise for the delay.
The thing is the lady had to use legal aid the last two times.
I personally contacted the lawyer from legal aid and told him I thought it VITAL he file something to the court to explain her postion[ ie Being severed with section 280 papers- in default of re payments to loan sharks that another lawyer talked he into borrowing from the pay his costs.
He filed not one scap of paper[ although the original application for the intravention orders does mention she ows large amounts for years and his own brain should tell him its been almost three years.
I have arrnged for her now to obtain [ another lawyer] but yet again nothings been filed. Thats depite this one agreeing its vital.
Nor has she had a conference with her or the new barrister. I just think this is GROSS neglect and I am thinking of getting her to go up and file herself.
the 14days the court gave is up on tuesday.[ That two days from now.
It might get the lawyers off side but at least if the judge could read some of the history he may be in a postion to be a bit more fair being more informed.
Of course that might get the lawyer off side but thats probably too bad.
If you dont mind my asking what would you do?
File? Or just go along for another day of nothing happening
My gut feeling is to file the papers

I didn't get to this tread for some days. I take it that the case was in court in recent days?
If you write me an email then perhaps it might be better to save time.
My email address in on my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog
http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

.
In 1982 I created a document titled "ADDRESS TO THE COURT" and this has since been used in all levels of courts including the High Court of Australia, in both civil and criminal matters.
.
ON 1-11-2003 I DID PUBLISH A BOOK ABOUT IT ALSO;
.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & ADDRESS TO THE COURT
A book on CD, making litigation a more level playing field
ISBN 0-9580569-7-8 (After 1-1-2007; ISBN 978-0-9580569-7-7
.
I will await your email.

Mr Hlavak
Thank you for you very kind reply. I have emailed you and I hope I have sent it to the correct address.
I would have already replied to you however we had a black out at this silly hour of the morning.
The case is back in court tuesday. Friday she tried to file an aff she had done herself and they rejected it because it was not pandering to the EXACT lay out.
She is a person on a dissabilty p and there was little wrong with the aff because I saw it myself.
I rang the court and had a few words to say!
For the life of me I cant follow the court.
I mean its a clear case of asking them to enforce court orders that he has been in contempt over for over two years.
He has NEVER filed one scrap of paper in all that time yet the court keeps giving him another chance to file while shes destroyed!

I think if he gives him another chance- Which will be the "5th" she should find out if she can ammend her claim and charge him with child abuse which I think her first lawyer ought to have done in the first place.
This creep was her step father - until her mother died and then he married her.
Not hard to read between the lines and understand shes been abused by him all her lfe and very fearful of him.
Anyway the court is giving him every consideration despite the fact the same judge has now give him chance after chance to file.
I want to know how she can appeal-
"The Judge!" He would have to be on drugs! this is SO unfair.
It was really appreciated that you bothered to reply.
I rang and woke her up and she is actually sitting here having a coffee with me.
Funny how one act of kidness can change peoples lives isnt it.

You have hepled her because somebody offered to hear her story.
Thanks

Due to a large amount of e-mail I receive every day, and responding to them it might be that your e-mail was already responded upon. If not, then forward it again, if it is still relevant. Do keep in mind that the issue of appealing a "interlocutory order” may be subject to an application for “leave to appeal”. In my view, the so called “administrative decisions” which are to regulate the conduct of the proceedings and not being of judicial character may also have difficulties to appeal directly.
The issue of alleged child abuse is a very serious one and should not be made willy nilly. No matter how guilty a person might appear to be, in the right circumstances the person might actually be innocent of any wrongdoing.
From personal experiences I found that there are judges who “appear” to be bias, that is to allow one of the parties to get away with all kind of breaches of the rules of the Court while the other party is so to say clubbed over the head for any perceived breached. There are a range of Authorities about judicial bias or perceived judicial bias and if you like you can forward to me an e-mail and I could provide some.
If there is an appearance of bias then it might be best to have the judge to disqualify himself/herself from the case.
.
Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 II,L.C. 759
“The fundamental rule of English (Australian) law is that "No man can be a judge in his own case". It has long been held that if there is bias or the appearance of bias such as to deny justice or create the impression that justice has not been done, then that bias, or apparent bias, is sufficient to invalidate the decision of those who made the decision.”
.
As such this is one that could be used.