Bonefishblues wrote: ↑22 Aug 2024, 9:57am
toontra wrote: ↑22 Aug 2024, 8:55am
Carlton green wrote: ↑22 Aug 2024, 6:51am
I haven’t been following this thread recently but the more I see of how the courts work the more concerned I become about justice.
Indeed. This whole affair isn't so much about the failure of an IT system - it's about the failure of the justice system. When lawyers and barristers feel free to commit perjury and pervert the course of justice to suit their client, and the system doesn't have the checks in place to prevent this, the door is open to miscarriages of justice.
What should be built in as checks to prevent this?
Perhaps a statement under oath at the start of every proceeding by all lawyers involved in a case that the evidence they will present will be, to the best of their knowledge, the truth, etc - i.e. the same as witnesses.
Of course this shouldn't be necessary - it's already covered in their code of professional ethics but it clearly didn't work in this case. A specific declaration in court, on oath, in front of a judge, may help focus their attention on their legal obligations which are pivotal to the judicial process.
This enquiry should, if nothing else, draw attention to what happens when lawyers play loose with evidence, and that's why it's so important that those complicit in what happened are prosecuted to the full extent of both the law and their ethical standards body. That would also focus the attention of their peers as to the likely consequences of such behaviour.
)