UK Supreme Court: The Highest Court in the Land - Documentary

[@ma.ninfaganancial1125]

This is informative, educational and inspiring. Every law student who will view this will appreciate added information about the profession.

[@safetyaviation7995]

How British Petroleum influences the UK Justice and politicians kzbin.info/www/bejne/fIipdIOge99kr8k&lc=z22zxdbztuexuz20lacdp43525nzel2qjut0dkkz0v1w03c010c

[@cruisepaige]

Ma. Ninfa Ganancial I’m an old lawyer and it was fascinating to me, too!

[@michaeljohnson7929]

@@paulmlally1 fruit loop.

[@paulmlally1]

@@michaeljohnson7929 If you were a lot more educated on the subject you would know what I'm talking about but alas you are as ignorant as the piece of skin between my butt hole and ball sack that seen nothing but stool all its life. I'm not here to educate you Mike Johnson, however if you want to throw ad hominem remarks I will retort, if you have anything at all intelligent to add please do so. But if you continue to show ignorance, you will be old schooled.

[@paulmlally1]

@@michaeljohnson7929 Awaiting your next lesson with anticipation no doubt.

[@timothythomas4283]

What a wonderfully group of people, full of intellect and integrity. You can tell right away how passionate they are in fighting for justice and maintaining the rule of law.

[@muhammadshahzadomarbhatti3273]

GOOD.

[@Ceecee-hn7dd]

They have an important message about detachment, impartiality and their own self-awareness in the profession.

[@TheMarmite09]

I think this is the third time I am watching this documentary. I love it!

[@muhammadshahzadomarbhatti3273]

GOOD.GUJRANWALA. PUNJAB.,PAKISTAN

[@teaandcoffeeM]

Wow. These guys love what they do. At their age, there would be no shame at all in retiring but yet they still work - which, as you can see, gives them little free time. I would imagine that at that age free time would be golden. It is obvious that they are well-off and that they could sustain their lifestyles if they were to retire. Yet they do not! It is so nice to see that someone is extremely happy to be in their position.

[@nelsapinonesrivera2778]

Ouuuiiijuuy

[@teaandcoffeeM]

***** I agree, it's too bad that a judge would have to become a politician to govern.

[@kw2836]

l

[@rich9012]

I think it must be the varying cases you hear everyday, dealing with both civil and criminal issues. :D It is an amazing vacancy!

[@bertramsay2904]

Yeah I would be happy and would not want to stop working ether if I were getting a quarter million per year.

[@hiheloByby6902]

Happy to be part of judiciary and service 😊 , Honorable Job On planet

[@satishgangurde758]

How integrated and enthusiastic they are for the noble cause to protect the rights of common man, i wish only the eligible and worthy acquire the seats in the supreme Court.

[@joannajones8533]

Lord Philips is SUCH A NICE GUY!! Really Wonderful Individual! Lucky the people who are close to him!

[@AAPPUK]

Are you his mail order wife? Or plan to be mail order wife?

[@markyboy213]

Not going to lie, I would love something like this to come out again.... ! Maybe about the UK Legal system in general.... ?

[@nicnaxnax51]

This was a brilliant documentry.

[@muhammadshahzadomarbhatti3273]

VERY GOOD. EXCELLENT. GUJRANWALA. PUNJAB. PAKISTAN

[@sadabtajuddin7893]

Music in the first 5 mins is called time lapse by Michael nyman

[@muhammadshahzadomarbhatti3273]

GOOD. GUJRANWALA. PUNJAB. PAKISTAN

[@tonymercer7759]

When watching this excellent doco I couldn't help feeling that this is the Court one would expect in the UK given the country's history, culture and the role of the law down through the centuries. To establish and maintain the Court's separation and independence from the political agencies of government is a signal achievement. The individuals constituting the Court are impressive experts in the law but warm individuals with down-to-earth personalities. This judicial body seems to reflect some of the best features of what it is to be British. I could almost hear Elgar, Purcell and Parry being played in the background.

[@jamesmaddison4546]

Yup, just another lesson America needs to learn, and quickly. Crazy they have it literally in their constitution that political and religious beliefs must not have any effect on the independence the law requires, yet, all the time it happens, especially recently. A country full of many religions, is having laws passed based upon the sole belief system of one religion, in direct violation of the constitution. I guess they're still "too young" 😂

[@plusplusplusplusp]

Here in Australia, judges have to retire at age 70. Our supreme court is called the High Court, and until the 1980s you could appeal from that to the former House of Lords in London. Abolishing that avenue of appeal was Australia's last step to full independence. I'm proud that my country inherited the English legal system

[@lewistaylor9328]

plusplusplusplusp Scotland has a high court as the highest criminal court, and the court of session as the highest civil court

[@michaeljohnson7929]

plusplusplus most commonwealth countries around the world have adopted the english system. We even have the privy court for smaller previous colonies to have appeals. I'm sure it was less about independence, and more about access to judges. AU just has more judges now, not needing the HoL

[@crazyloon3537]

We have a Supreme Court and a High Court, the High court having power over the Supreme Court.

[@leotto8906]

I am a teenage pakistani , and it offended me greatly that at mint 49:00 , they talk of blair decison to imprision foreigners without charge , cause 9/11 happen & its state emegency but fact is why only foreigners , the far right nationalist of there own country have high criminal activity then any other group , as well goes for state itself like Nixon etc exploiting law for his interest undermining public interest , As well there is bush flaud argument for wmd with sadam , and there is suspesion 9/11 was state own act but this is so injust to target foreigners and even more hurting that british court and democracy we have so much trust in don,t considere slightly there role in brining about the poor devolped countries by exploited colonisation , even East india comapny left india,s economy shrugged

[@kessmarl]

Leo Tto .. stfu.

[@yeshaya24]

Finally and a supreme court in Britain ! Hope it proceeds for what it it should stand for ! My Foremost Considerations !

[@docdoom44]

Interesting documentary, useful for politics and for the understanding of the judiciary and how it links to civil liberties and judicial independence and neutrality.

[@muhammadshahzadomarbhatti3273]

GOOD. GUJRANWALA. PUNJAB. PAKISTAN

[@laurencampbell5893]

Truly lovely documentary which highlights so many important features of our democracy, what a wonderful group of intellects.

[@ChineseLion]

As a law s tudent, I am so surprised by how the judges come up with their judgement -- they really wrote it on their own ! Especially Lord Hope, he really brought a big bag full of paper work taking underground to his working space to write his leading judgement. Impressed. Hail to the Lords.

[@Liitebulb]

15:40 I read an article once that said "when a man succeeds in the workplace it's often because his wife's work allows him to do so." And that's exactly an example like many. More men should openly admit that the sacrifices of their partners allowed them to focus on a high flying career.

[@terrymennie4332]

Also vice versa

[@sb_dunk]

@@terrymennie4332 Agreed, there's still a massive stigma around men supporting high flying wives - it's quite bizarre.

[@terrymennie4332]

@@sb_dunk for sure.

[@johnlawrence2757]

A man who is going to have a successful career is already on his way by the time he succumbs to the temptation of matrimony, holy or otherwise, and will likely marry a woman who can see this and fancies the lifestyle. No sacrifice involved. Quite the opposite.

[@tonymercer7759]

@@terrymennie4332 I agree and the v.v. is often the harder for both parties given the expectations and prejudices of society.

[@kenmccready2870]

Remarkable character trait to be able to compartmentalize your beliefs and possible prejudice into a decision. Unique skill to interpret parliament's laws .Interesting look at the balance of power between parliament and the judiciary. Interesting case on the OFT and its ability to look into bank charges covered and restricted under statue.The female input on the prenup case was interesting.Blares government knee jerk reaction to 911 was short sighted, was it a case of them asking for more than they expected, This was an excellent insight into the UK judicial and political systems and how they interrelate.thanks for uploading

[@krisneville6307]

Would love to see an updated version

[@gflez]

If a video can be this educative then Imagine how much knowledge you will get being mentored by these guys....apart from just judging people I sense a lot of wisdom in every word they say...

[@farahaslam9224]

Great documentary for my students as i'm a business teacher who teaches about the law

[@AAPPUK]

You might want to go back to preschool and improve your grammar if you are a business teacher. Also, how many businesses have you successfully launched/profited from? Or are you one of those business teachers that just tells kids about ridiculous business models instead of teaching them how to be successful in business? There's a massive difference, by the way you structure your comments, I'm going to conclude it's the first type.

[@fishburger9729]

​@@AAPPUKbro get a life

[@suetownsend1656]

What thoroughly engaging and interesting people. A great documentary.

[@Lemma01]

Can't think of another country which could have this team in charge of justice. The best of Britishness.

[@Rippone]

very interesting! Thank you for sharing this.

[@terencehennegan1439]

Thoroughly enjoyed. So much responsibility yet handled with ease and professionalism.

[@tapiwafundi669]

Application of human rights convention , great documentation

[@CarlosVasquezmdq]

Amazing. Great documentary. I find this masters of law so humboldt, than in a way this kind of explain why some institutions can do the difference. In my country, Argentina, The supreme court judges have a life completely different, they have custody 24/7, they not show in public, and they live in a way so different than the rest of the people. That justify, in my opinion, why the people see justice so distant and maybe, completely strange.

[@muhammadshahzadomarbhatti3273]

GOOD. GUJRANWALA. PAKISTAN. PUNJAB

[@ariancbarton9798]

This was a great documentary

[@lorispain1]

I found myself liking these quietly spoken and very wise people. An interesting documentary.

[@redman7744]

was looking for a history of british law but found this and was pleased I watched it. I'm glad to see the judges do the best they can, and actually think about it. the stereo type of judges is free dinners and peerages.

[@QRAndrew]

A unique insight into the lives of the nation's most powerful judges. All seem pretty down to earth.

[@samueljamesangell]

The song used for the intro for the fist 5 seconds is called Vladimir's Blues - Max Richter

[@matthewjeffery6481]

ForwardSlash/SAM and the one from 4:32 to 6:43 is Time Lapse by Michael Nyman

[@cecilefox9136]

I loved this programme.It`s fascinating watching the world´s oldest democracy and the Common Law at work!

[@J.B24]

21:22 "Great sex ratio"? I actually laughed out loud.

[@RehabProjectSRCB]

Me to, was hilarious.

[@rachelwalker3389]

Watching this from Australia this is very educational.

[@connormew6763]

excellent documentary - getting me through public law slowly but surely, much like the way justice bends

[@alli-kat2329]

@Where's Walshy are you gonn@ do this on every fuckin comment you don't agree with!? 😒

[@DanielVodenitcharov]

As a law student, this documentary was an outstanding watch!

[@Boy4boy1000]

Brilliant documentary, very insightful for a student. Wish there were more informative documentaries out there that would help the general public understand how our judiciary function and perform their constitutional duty.

[@TransLorentz]

"I went to Cambridge. And in Cambdrige there were three women's colleges and 21 men's colleges. Now that was very nice, for us: great sex ratio! We had a great time, most of us... as well as learning a lot." - Lady Hale. Good lord, she's wonderful.

[@csykes23]

Except for her stance on prenuptials

[@andreww704]

Awesome programme!!! really good watch ....

[@michaelvidal1971]

In the six years since this film was published three of the four Justices have retired and there is now three female Justices.

[@pw191164]

Well there would be..its called box ticking!

[@littlebrayutd]

@@pw191164 🤭🤭⚡⚡⚡⚡💥

[@chuckabutty888]

What an eye opener, brilliant documentary.

[@sadafimran427]

thank you so much for understanding.

[@danielosdinia4258]

I'm British Iranian and when I compare the British judicial system with the Iranian one, I really like to cry! The judicial system is the back bone of any society's well being, if that is healthy, most of the society would be.

[@lawhouse3287]

Hi Ma'am! Could i talk with you? I need your help.

[@SuperGreatSphinx]

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the supreme court in all matters under English and Welsh law, Northern Ireland law and Scottish civil law. It is the court of last resort and the highest appellate court in the United Kingdom, although the High Court of Justiciary remains the court of last resort for criminal law in Scotland. The Supreme Court also has jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to devolution in the United Kingdom and concerning the legal powers of the three devolved governments (in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) or laws made by the devolved legislatures. The Supreme Court was established by Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and started work on 1 October 2009. It assumed the judicial functions of the House of Lords, which had been exercised by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (commonly called "Law Lords"), the 12 judges appointed as members of the House of Lords to carry out its judicial business. Its jurisdiction over devolution matters had previously been exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Because of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries. It cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament. However, it can overturn secondary legislation if, for example, that legislation is found to be ultra vires to the powers in primary legislation allowing it to be made. Further, under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Supreme Court, like some other courts in the United Kingdom, may make a declaration of incompatibility, indicating that it believes that the legislation subject to the declaration is incompatible with one of the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights. Such a declaration can apply to primary or secondary legislation. The legislation is not overturned by the declaration, and neither Parliament nor the government is required to agree with any such declaration. However, if they do accept a declaration, ministers can exercise powers under section 10 of the act to amend the legislation by statutory instrument to remove the incompatibility or ask Parliament to amend the legislation. The current President of the Supreme Court is Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, and its Deputy President is Baroness Hale of Richmond.

[@boddurattaiah887]

Excellent documentary🎉

[@msrabiahealthcarecenterand2058]

I seen, UK Supreme Court: The Highest Court in the Land- Documentary.

[@kessmarl]

Cool ! :)

[@zulmaikhan65]

Such wonderful and informative video. Such simple way of life in public with heavy load of judgement and decision making from anything to a life and death matter, I wish any one in Muslim world could see this where most judges are just jokes absolute jokes.....

[@zulmaikhan65]

Thats true But when one proclaim as a judge fearing no one but the Almighty God, one would expect a fairer judgement for poor and rich alike. I can not quote any single Muslim country where such system exists. Fact

[@kw2836]

k

[@robnewman6101]

Majesty's Court of Law.

[@fredcheok9199]

Its a pity this documentary cannot be downloaded and watched offline.

[@sam-jm6zw]

Lord Philips was truly inspirational

[@encoretp]

how come they don't get police escort or protection? Surely they should considering the magnitude of their decisions.

[@AntPDC]

My dear fellow, this is England...

[@jimsmith2282]

dont listen the dear fellow antPDC the supreme court is the hightest court criminal and civil in all uk , scotland has a supreme court court of session , inner divison is crimnal , civil , you can appeal from that court to the uk supreme court , scotland snp gov alex salmond hates this court along with his hatred of westmonger in regards to lockerbie and other serious crimes have been overturned by the supreme court , used to be house of lords , why do they not need police protection the truthful answer is cause unlike the rats in westminister , they dont piss people off

[@AntPDC]

+shinndoggydog 1969 You are mistaken: the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland, sitting as an appellate court, is the highest criminal court for Scottish cases. There is no appeal to the UK Supreme Court for such criminal cases. You are correct about civil cases, including Constitutional matters.

[@encoretp]

Guys, I still feel they need some form of protection.

[@jimsmith2282]

AntPDC your right about the high court sorry got that bit wreong but there is an appeal from the high court criminal , type in william beck , his case is criminal had his last about but can appeal to the supreme court uk , check out a JUSTICE DIARY OF SCOTLAND , THE SCOTTISH LAW REPORTER , online websites the 1st one is best run by peter cherbi , ive got a civil case against the scottih ministers ,gov , uk . ministers gov , under disability law , had to be a party litigant since may 2010 against former employer tesco ,

[@frankdsouza2425]

Arfan Rauf, This is no mere masterpiece, it is (in my respectful opinion of course), a unique one PS: But who are you ??

[@gothikia]

Enlightening documentary. Very much enjoyed it.

[@jamesmacgregor3911]

I like how for this documentary they chose justices from 3 out of the 4 countries in the UK. While there is inequality in race and gender - they make up for that by experience and also by their fervour.

[@wdnb995]

Has anyone got the docuseries on the UK Supreme Court? The name of it was 'Britains Supreme Court' in which the series followed a few cases, I am sure it was on here a while back but unable to find it.

[@TheMrB]

With reference to the amendments to laws holding suspected terrorists makes one proud to be under British law as the Supreme Court brought the government into court & told them is was absurd. Where as in America they steam rolled through the Patriot Act with almost zero congressmen reading it let alone understanding it.

[@muhammadshahzadomarbhatti3273]

GOOD. WANT JOB SUPREME COURT

[@URFUTUREUK]

On our way.

[@dogwithwigwamz.7320]

Can anyone tell me if Our Queen is able to be subpoenaed or summoned to appear and answer to The High Court ? I have no idea, but just suppose a circumstance arose where Here Majesty was thought able to furnish evidence ? What then ? What about cross-examination ? I`ve just stumbled upon this video, and the idle thought occurred to me !

[@andrewchidwick]

Steve MetalHammer As Sovereign the Queen is above the law. We simply trust her to behave herself! If she failed to do this I doubt the people would tolerate it - well maybe a bit of shoplifting perhaps but robbing banks might finish off the monarchy! She cannot be summoned to appear in a court (the law is enacted in her name). Remember the Paul Burrell case when as we was about to spill embarrassing evidence in court (he had been accused of theft of some of Diana's things), the Queen suddenly recalled a vital piece of 'evidence' that exonerated him! She took no oath in court when recalling this 'evidence', just sent word and carried on waving at the plebs!

[@andrewchidwick]

I don't think that would be true even if there really was such an entity as "God". Her position above the law is a constitutional one and I agree it is very odd to consider it. However, the law is enacted in her name which would mean if she committed a crime and could be prosecuted we would have Regina (the sovereign) vs Regina!

[@Generalscorpio]

+Steve MetalHammer Officially H.M. Queen is the highest judge in the land, she has to sign off on everything that parliament produces so she gets to see all laws even if she just skim reads them and she brings many of them into official standing during the state opening of parliament. Furthermore I believe a judge is not to be tried by a judge of lesser standing and possibly not even of equal standing. So if one of the judges in this documentary were arrested it would either have to be one of the others or the Queen herself who oversaw the case and conducted the cross-examinations. However I do not believe she could be tried, officially, however she was born in the century in which monarchies were disappearing left, right and centre, (German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, Turkish, Italian are the well known ones but a load of lesser known monarchies from eastern Europe, Asia and Africa also ended), she may be aware of the precarious nature of monarchical systems and how easily they can topple if people are sufficiently pissed off. However I'm not so sure our current Queen would ever be in that position and this links in with something mentioned by other commentators on this thread, namely God. From what I've heard and read she takes her commitment to God and Christianity very seriously, she's not just a Christian but also head of the Church of England and upon being anointed with holy water at her coronation she officially became recognised by the Church of England as God's representative on Earth. At that moment she believes (and I understand this to be a very serious belief) that she entered into a binding covenant with God to uphold his law and his church. Now whether you believe in God or not (personally I'm an atheist) is rather by-the-by, the fact is that she believes and takes that seriously, I therefore presume that she would do everything in her power to avoid situations where she would end up in court.

[@cruzdela4668]

+Andrew Chidwick Why could none of you just mention the Magna Carta or the Trial of King Charles the 1st and be done with it? Goodness. Also, Her Majesty would never do anything like that.

[@sheppycider123]

Mika Hell the queen is only bound by convention to approve the bills passed by parliament, if they wished to remove her she would have to agree to it, if she didn't that would bring up a huge conflict between law and convention. Judges are treated the same so if a supreme justice committed a crime they'd come before the old bailey like anyone else. Insofar as the queen is concerned she cannot personally commit a crime though her agents and companies can. The queen, for instance, needs no passport as all passports are requests for entry in her name. She can't be personally prosecuted because all prosecutions are made in her name, as power was devolved from the monarchs absolute power into the organs of state. If anyone were to prosecute the queen it would be heard in the court of parliament i expect. Big if.

[@FRANKTHRING1]

Nice informative documentary, especially for some of us old codgers who remember the British Justice System prior to setting up the Supreme Court in 2009. Nice to see these appeals judges taking their duties seriously. Yes, they may be seniors, but with age invariably comes wisdom If you are below 40 and reading this, trust me , you will understand when you are 60.

[@arthurnewman7461]

A Level Politics anyone ?

[@hentai7444]

Yh this is so long man

[@michaelmallal9101]

The Australia Act abolished an Australian's right of appeal to the Privy Council in London. The highest court now is the Full Bench of the High Court of Australia. Executives of ANZ, Citi and Deutsche Banks may face criminal charges as a result of the Royal Commission into Banking.

[@JustAnotherThisDJ]

Ah this, is a welcome break from exemption clauses and incorporation of terms. Respect to these old goats.

[@carolhodson6353]

I find it so interesting and great that we have high court judges I find it fascinating.

[@paulkingeu]

Very interesting. I think they decided the bank fees wrong but I agree with the other decisions like prenuptial agreements and the wrongful detention of suspects with no charges laid

[@saigeharrison3450]

I’m hoping to become a Supreme Court judge. Im hoping this will be an inspiring documentary. Thanks to the person who uploaded this. :)

[@peterbradshaw8018]

It was very interesting to put a face to the names of the persons whose opinions I have been reading for some time. If I were a woman I would not want to appear before Baroness Hale of Richmond.

[@Wyrmwould]

I have a question about decorum. I noticed that in the courtroom, the barristers wear robes and wigs, but the Judges wear neither. Such choices send messages to the public and I wonder what is the message here? What message is conveyed by the Judges on the UK Supreme Court not dressing in a traditional manner while the barristers do? There is a definite uniform effect at play regarding the use of judicial robes. There must be a price in not availing oneself of that effect..

[@rockynanach]

Nice to see the mother country adopting , what her children have had for a long time a separate and independent judiciary. Cheers from Canada and Australia

[@susannamarker2582]

Not required. The rationale behind it was political, not legal.

[@noelt8895]

Why do the judges not wear robes and wigs while the lawyers appearing in front of them do?

[@chalmynz6811]

Lawyers wear gowns to distinguish themselves from their clients, the general public and their position. Judges are in no need to do this being as they are the who the purpose is for.

[@melodyjackson8921]

If everyone's playing with theirselves, no one would ever be able to get anything done.

[@pazuzutru-truluv7094]

Men & Women of negotiable virtue!

[@sadafimran427]

judge Moir of Newcastle quay courts.

[@henrivanbemmel]

All high curst should be selected in this manner. The politization of the Court in any country is in effect reducing the Court's perceived and/or real impartiality. The situation in the US for example is simply ridiculous and in effect makes perhaps not a mockery of this supremely important estate, but reduces it's effectiveness. In addition if you had some term limits and retirement clauses it would be even more impartial.

[@jessicawatson7360]

‘The law is a tough profession, it’s not easy to combine with having a family’ this should affect men too.

[@apexjailor9349]

When men have to take time off to birth a child it will have equal effect. It’s pretty obvious why there’s a big difference, and it’s not sexism

[@sadafimran427]

I m talking about the injustice with children.

[@albertcalleros9489]

in all due honesty, i have always been an admirer of the SCOTUK's Canadian counterpart. i simply wish that the United Kingdom had its 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' which would remarkably similar to that of Canada. The only thing that i DO NOT like about British barristers/magistrates is those hideous Dolly Parton-esque wigs.

[@Vladpryde]

Lord Phillip looks like Robert Lee Ermy.

[@muhammadshahzadomarbhatti3273]

GOOD. GUJRANWALA. PUNJAB. PAKISTAN

[@alessandradafonte6672]

This is indeed a really great documentary. Anybody perhaps knows which one is the original source? I need to reference some of this material in my essay. Thank youu

[@lawhouse3287]

Hi! Ma'am. Could i talk with you? I wanna work together with you.can we make a Circle for international law work.

[@ma.ninfaganancial1125]

Lets observe how the Highest Court of the Land deliberate justice procedure. Its powerfully captivating to the legal minds and to those who are studying law.

[@stevegibson2255]

I Think I would be correct in saying it takes a special type of person to hold such an important role in society

[@foketesz]

The divorce case is very interesting. The minority vote from the female judge may at first seem biased towards women´s rights, but the immediate effect of her position would have been favourable to the husband. Her view of the special quality of the marriage contract is quite enlightening, btw.

[@somersettigeruk]

Great start as the top judge Lord is already breaking the law! His lights on his push bike should not be set at flashing I guess he does not know the highway law regarding lights! If what i say is wrong then take me to Court!.....

[@Penguin_of_Death]

@Kevin Penney We'll see you in court then... Obligatory lighting and reflectors Any cycle which is used between sunset and sunrise must be fitted with the following: white front light, red rear light, red rear reflector, amber/yellow pedal reflectors - front and rear on each pedal The lamps may be steady or flashing, or a mixture, for example steady at the front and flashing at the rear. A steady light is recommended at the front when the cycle is used in areas without good street lighting Note RECOMMENDED, not mandatory... Source: www.gov.uk/government/publications/pedal-cycles-lighting/pedal-cycles-lighting

[@michaelwhite8031]

They should remember that the citizens are sovereign and they are our servants, but they are a law unto themselves.

[@niznet111]

Great men & a woman who have the Supreme view in law.

[@omandeesamaratunge6003]

I loved this video until our law teacher showed it several times

[@enquiryenquiry6151]

why don't you all start at making it compulsory for all persons involved in court cases to show identity proof as on the 9th march 2018 at 2pm at the city and mayor's county court London an imposter posed as the head of the UK Government's Head of Legal Department,&he's yet to be charged!

[@casparschulze3391]

Suppression of civil liberties

[@linahnanziri]

38:31 Lady Hale has an eye for fashion too.

[@yeshaya24]

Perhaps an organism of sovereignty for a Judicial Republic in the Future !

[@Wyrmwould]

As an American, I found this documentary to be extremely interesting and informative. I was especially interested in learning how the members of the UK Supreme Court are chosen. We're told that an independent group of lawyers and professionals choose the members of the court, but I would like to know more about that. For example, how are the members of the independent group chosen? And is it possible to remove a member of the court? And if so, how? And when was the last time that happened?

[@Ben-bl5rc]

parliament can vote / petition for royal assent to remove a justice, most likely if they’d broken the law, but it’s never happened

[@Wyrmwould]

@@Ben-bl5rc So Parliament has a say in their removal, but not their selection? Did I understand that correctly? And I'm assuming from your earlier answer that this appointment is for life except in the cases of retirement or removal. Can Parliament reduce their salary? Can Parliament restrict their jurisdiction? I'm guessing the number of justices is determined by statute; if so, I assume the number can be reduced and expanded. I'm really interested in learning more about the UK Supreme Court, especially since my faith in my own has been shaken as of late.

[@Ben-bl5rc]

@@Wyrmwould justices are selected by a independent judiciary committee and while technically confirmed by the executive (lord chancellor and pm) it’s more of a formality, while technically parliament can completely change or even get rid of the supreme court due to parliamentary sovereignty and our uncodified constitution, there v unlikely to overrule the 2005 cra act which established the court, meaning no, they currently can’t change salaries, attempt to influence decisions etc

[@Ben-bl5rc]

@@Wyrmwould however more recent reforms have shown the power of the parliament in that the courts can of course only rule on laws they have passed, so for example the tory government is attempting to repeal the human rights act to prevent them from declaring future legislation as incompatible with it. also, they can use ouster clauses in legislation to prevent rulings on certain topics eg the dacopa 2022 had one meaning the sc cannot now rule on the proroguing of parliament, and the judicial review and courts act 2022 disallows the higher courts to review appeals made in asylum seekers cases which are handled in the upper tribunal

[@Wyrmwould]

@@Ben-bl5rc Thank you so much for answering my questions so thoughtfully. You've given me a lot to consider and much research to accomplish.

[@foreigndude2215]

Nice documentary.

[@adrianchetwynd1334]

in your mind

[@adrianchetwynd1334]

in your mind

[@stephenjeacocke7208]

It may also pose an issue for misuse and be used as a way to undermine Lord Hopes sound mind. Because the nature of this choice of words can be linked to a taboo subject. I am also perplexed that Lord Hope agreed to such wording, for the Lords themselves scrutinize the law by being awkward. Should they not then lead by example at all times?

[@etherealhawk]

I watched this years ago and liked it but now I think it should go. No room for politics in justice

[@sultanmahmood7539]

Can you provide information why liabilities order from magistrates have been removed for council tax council tax handbook 2013. The council print their own notice of liability order from the magistrates without signature without stamps, without letter headed paper. Huge fraud going in courts

[@AndelzachtAG]

Lack of ethnic minorities??? I thought judges should be chosen because of their knowledge and abilities, not because of their nationality. It's not racist not to have one person who belongs in a minority in the 12 Justices, if these 12 are the best in their field. It would be racist to choose an Asian, for example, instead of a White (supposing the White is better), just because you want Ethnic minorities represented.

[@Sagini4eva]

I totally agree with you, it is about capability and what is in their head not the colour on their face!

[@Sam-vr3ss]

i agree as well. it would be nice to see a black justice, but i wouldn't just through any old person in there because of their nationality. They should be nominated on what they bring to the table

[@koolangelbunny]

Justices are ment to be a realistic representation of the citizens. That's why they are concerned with the lack of minorities

[@abcdef6835]

their knowledge ! where it comes from, opportunity to have education, wolf commisssion fairly addressed that issue

[@DSQueenie]

They need to be capable but they also need to honestly represent our country. If the judges are as diverse as the country they represent we can hope that they will give more fair judgments or judgments that are more representative of the kind of people who live in our country. However capability comes first which is why they are so un-diverse. We still have a huge issue with women and ethnic minorities making the jump from solicitor to barrister and barrister to judge.

[@4TheRecord]

Hopefully this will be true in two years. Right now the European Court of Human Rights is the highest court in this country.

[@lxdimension]

European court of human rights has nothing to do with the EU. Leaving the EU does not separate us from it necessarily.

[@4TheRecord]

You are correct, I made a mistake and actually meant the "European Court of Justice".

[@afh7689]

4TheRecord Only on the interpretion of EU laws/regulations, not domestic laws.

[@TechnikMeister2]

Yes, here in Australia we have the British Justice System too. BUT...the UK Supreme Court is not the highest court there. You can appeal to the Privy Council and failing that you can petition the Monarch. The former used not very often and the latter...its the right of any of her Majesty's subjects to plead an injustice. The Queen would usually take advice from the PM or the Privy Council. The other thing to remember that the Queen can dissolve Parliament and appoint her own PM. This is what happened in 1939 when King George the 6th actually sacked Neville Chamberlain and asked Churchill to form a one party unity government for as long as he thinks fit. He called an election after the war ended and Churchill was defeated in the face of national poverty. By then he was quite ill with the strain of six years of war.

[@drdreel5559]

The Privy Council is only the highest appellate court for non-UK Commonwealth countries who choose to continue to use it as such + certain non- UK British territories and from the decisions of a very small number of UK bodies. The highest appellate court in the UK is the UK Supreme Court. There is a rather obscure statutory provision that allows the monarch (in practice the British government) to refer any matter to the Privy Council. The Privy Council has ruled, however, that it is appropriate to decline any such reference if another court is empowered to hear it (this issue came up directly, strangely, only in a PC ruling in 2012 -- the Act in question is from 1833 -- but that has long been the understanding of the statutory provision in question).

[@pauljohnson5190]

February 2021. Mmmm- yes, as one of them said- "one man's justice is another man's injustice".. They might work in another building down the road but most of them brought their establishment biases with them!

[@kevinbaird7277]

Forget about representation, our lives here in the UK are so much more enriched and protected by the work of this group of people.