Legal things which bother me

[RhapsodyandAshe]

Did you know that the UN has enshrined in International Law that it can in no circumstance be sued. This strikes me as this organisation putting itself against the rule of law.
In my opinion any body that has influence over our lives should be able to be held accountable in any legal manner that would apply otherwise.
Jury nullification is something that I came across today, I have not studied law but I thought I was quite au-fait with the way a jury could come to a verdict.
Until today when I discovered a whole new concept in regard to jury verdicts, where a jury can acquit a person who is guilty when they feel the law is unjust.
I am puzzled as to why this isn't more widely known about?
Also how many laws do we actually live under in the UK? How much input are we as individuals given into this system which can interfere in every aspect of our lives?
One last thing that is bugging me is access to legal representation.
My income puts me outside the criteria required to be able to seek legal recourse using legal aid. Yet my salary is not plentiful and it would be a real stretch to pay a solicitor 750.00 to write a letter, as an example.
I imagine the majority of the people in the UK are in similar circumstances to myself, which means there is a huge sector of our society, who are severely limited in terms of representation.
How can that be seen as just?

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
Anatole France

Bumping because I really do want to discuss these kind of things with other people and I don't have anyone in rl to do so with.

:)

Death by dangerous driving was brought in as an offence because Juries would not convict of manslaughter where death was caused by a vehicle - in England there is no right to acquit just because the jury think it is an unjust law - but in practise it is simply not possible to tell the reason for an acquittal as the jury are not allowed to reveal what went on in the jury room - the jury are not following their jurors oath if they acquit where they are convinced by the evidence, but it cant be proved.

Oh I love the France quote and used it in my masters dissertation on criminal justice!

The Pottle & Randal ? 1990 case is a famous ‘perverse’ jury decision (though IMO they occur daily!). If I was innocent there is no way I would want to trust a jury (however if guilty I’ll take the odds!).

It’s fairly recently that the ability to study juries has been further curtailed (Thatcher years - what a surprise!) - but the work by Baldwin & McConvillle (1980) on juries is worth reading if the subject interests you.

The Mclibel case is also interesting on legal representation (court of human rights part of the case and led to changes in the U.K. exactly to stop further extensions re legal representation I believe). Also of note is one of the disgraced Met UC officers was involved in the original ‘libel’ - couldn’t make it up!

So yes I am aware - though understand that most people aren’t bothered - the UN position can’t be summed up here though I consider they are more accountable than you suggest (was going to work for them and studied them at great length) but that requires it’s own lengthy dissertation!

Oh and another thing about juries is the murder conviction rates went up after the death penalty was abolished in the 60s - unlawful killings didn’t go up - but it is considered that juries were no longer burdened with potentially someone facing a death sentence.

Also how many laws do we actually live under in the UK?

• millions. www.legislation.gov.uk/browse/uk this site shows laws going back to 1424. Remember, it's not just criminal laws we have. It's really long boring laws about taxes, property, divorce etc. For example, the companies act 2006 governs the way companies are run. It has 1,300 provisions plus additional schedules. Don't believe me? www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/contents

How much input are we as individuals given into this system which can interfere in every aspect of our lives?

• We can vote in general elections. We can campaign for parliament to discuss certain issues (but we cannot compel them to act). We can write to our MPs. I guess you could become an MP but then you'd have to get the rest of your party to agree. If you become a Supreme Court judge you may influence the way legislation is interpreted. (Obv this is only a few people.) Nothing else really, we're pretty powerless as individuals. It's why voting is so important, it's the only day we really have.

One last thing that is bugging me is access to legal representation.
^My income puts me outside the criteria required to be able to seek legal recourse using legal aid. Yet my salary is not plentiful and it would be a real stretch to pay a solicitor 750.00 to write a letter, as an example.
I imagine the majority of the people in the UK are in similar circumstances to myself, which means there is a huge sector of our society, who are severely limited in terms of representation.
How can that be seen as just?^

• it isn't. Vote for a party that funds legal aid in the next election.