To be a Justice of the Peace is or was to
be a representative of the public, of the common man, so that alleged offenders
can be judged by their peers. Indeed
when I was appointed having “common sense” was a requisite. That was dropped a decade or more ago. With the many changes to the manner of domestic
legislation since 1945 and the establishment of the European Convention of Human Rights in 1950 as a direct result of the atrocities committed during
World War 2 and the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 some matters
where common sense might have prevailed have been overtaken by the minutiae of
legal jargon being argued by very eloquent lawyers and interpreted by judges sometimes too fearful of straying beyond
self erected boundaries. I would posit
that this case is a perfect example of how judicial decision making does indeed
stray beyond the wit of the common man using his common sense. Of course there
are those who would argue that such decisions require more than just common
sense; that only those highly skilled in the subject are fit to adjudicate and
nobody would argue that a high intellect is not a necessity for such activity
but would eg a Nobel Prize winner in Astrophysics or a chess Grandmaster be any
less able to reach a just conclusion? Such decisions as that for this self afflicted
Libyan alcoholic are perfect ammunition to those who would offer extreme right
wing views to many of the problems currently before us. Some such problems might indeed profit from
such views but when a total political philosophy is grounded upon an imagined
contempt that the “Establishment” has for the majority of the population there
lies trouble ahead.
No doubt certain aspiring UKIP candidates
in next week`s election will quote this case.
It will be hard not to agree with them.
Common sense might suggest that having lived here almost the entire time he was "of drinking age" and presumably paying alcohol excise duty to the UK exchequer that his alcoholism was OUR problem!
ReplyDelete