I was sworn in as a magistrate in 1993 and remember with excellent clarity the words I spoke: I will do best to all manner of individuals after the laws and uses of this realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will. Being a magistrate is not a job, it is a public service. It is unpaid, although you can claim a small amount for your lunch if you provide receipts.

I retired from the bench in 2002 realising that I did not have the sufficient time to provide to the tasks I had to perform. Magistrates are lay, they are not trained legal representatives, but there is a reasonable amount of magisterial training to complete and it is as essential as it is time consuming. Although the clerk of the court is always present to direct the magistrates on points of law, it depends on the ordinary magistrates to decide on innocence or guilt, to take into account any mitigating or annoying features of a case and to sentence accordingly.

635697308444448878-breen-2

It was not my responsibility as a magistrate to bring my personal opinions into the retiring room. I was there to see that justice was done to the very best of my ability, however it was not my task to decide what the law ought to be.

Richard Page, a Christian magistrate, is preparing to take legal action after he was sacked over remarks he made on television versus same-sex adoption. He was reprimanded in 2014 after he was found to have actually been affected in an adoption case by his religious beliefs.

The lord chancellor Michael Gove and the lord chief justice Lord Thomas chose that Page had actually brought the judiciary into disrepute and would have triggered a sensible individual to conclude that he was prejudiced against single sex adopters. Remembering what Page has said in public this appears a quite reasonable presumption making.

The Adoption and Children Act of 2002, brought into force 3 years later, offered same-sex couples the right to embrace a kid. This is the law. Page sat on the Kent Central family panel although he disagreed with the law. Now, disagreeing with the law, in itself, is not an issue. Bringing those views into the courthouse most certainly is.

I think that lots of drugs that are presently unlawful ought to be legalised. I have believed this for a long period of time. I would like drug abuse to be treated as a medical problem rather than a legal one, a move that would take thousands out of the criminal justice system. When I was a magistrate, however, I was really careful not to express this view in public and it never ever affected my duties on the bench, which were to deliver justice as the existing law stands. Feel free to visit http://www.lenderliabilitylawyer.com.

Page declares that he is being discriminated against for his religious beliefs. He is not. He is free to reveal his faith, but he is not free to discriminate in court versus people because of their sexuality. The Church of England, our developed church, victimizes gays and lesbians, however the law does not. f you want to know more about this you should contact manslaughter defense lawyer.

In 2013, the Christian owners of a bed and breakfast fairly rightly lost their supreme court fight for the right to turn away a gay couple. The B&B was a business, and simply because the business was in their home it did not give them the right to break the law. Page has a best right to his Christian views, however where those views vary from the law then his concern in the courthouse is to the law, not to his personal convictions. If he feels not able to perform his responsibilities because of his conscience then he must have resigned years back. Page needs to remember his oath, without worry or favour, love or ill will.

scriptsell.neteDataStyle - Best Wordpress Services

Share This

Share this post with your friends!