This process of appeals to the High Court fascinates me.
It seems to me a judge becomes a judge having demonstrated a slightly greater degree of legal understanding than a mere lawyer.
Then said judge (with the aid of a lawyer to assist the court) comes out with a judgement which the mere lawyer finds (on several points) wrong in fact and law.
The mere lawyer then has to ask the judge who made the erroneous judgement for permission to appeal the judgement.
The mere lawyer sets out the grounds for the appeal.
The judge, having seen the ‘possible’ error of his ways allows the lawyers application to appeal against his own judgement.
Surely, this process is a farce? In fact a grande farce!
Is it not exactly the same circumstances where a female ex accuses the other of felonious actions, then accepts her words may have been distorted and thus petitions the court to allow another court to test her accusations of the erroneoulsy accused father?
For an appeal, the poor bastard appellant gets to pay $10k to have a judge in a higher court tell the judge in the lower court to get his act together.
Can the appelant then ask the lower court for costs? No?
Well. I am beginning to investigate this issue since the Crown Liabilities Act took away the absolute and uniform protection from government servants.
It seems to me that if a senior Family Court judge errs, and then costs a party to the proceedings $10k to get that ‘err’ reversed, then the court, et al is liable. After all, we tax-payers pay these men and women serious money to do their jobs properly.
It seems to me that if an FC judge makes a judgement which is overturned by a higher authority, then the FC judge has erred. In other words, to take it right down to the factory floor, the erring judge did not put 20 grams of peanuts into the 20 gram bag. And, therefore, as an employee he can be held accountable by the employer.
If I, as a consumer end up buying a 15 gram bag of peanuts for the cost of the 20 gram bag, then I get to sue the employer of the peanut providor for false representation. Does it not follow that I should also be allowed to sue the judge’s employer for false representation when the employee (the judge) represents law and is found to completely unrepresentative…Ergo, his judgement is found wanting in fact and in law?
Perhaps if a few folk started suing the Family Court for costs, having had a judgement overturned by the High Court, the folk in the Family Court might be just a little less inclined to deal in uncorroborated speculation and more inclined to deal in corroborated fact.
I fully intend to follow this course.
This madness has to be stopped.
The Jane Doe,s of this world, and the palpably mad women who lurk in the periphery of this bizarre system, simply have to be stopped.
But it ain’t going to be easy, folks. There’s a huge vested interest factor which doesn’t want any part of the family destruction process stopped.