STUART WHEELER'S VICTORY: Judicial Review of the Lisbon Treaty Granted

gremlin in the works · 16-05-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kernow

According to today's Western Morning News the Government has hired one of Britain's most expensive QCs to fight it's case against holding a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty! Jonathan Sumption QC will be lead Barrister the the Government as it fights the High Court action brought about by Stuart Wheeler!

So the Government is using our money to fight their case! A bit like your enemy having to pay for your weapons!

this Government gets more sick every second of the day why on earth would some one fight for them its suicide.

it shows you the morally bankrupt scum bags out there who work for law firms, that will do any thing for money even shooting them selfs in the foot the dam fools!!

gimlet · 16-05-2008, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gremlin in the works

this Government gets more sick every second of the day why on earth would some one fight for them its suicide.

it shows you the morally bankrupt scum bags out there who work for law firms, that will do any thing for money even shooting them selfs in the foot the dam fools!!

But when in bed with the government. He did the Hutton case:
BBC NEWS | Politics | Kelly family attacks 'government duplicity'

Nice work if you can get it!

gremlin in the works · 16-05-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimlet

But when in bed with the government. He did the Hutton case:
BBC NEWS | Politics | Kelly family attacks 'government duplicity'

Nice work if you can get it!

like i said morally bankrupt need i say more

Geoffrey Collier · 16-05-2008, 02:35 PM

Kernow: Jonathan Sumption QC is a curious choice, for he is a commercial lawyer.
I would have thought that a constitutional lawyer would have been more appropriate.
I hope that Wheeler's lawyer wil inquire why the government believes that the EU Constitution and the L.T. are different, when that is not an opinion shared by the authors of those documents. Even so, it could delay the time-table; give encouragement to the Irish voters or, even, if the gods are with us, change the situation completely.

Aardvark · 16-05-2008, 02:48 PM

Everyone in the country is entitled to put their case in a court of law, whether you like it or not. Lawyers are not morally bankrupt for defending rapists and murderers. Perhaps GITW you would like a system where the courts make a decision without hearing the other point of view.

Lawyers are also entitled to be paid for their work. As with all professions those who are the best and at the peak of their careers are able to command the highest fees. Jonathan Sumption QC worked hard to get where he is, why do you resent him earning a fraction of Wayne Rooney's take home pay?

The ordinary lawyers, solicitors and barristers, make an average living and at the bottom end many are very poor in real terms.

You would expect the government to pay the most experienced and most expert silk to put their case as to lose has constitutional implications that stretch beyond this particular case. Who do you think should represent the UK government when dealing with a complex point of law - constitutional expert twizzel??

Stuart Wheeler was entitled to select Jonathan Sumption QC had he so desired, but he chose a different barrister. That's how the system works.

Ashley Mote, when he was tried, had a very expensive QC from public funds. He was entitled to be properly represented and to have his case put to a jury.

At the end of the day the quality of counsel is not everything. If your case is based on solid foundations only a real duffer could lose it (which I did see once when a sharp counsel outwitted a complacent solicitor who hadn't been prepared to answer a novel point of law).

It is possible that Jonathan Sumption is favourable to Stuart Wheeler's point of view, but he is being paid to present the Government's case to the best of his ability. That, again, is how the system works.

The truly morally bankrupt people are those who don't allow other people an alternate point of view.

Geoffrey Collier · 16-05-2008, 04:07 PM

Aardvark: I would have thought that this would have been one of those cases, when you would have been delighted to hear that twizzel had been given the brief to represent the Crown. He would have done it for a smaller fee than Sumption, and would have won the heartfelt thanks of Wheeler's man and the nation as a whole. You are being far too narrow in your assessment of this case: try and take a much wider view of these things.

gremlin in the works · 16-05-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

Everyone in the country is entitled to put their case in a court of law, whether you like it or not. Lawyers are not morally bankrupt for defending rapists and murderers. Perhaps GITW you would like a system where the courts make a decision without hearing the other point of view.

Lawyers are also entitled to be paid for their work. As with all professions those who are the best and at the peak of their careers are able to command the highest fees. Jonathan Sumption QC worked hard to get where he is, why do you resent him earning a fraction of Wayne Rooney's take home pay?

The ordinary lawyers, solicitors and barristers, make an average living and at the bottom end many are very poor in real terms.

You would expect the government to pay the most experienced and most expert silk to put their case as to lose has constitutional implications that stretch beyond this particular case. Who do you think should represent the UK government when dealing with a complex point of law - constitutional expert twizzel??

Stuart Wheeler was entitled to select Jonathan Sumption QC had he so desired, but he chose a different barrister. That's how the system works.

Ashley Mote, when he was tried, had a very expensive QC from public funds. He was entitled to be properly represented and to have his case put to a jury.

At the end of the day the quality of counsel is not everything. If your case is based on solid foundations only a real duffer could lose it (which I did see once when a sharp counsel outwitted a complacent solicitor who hadn't been prepared to answer a novel point of law).

It is possible that Jonathan Sumption is favourable to Stuart Wheeler's point of view, but he is being paid to present the Government's case to the best of his ability. That, again, is how the system works.

The truly morally bankrupt people are those who don't allow other people an alternate point of view.

Aardvark of couse people should have a Lawyer i fully support our system of law in fact thats one of the very reasons i wanting mr wheeler to win for democracy.i am just sick of peoples cash been used in nefarious ways by this government dont ask me to like them for it.

jim h · 20-05-2008, 05:35 AM

This evening Stuart Wheeler has been notified that the Speaker intends to intervene in the case in which he has been granted a judicial review over the Government's refusal to hold a referendum on the EU Treaty. The Attorney General will represent the Speaker.
Mr Wheeler responds 'I am surprised that the Speaker wishes to intervene. At no stage have I sought in any way to impinge on Parliamentary privilege.
"My case is based solely on the Government's refusal to hold a referendum on the EU Treaty."

They are getting worried but how can the Speaker who is independent of Government use a Government Minister to represent him.

Aardvark · 20-05-2008, 06:55 AM

I've a feeling that is a convention that the Attorney General represents the speaker or his deputies in matters concerning the rights of Parliament, but I'd have to go to the books for a precedent to support that assertion. I'm going to my Inn of Court shortly so I'll pop into the library if I have time.

Richard Allen · 20-05-2008, 09:50 AM

A controversial point I know, but perhaps someone here can explain to me how they support the Bill Cash amendment (in the various forms that he has tabled it over the years) and the position of Stuart Wheeler.

16-05-2008, 02:48 PM	#25 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,522	Everyone in the country is entitled to put their case in a court of law, whether you like it or not. Lawyers are not morally bankrupt for defending rapists and murderers. Perhaps GITW you would like a system where the courts make a decision without hearing the other point of view. Lawyers are also entitled to be paid for their work. As with all professions those who are the best and at the peak of their careers are able to command the highest fees. Jonathan Sumption QC worked hard to get where he is, why do you resent him earning a fraction of Wayne Rooney's take home pay? The ordinary lawyers, solicitors and barristers, make an average living and at the bottom end many are very poor in real terms. You would expect the government to pay the most experienced and most expert silk to put their case as to lose has constitutional implications that stretch beyond this particular case. Who do you think should represent the UK government when dealing with a complex point of law - constitutional expert twizzel?? Stuart Wheeler was entitled to select Jonathan Sumption QC had he so desired, but he chose a different barrister. That's how the system works. Ashley Mote, when he was tried, had a very expensive QC from public funds. He was entitled to be properly represented and to have his case put to a jury. At the end of the day the quality of counsel is not everything. If your case is based on solid foundations only a real duffer could lose it (which I did see once when a sharp counsel outwitted a complacent solicitor who hadn't been prepared to answer a novel point of law). It is possible that Jonathan Sumption is favourable to Stuart Wheeler's point of view, but he is being paid to present the Government's case to the best of his ability. That, again, is how the system works. The truly morally bankrupt people are those who don't allow other people an alternate point of view. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

20-05-2008, 06:55 AM	#29 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,522	I've a feeling that is a convention that the Attorney General represents the speaker or his deputies in matters concerning the rights of Parliament, but I'd have to go to the books for a precedent to support that assertion. I'm going to my Inn of Court shortly so I'll pop into the library if I have time. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

16-05-2008, 02:35 PM	#24 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 861	Kernow: Jonathan Sumption QC is a curious choice, for he is a commercial lawyer. I would have thought that a constitutional lawyer would have been more appropriate. I hope that Wheeler's lawyer wil inquire why the government believes that the EU Constitution and the L.T. are different, when that is not an opinion shared by the authors of those documents. Even so, it could delay the time-table; give encouragement to the Irish voters or, even, if the gods are with us, change the situation completely.

16-05-2008, 04:07 PM	#26 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 861	Aardvark: I would have thought that this would have been one of those cases, when you would have been delighted to hear that twizzel had been given the brief to represent the Crown. He would have done it for a smaller fee than Sumption, and would have won the heartfelt thanks of Wheeler's man and the nation as a whole. You are being far too narrow in your assessment of this case: try and take a much wider view of these things.

20-05-2008, 05:35 AM	#28 (permalink)
jim h Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 358	This evening Stuart Wheeler has been notified that the Speaker intends to intervene in the case in which he has been granted a judicial review over the Government's refusal to hold a referendum on the EU Treaty. The Attorney General will represent the Speaker. Mr Wheeler responds 'I am surprised that the Speaker wishes to intervene. At no stage have I sought in any way to impinge on Parliamentary privilege. "My case is based solely on the Government's refusal to hold a referendum on the EU Treaty." They are getting worried but how can the Speaker who is independent of Government use a Government Minister to represent him.

20-05-2008, 09:50 AM	#30 (permalink)
Richard Allen Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 550	A controversial point I know, but perhaps someone here can explain to me how they support the Bill Cash amendment (in the various forms that he has tabled it over the years) and the position of Stuart Wheeler.