You have a right....

Tahirt you are not a Jedi or a rational human being yet but you will learn. Did you say you will be someone other than yourself as an enhanced version?   You are a perfect and very good Tahirt in Dubai.   Thank you for the call.

 What is the name of the Judge? Lord Diplock is an excellent authority on the matter.


The name of the case is Smith and Jones and it  concerned the expectations of natural justice.   It is a criminal offense to conspire to be someone other than your self. It is an impersonation offence. The court has a right to protect the public with onerous conditions that will involve release one day a week to prepare your defence. It is an offence to steal and temper with the possessions of others and to attempt to poison or administer a noxious substance.      The bail is reasonable at 7 hours release per week.

 The question arises whether it is proper or permissible for anyone, individually or collectively, deliberately or accidentally, or directly or indirectly to interfere with the business of the courts of justice or to interfere with or impede the absolute right of access all citizens have to the courts of justice.

10.                     The Chief Justice answered that question emphatically in the negative. He noted that in the courts of British Columbia there were literally thousands of cases set for hearing and disposition on a daily basis. Persons in custody had a right to apply for bail, persons awaiting trial were entitled to have their guilt or innocence determined without delay. The British Columbia Supreme Court's responsibility included the writ of habeas corpus, injunctions to prevent damage or loss of rights, the custody and protection of children, the right of occupation of matrimonial homes, the care and protection of disabled and infirm persons, the filing of documents to prevent the loss of a cause of action and a myriad of other matters vitally important to the ordinary citizen. McEachern C.J.S.C. noted as well the vital importance that the courts be open to the public and to the media: "Justice cannot be found behind closed doors or picket lines." He emphasized that the issue was not the personal importance or dignity of judges, but rather the protection and preservation of the institution of the courts of justice themselves. McEachern C.J.S.C. carefully distinguished picketing in connection with private commercial or industrial settings from picketing which interfered with the free and unrestricted access of all persons to the courts. Picketing which fell into the latter category, he held, constituted a contempt of court and, in his view, the court had not only the jurisdiction but, as well, the duty, to defend and protect its authority and the universal availability of its process. He quoted the words of Bowen J. in Re Johnson (1887), 20 Q.B.D. 68 (C.A.):

  "What is the principle which we have here to apply? It seems to me to be this. The law has armed the High Court of Justice with the power and imposed upon it the duty of preventing (by direct action) and by summary proceedings any attempt to interfere with the administration of justice."

      There cannot be a rule of law without access, otherwise the rule of law is replaced by a rule of men and women who decide who shall and who shall not have access to justice. Counsel for the Attorney General of British Columbia posed this question:

By what authority and on what criteria were the Union leaders deciding who were to be given passes and who were to be denied them?

I cannot believe that the Charter was ever intended to be so easily thwarted.

26.                     I would adopt the following passage from the judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (at p. 406):

                  We have no doubt that the right to access to the courts is under the rule of law one of the foundational pillars protecting the rights and freedoms of our citizens. It is the preservation of that right with which we are concerned in this case. Any action that interferes with such access by any person or groups of persons will rally the court's powers to ensure the citizen of his or her day in court. Here, the action causing interference happens to be picketing. As we have already indicated, interference from whatever source falls into the same category.

 Any person charged with an offence has the right not to be denied reasonable bail with onerous conditions entitling the accused to only 3 hours of release per week to protect the public from recidivism.   Yet potential sureties could have been discouraged from entering the court‑house to satisfy the requirements of a judicial interim release order. 

 In Attorney‑General v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [1974] A.C. 273 (H.L.), at p. 310,   Lord Diplock observed that contempt included "conduct that is calculated to inhibit suitors generally from availing themselves of their constitutional right to have their legal rights and obligations ascertained  . . ." Such conduct affects not only the particular interests of the parties to the case but also the public interest in the due administration of Justice. Similarly, in Golder v. United Kingdom, supra, at pp. 535‑36, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the right of access to the courts as a fundamental and universally recognized principle.

  In Morris v. Crown Office, [1970] 1 All E.R. 1079 (C.A.),  Lord Denning noted at p. 1081:

The phrase `contempt in the face of the court' has a quaint old‑fashioned ring about it; but the importance of it is this: of all the places where law and order must be maintained, it is here in these courts. The course of justice must not be deflected or interfered with. Those who strike at it strike at the very foundations of our society. To maintain law and order, the judges have, and must have, power at once to deal with those who offend against it. It is a great power‑‑a power instantly to imprison a person without trial‑‑but it is a necessary power. So necessary indeed that until recently the judges exercised it without any appeal.

The current Justice Minister in the colony is guilty of contempt in several instances. He is a public shame calling for redress.