Australian law was: Re: Skype access cancelled for Debian versions before 7
On Monday 04 August 2014 09:44:31 Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> I wonder about Kirby myself. To me, it shouldn't be the court deciding
> a matter of fact via *their* opinion. If the law says "xa" and the
> opinion says "xb" ... then it is up to the parliament to correct the
> situation if it is faulty, not the courts to decide "xb" instead of the
> letter of the law that is "xa". I could never understand how the courts
> could get away with that. Judges should not be judge and jury as they
> often are, they should only rely on the facts, 100% facts of the law,
> not their opinion to make a judgement against the facts and Kirby seems
> to be a great offender of my view of what is required here.
Australia uses English Law, i.e. Common Law. This paragraph is therefore, I'm
afraid, simply wrong. You are recognising Statute Law, and ignoring Common
Law. Common Law is at least as important, and goes back a lot further. It
*is* the courts that decide and not Parliament. Even with Statute Law, it is
the courts which decide what it means and how it is to be applied.
One can argue that there is a lot wrong with English Law. I frequently do.
But it is, as a matter of fact, much as you or I or anyone else may dislike
it, the courts that decide the facts and not Parliament. A barrister can
give an opinion. A judge decides the facts (as they stand in law, which may
bear very little resemblance to the real world).
"The common law system, as developed in the United Kingdom, forms the basis of
Australian jurisprudence."
http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/legal_system.html
Lisi
Reply to: