The need for a higher Tribunal

• The need for a higher Tribunal
  Posted by Hippocrates on 31 Jan, 2025 12:08
• Having discussed this with cp8759, how can we achieve this?
  
  My reasons:
  
  1. Reviews should be conducted by higher adjudicators who are not peers.
  2. It is really difficult at present even to secure a second review though I have done so at the TPT*
  2. If set up, a higher tribunal would save much expense etc of seeking a Judicial Review.
  
  * https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iz73a1Rv3Dov2E_2wsYGGbKtVgtRE6dR/view
• 
  
• #1 Reply
  Posted by andy_foster on 31 Jan, 2025 12:48
• “O God and Heavenly Father, grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed, courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen.”
  
  Wisdom. Serenity.
• 
  
• #2 Reply
  Posted by Southpaw82 on 31 Jan, 2025 13:16
• Quote from: Hippocrates on 31 Jan, 2025 12:08

  1. Reviews should be conducted by higher adjudicators who are not peers.
  

  
  So you say, but that is not how it works in the wider judicial system, particularly tribunals. What you want is something akin to the First Tier Tribunal/Upper Tribunal system that exists almost uniformly elsewhere. Look at the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
• 
  
• #3 Reply
  Posted by Hippocrates on 31 Jan, 2025 14:14
• Quote from: andy_foster on 31 Jan, 2025 12:48

  “O God and Heavenly Father, grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed, courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen.”
  
  Wisdom. Serenity.
  

  
  I do believe it can be changed.    And I do not intend to injure my knees in the process. 
• 
  
• #4 Reply
  Posted by mickR on 31 Jan, 2025 23:28
• Quote from: Hippocrates on 31 Jan, 2025 14:14

  Quote from: andy_foster on 31 Jan, 2025 12:48

  “O God and Heavenly Father, grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed, courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the one from the other through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen.”
  
  Wisdom. Serenity.
  

  
  I do believe it can be changed.    And I do not intend to injure my knees in the process. 
  

        a. I reading to much into that? 
• 
  
• #5 Reply
  Posted by andy_foster on 01 Feb, 2025 01:54
• Mick, you are a very, very bad man
• 
  
• #6 Reply
  Posted by mickR on 01 Feb, 2025 14:13
• 
• 
  
• #7 Reply
  Posted by Hippocrates on 19 Feb, 2025 21:03
• I raised this with Mr Chan on Monday.
• 
  
• #8 Reply
  Posted by John U.K. on 20 Feb, 2025 07:51
• Quote from: Hippocrates on 19 Feb, 2025 21:03

  I raised this with Mr Chan on Monday.
  

  
  And the outcome was . . . ?
• 
  
• #9 Reply
  Posted by Hippocrates on 20 Feb, 2025 10:17
• @John U.K. General chat about Scotland, High Court and Court of Appeal. One adjudicator not binding on another, prejudice, Jackson J etc. and Soneji.  Not in the hearing room, of course.
  
  And this, of which I was kindly given a hard copy!: 
  
  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1huH4PnDmXKAdMmlhvjU_F5YHaI56JX51/view
  
  Re the linked case: it appears that two Adjudicators have now said that, although it is not binding, it is persuasive. Not appears, it was said to me and to mrmustard on separate occasions - Monday and Wednesday respectively. This may well cause problems re prejudice arguments and website issues in future.
•