Vocal Voices

He must stand trial.

It must be serious for him to give up royal patronages and military titles. No more HRH.

The 46 page verdict by the judge when throwing out his appeal against being sued by Virginia Giuffre suggests he believes that there is quite a story to tell.

He's had it.
Even if he gets off the charges, and I think that is unlikely, his association with a man like Epstein is going to finish him. You don't hang around with someone like that.
Being photographed with your arm around a girl young enough to be your daughter, coming out with excuses like "It can't have been me, I don't sweat"?
I bet he's sweating now, all right.

Unfortunately there are some people you just don't bring to court and even if you do the final result is likely to be unsatisfactory. As the US politicians recently found with Trump as they tried to impeach him.

What we want, or even think is right, won't really matter so much in terms of where this goes.

I'm not expecting a trial any time soon. Even if there is one, I would not expect Andrew to stand.

Can you imagine the Extradition request. HRH owns the courts, they are Crown courts, not Government courts or the courts of the people. Remember Abu Hamza, years and years working the system and HRH says "I don't know why he's not in jail". BAM, in jail and gone to the US.

So you can imagine the extradition request comes in, they take it to herself and the answer comes back. "NO". Job done. Not very satisfactory but there it is.

The trial has been set for dates between September to December this year.

The US will not request extradition as it would be pointless, but what it could do is apply to third countries for provisional arrest if Andrew fails to comply with US law i.e. if he is subpoenaed to attend trial and doesn't. That would effectively pin Andrew to UK soil.

The Queen does not "own" the Courts, nor the judges nor the juries. She does not appoint them and cannot sack them, they are independent and have been since 1701.

She might be the official head of the justice system, all cases taken in court are 'The Queen versus...' but it is only a titular title, parliament makes the laws.

I've just thought - he could settle out of court? It would cost him a fortune though?

She's done it once already. She even agreed never to do it again in writing in a legal document.

Then did!

Workingman wrote:The Queen does not "own" the Courts, nor the judges nor the juries. She does not appoint them and cannot sack them, they are independent and have been since 1701.

I have an issue with "waned" rather than "removed"

The Sovereign's responsibilities regarding the judiciary also waned. Under the Act of Settlement (1701), judges were to hold office during good behaviour rather than by the Sovereign's will.

Judges could be removed by the Sovereign on the advice of Ministers, either following an address presented by both Houses of Parliament or without an address in cases of official misconduct or conviction of a serious offence.

The Act therefore established the judicial independence which exists today.

Just like the rest of the constitution. It is not particularly hard and fast.

He won't be extradited. Anyway, wasn't the alleged offence on UK soil, where 17 isn't underage? PA is a complete sleazebag, and an arrogant nasty piece of work, but did he commit a crime?

I did read it was three times in three different countries.

Suff wrote:She's done it once already. She even agreed never to do it again in writing in a legal document.

Then did!

Links?

I'll give you this: Courts and Tribunal Judiciary.

Judges and Parliament

Both Houses of Parliament have the power to petition The Queen for the removal of a judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal.

This power originates in the 1701 Act of Settlement and is now contained in section 11(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981.

It has never had to be exercised in England and Wales. It has in fact only been exercised once, when Sir Jonah Barrington was removed from office as a judge of the Irish High Court of Admiralty in 1830 for corruption: he misappropriated funds due to litigants. No English High Court or Court of Appeal judge has ever been removed from office under these powers. Circuit and District Judges can be removed by the Lord Chancellor. However, he can only do so if the Lord Chief Justice agrees.

You are confusing protocol with power. The Queen cannot just walk up and say "You, Judge Bungler QC, You are fired" She's not Lord Sugar and this is not The Apprentice.

Kaz, I think Meds is right, and it was a US citizen who had been trafficked, an offence in both countries. I don't think he will be extradited as it could delay the trial for years with all the legal wrangling. They'll just go ahead and he will be found innocent or guilty in his absence.

The damage to him is already done.