Rule of Law: Common law backward and inferior?

[KungFuLee]

Yes

I will ask you the same question I ask him, which he still have not answer me in this regard.

How do you define what is "inferior" and what is "superior"

Since you said yes, you must know the definition, which is a question which seen thousand if not millions of legal profession debate to death yet still have not have a consensuses.

Common law was created and brought to HK by the British imperialist power. Why is this law still there ? like any other commonwealth judges, HK judges still serve their colonial masters in London. Common law is a symbol of British imperialism. Get rid of it and create fresh pro people laws.

lol, how HK Judge still serve the Commonwealth?

And by saying Common Law is the legacy of British Imperial Power, that show people exactly how much you know about Common Law. Which is nothing.

Common Law is the legacy of Norman Conquest in early 1000s. Which along with everything, (Including English Language itself) was heavily influence with Norman tribe (A combination of French and German), prior to Norman Conquest, British Legal system before Norman Conquest is basically Kings Law by Decree. Which is basically, just what the King said.

Common Law have evolved into today's legal system is because most of the British influence today (Which is in turn, Norman or Franco-Germanic influence) as to implemented and adopted to serve their community.

There are no law are better or worse than the other, just because Chinese use one system (by the way, Chinese Legal system are not the same Civil Law used in Europe, just letting you know) does not make it better or worse, if Hong Kong uses Civil Law, then the legal system will break because Judge in Hong Kong do not hold as much power as Judges in China, on the other hand, China cannot ever use Common Law system because China have central power.

 

[Song Hong]

HK people glorify savage tribes with bombastic terms. Normans were Viking babarians with very low civilizations and lot of wickedness -- very far lower than contemporary China.

After killing, raping, looting and subsequently subduing England, the chief gangster put one of his lackey to be in charge of deliberating on conflicts between parties. That was the common law origin, far more inferior and backward than Justice Bao.

I will ask you the same question I ask him, which he still have not answer me in this regard.

How do you define what is "inferior" and what is "superior"

Since you said yes, you must know the definition, which is a question which seen thousand if not millions of legal profession debate to death yet still have not have a consensuses.



lol, how HK Judge still serve the Commonwealth?

And by saying Common Law is the legacy of British Imperial Power, that show people exactly how much you know about Common Law. Which is nothing.

Common Law is the legacy of Norman Conquest in early 1000s. Which along with everything, (Including English Language itself) was heavily influence with Norman tribe (A combination of French and German), prior to Norman Conquest, British Legal system before Norman Conquest is basically Kings Law by Decree. Which is basically, just what the King said.

Common Law have evolved into today's legal system is because most of the British influence today (Which is in turn, Norman or Franco-Germanic influence) as to implemented and adopted to serve their community.

There are no law are better or worse than the other, just because Chinese use one system (by the way, Chinese Legal system are not the same Civil Law used in Europe, just letting you know) does not make it better or worse, if Hong Kong uses Civil Law, then the legal system will break because Judge in Hong Kong do not hold as much power as Judges in China, on the other hand, China cannot ever use Common Law system because China have central power.

 

[KungFuLee]

HK people glorify savage tribes with bombastic terms. Normans were Viking babarians with very low civilizations and lot of wickedness -- very far lower than contemporary China.

After killing, raping, looting and subsequently subduing England, the chief gangster put one of his lackey to be in charge of deliberating on conflicts between parties. That was the common law origin, far more inferior and backward than Justice Bao.

lol, whatever you say.....

Common Law is not law, its salvages, it's a lot less fair than one "Judge" rules the law....How anyone can beat this logic? LOL

Just letting you know, you have completely destroyed your own thread, but as far as I understand, you never were trying to discuss this issue with any kind of seriousness to begin with, and very apparent that you have no idea on how different legal system works.

 

[Song Hong]

It was widely acknowledge that William the Conqueror brought much destruction to England and Normans are uncivilized.

How can their legal framework be advance?

This is how we get so much problem in HK -- that is judges are not unlike time of corrupt magistrate in ancient China. They feel they can play God. They demand total independence as if they are God.

They do not play the game. They rebel against their superior authorities and law making bodies.

Basically they are gangsters who break the law.

Basically, Napoleonic code was designed to cure the illness of common law.

lol, whatever you say.....

Common Law is not law, its salvages, it's a lot less fair than one "Judge" rules the law....How anyone can beat this logic? LOL

Just letting you know, you have completely destroyed your own thread, but as far as I understand, you never were trying to discuss this issue with any kind of seriousness to begin with, and very apparent that you have no idea on how different legal system works.

 

[KungFuLee]

It was widely acknowledge that William the Conqueror brought much destruction to England and Normans are uncivilized.

How can their legal framework be advance?

This is how we get so much problem in HK -- that is judges are not unlike time of corrupt magistrate in ancient China. They feel they can play God. They demand total independence as if they are God.

They do not play the game. They rebel against their superior authorities and law making bodies.

Basically they are gangsters who break the law.

Basically, Napoleonic code was designed to cure the illness of common law.

Law is not defined by people, it was defined FOR people. If you say "Since whoever make this law is whoever, this is barbaric" which is honestly quite stupid thing to say, if so, EVEYRTHING we have inherit would be barbaric, because we are all descent from Barbarian. That is before something called "Civilization"

While you know nothing about legal system and how it work and you live in your dream world, I am not going to comment on this anymore, well, not on you anyway.

 

[Song Hong]

In HK, Philip Dykes says not convicting criminals is rule of law.

**********************

The head of one of Hong Kong’s top legal bodies has called for “public interest” to be taken into account when prosecutors decide whether to bring a case to court, instead of doing so based just on sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
Philip Dykes SC, chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, said it would be an “incorrect understanding” of the rule of law otherwise.

“However, the Prosecution Code published by the Department of Justice reminds us that a decision to prosecute is not made just because police have enough evidence to go to court and secure a conviction,” Dykes added.

https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3046075/say-yes-leniency-no-amnesty

Law is not defined by people, it was defined FOR people. If you say "Since whoever make this law is whoever, this is barbaric" which is honestly quite stupid thing to say, if so, EVEYRTHING we have inherit would be barbaric, because we are all descent from Barbarian. That is before something called "Civilization"

While you know nothing about legal system and how it work and you live in your dream world, I am not going to comment on this anymore, well, not on you anyway.

 

[KungFuLee]

In HK, Philip Dykes says not convicting criminals is rule of law.

**********************

The head of one of Hong Kong’s top legal bodies has called for “public interest” to be taken into account when prosecutors decide whether to bring a case to court, instead of doing so based just on sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
Philip Dykes SC, chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, said it would be an “incorrect understanding” of the rule of law otherwise.

“However, the Prosecution Code published by the Department of Justice reminds us that a decision to prosecute is not made just because police have enough evidence to go to court and secure a conviction,” Dykes added.

https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3046075/say-yes-leniency-no-amnesty

Tell me what is the pillar of Common Law and what is the pillar of Civil Law and how both were different, then I will resume comment on your post, in the mean time.

Adios.

 

[Song Hong]

The primary contrast between the two systems is the role of written decisions and precedent.

In common law jurisdictions, nearly every case that presents a bona fide disagreement on the law is resolved in a written opinion. In contrast, civil law decisions typically do not include explanatory opinions.

In common law systems, a single decided case is binding law to the same extent as statute or regulation, under the principle of stare decisis. In contrast, in civil law systems, individual decisions have only advisory, not binding effect. In civil law systems, case law only acquires weight when a long series of cases use consistent reasoning, called jurisprudence constante. Civil law lawyers consult case law to obtain their best prediction of how a court will rule, but comparatively, civil law judges are less bound to follow it.

For that reason, statutes in civil law systems are more comprehensive, detailed, and continuously updated, covering all matters capable of being brought before a court.

Tell me what is the pillar of Common Law and what is the pillar of Civil Law and how both were different, then I will resume comment on your post, in the mean time.

Adios.

 

[KungFuLee]

The primary contrast between the two systems is the role of written decisions and precedent.

In common law jurisdictions, nearly every case that presents a bona fide disagreement on the law is resolved in a written opinion. In contrast, civil law decisions typically do not include explanatory opinions.

In common law systems, a single decided case is binding law to the same extent as statute or regulation, under the principle of stare decisis. In contrast, in civil law systems, individual decisions have only advisory, not binding effect. In civil law systems, case law only acquires weight when a long series of cases use consistent reasoning, called jurisprudence constante. Civil law lawyers consult case law to obtain their best prediction of how a court will rule, but comparatively, civil law judges are less bound to follow it.

For that reason, statutes in civil law systems are more comprehensive, detailed, and continuously updated, covering all matters capable of being brought before a court.

That show you know how to use google. by typing "The difference between Common Law and Civil Law"

However, if you read my question again, I did not ask for the definition of the difference, I have already mentioned it in previous post, my question is. "What is the pillar of Common Law and What is the pillar of Civil Law and how both are different?"

 

[Song Hong]

Hong Kong weird judge wigs make me nausea. USA and Singapore court have long get rid of these clown costume.

 

[Song Hong]

There was no rule of law in Hong Kong before 1997. She is similar to India. China has given Hong Kong rule of law under 1C2S.


https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hkedition/2017-07/01/content_29955754.htm

 

[Song Hong]

China humiliated HK judges. Judges almost resigned en masse, but unfortunately they thick-skinly stayed.

Else it would be good riddance.


https://www.scmp.com/article/978391/all-citys-top-judges-considered-quitting

Hong Kong came close to a crisis in 1999 when all five judges of the top court considered resigning after their right-of-abode ruling was overturned by Beijing, according to a US diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks. Mr Justice Kemal Bokhary (pictured) told the US consulate in 2007 that he and other four judges of the Court of Final Appeal 'seriously considered resignation' after the interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress Standing Committee in June 1999, which effectively overruled the ruling of the city's top court. Bokhary said they 'decided not to do so because 'you can only do that once'', according to the confidential cable dated August 28, 2007, sent by then US consul general James Cunningham to the State Department.

In the ruling on January 29, 1999, the top court decided that mainland children born before their parents became Hong Kong permanent residents were entitled to right of abode in the city.
The unanimous ruling also gave Hong Kong's courts the power to contradict decisions made by the National People's Congress if those decisions were inconsistent with the Basic Law. It placed restrictions on the circumstances in which cases could be considered by the mainland legislature and ensured that the importance of human rights would be paramount when considering the Basic Law.

Beijing regarded the CFA's ruling as a challenge to its power and authority.
The NPC Standing Committee subsequently overturned the ruling in an interpretation of the Basic Law. The committee said the court had been wrong not to ask it for an interpretation of the Basic Law before passing the judgment.

According to another cable, dated May 4, 2006, the Court of Final Appeal judge believed former secretary of justice Elsie Leung Oi-sie had been an 'unsung heroine' of Hong Kong during her tenure. 'Bokhary believed that Leung had 'talked them [the PRC government] out of gross excesses' with regard to Hong Kong policy on multiple occasions,' the cable said.