Thread: Why Russia loves Putin

Yes, yes, I've read them.
All of that sounds pretty good. I just question judge's impartiality when his decision concerns politics. I can assume that he makes his decisions basing on his own free will but were there any cases in which courts had gone against the government when their decisions could influence the international politics and British interests abroad?
There must have been at least one such case in the history otherwise one can suppose that the British government has always been "holy" and haven't done anything wrong.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Yes, yes, I've read them.
All of that sounds pretty good. I just question judge's impartiality when his decision concerns politics. I can assume that he makes his decisions basing on his own free will but were there any cases in which courts had gone against the government when their decisions could influence the international politics and British interests abroad?

The courts regularly go against what the government wishes, but that is because the government's position isn't a factor in the decision. In fact, by convention, the government often doesn't even state its view on any given case until after the verdict is given.

It is of course different when the government itself is either the defendent in a case, or has challenged the legality of a court's decision, or the court's interpretation of a law. In those cases the case would eventually go to the House of Lords (which acts as the highest court), but those cases are rare and are concerned with general points of law rather than specific cases.

Just to clarify. British judges are not appointed by the government, they cannot be dismissed or reprimanded by the government, their pay and conditions are not set by the government. And since any given judge can easily hold his position throughout the tenure of many governments, formed by different political parties, so there's no question of loyalty to one of them either.

Judges cannot make new laws or alter existing ones, they can only implement existing laws. The government, on the other hand, can only make and alter laws, they have no say in how they are implemented.

There must have been at least one such case in the history otherwise one can suppose that the British government has always been "holy" and haven't done anything wrong.

One such case of what? Your question doesn't mean anything. It is not that they are all honest and squeeky-clean, it is that there is simply no mechanism by which a government can directly influence a court decision in that way.

That does not mean that the government doesn't routinely change laws in response to court decisions it doesn't like. It does that regularly. That is after the fact though, and so cannot be used to influence an individual case.

It also doesn't mean that we have no bad laws. We do, lots of them, and one of them is what Berezovsky's lawyers used to hide behind: the EU Human Rights Act. The government may not like it, even the judge in question may not like it, but so long as it is on the legal books, the courts have to abide by it, end of story. The only way anyone could change it would be to repeal the Act, but that would have consequences way beyond a couple of Russian gangsters.

Or that we have no bad judges who make bad decisions. We do, lots of them. Some of them are so old and out of touch you wouldn't believe some of the nonsense they come out with. It's their own nonsense though, and generally speaking the Bar Council and Law Society (sort of lawyer's and QC's proffessional associations who regulate judges) is pretty good at slapping any of them who do anything too ridiculous.

Yes, the fact is it is a European Union law which is preventing Berezovski's return to Russia, not a British one. What is the political gain Britain has on keeping him here anyway. Just to piss the Kremlin off a bit?

Originally Posted by scotcher

One such case of what? Your question doesn't mean anything. It is not that they are all honest and squeeky-clean, it is that there is simply no mechanism by which a government can directly influence a court decision in that way.

Well I didn't say about mechanism. I thing there bound to be some unofficial methods of influence and persuasion. I'm not talking of the corruption or bribes...say the government's point of view on the matter is not a secret and I really doubt that the government cannot at least try some kind of a trick.
Moreover, I think that the labyrinths of the British law system make it possible to issue almost any decision upon any case and lawyers have means of manipulating the court into one decision or another.

Originally Posted by TATY

Yes, the fact is it is a European Union law which is preventing Berezovski's return to Russia, not a British one. What is the political gain Britain has on keeping him here anyway. Just to piss the Kremlin off a bit?

This too, among other things. Mainly just not to create a precedent. As far as I know the british immigration law is very tolerant to "political refugees". Berezovsky is not a dissident, whom he pretends to be, but a criminal.

Yes, independent judiciary in the British (ie common law) system is probably the single hardest element of these societies for a typical ex-Soviet person to comprehend. I did not believe that this were even theoretically possible, lots of people still don't. And one does not even have to go to places Russia for comparisons -- simply getting across the channel would place one in quite a different environment, from what I heard.

It does have many shortcomings, but yet, yes, it works, and yes, it is that independent. Although I do not expect any Russian here to really believe it -- it just runs too much in contrary to our experience. (although, think for a second about why, for example, is the Bush administration in the US taking such great effort to go around it in so many high-profile and reputation-damaging cases related to the "war on terror" -- e.g. would one even need to argue that it is necessary to conduct certain wiretaps without judicial approval if it were that easy to find a judge who would rubberstamp such decisions for the sake of "national security and public benefit"? Can you imagine such a public discussion in Russia?).

In relatively simple cases common law also works much faster than a typical civil law system -- I've seen a paper where they studied how much time common civil cases (like eviction of a non-paying tenant) take to resolve in different countries, and the difference was quite striking. I suspect it gets worse (and much more expensive) as the cases become more complicated though.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Well I didn't say about mechanism. I thing there bound to be some unofficial methods of influence and persuasion. I'm not talking of the corruption or bribes...say the government's point of view on the matter is not a secret and I really doubt that the government cannot at least try some kind of a trick.

What tricks are possible? What do you think they have over the judges? What loyalty do you think the judges owe to the serving government of the day, a government that might be gone tomorrow or next week? Why do you think a judges would give a damn about the government's opinion on anything? You don't mean patriotism surely?

At the very most, a senior government official might be able to have a 'quiet word' with a serving judge, but a) this would at least break the ministerial code of conduct, which would be political suicide, at most be actually illegal and so probably not worth it either way, and b) the judge would still have to act within the confines of the law anyway, since his judgement would be torn apart by the defense at the inevitable appeal.

Other than that, the only way the British government can get him extradited is to take the case back to the high court themselves, but unless they could convince the judge that the facts are now somehow different to what they were originally, or unless berezovsky himself had done something in the meantime to breach the conditions under which he was granted asylum in the first place (I think he's come pretty close a couple of times, personally, but I'm not the CPS ), or unless the law has been changed in the meantime, it would have the same end result, and they would end up looking stupid.

But in any event, that is looking at things back-to-front. The British government not being willing to interfere in a judicial matter is not the same as the British government deciding the outcome in the first place, which is the charge I keep reading not only here, but on Russian radio stations and in Russian newspapers time and again.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Moreover, I think that the labyrinths of the British law system make it possible to issue almost any decision upon any case and lawyers have means of manipulating the court into one decision or another.

Laberynthine it may be, but there are lawyers on both sides, and you can bet your right arm the one defending Berezovsky earns a lot more than the one acting for the CPS.

That is the probably the biggest complaint most people have with the British justice system at present: on balance, it tends to favour the defendent far too much (especially the human rights act), which is what Berezovsky was in this case.

Originally Posted by Ramil

This too, among other things.

That says more about the state of your government than it says about the British one.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Mainly just not to create a precedent. As far as I know the british immigration law is very tolerant to "political refugees". Berezovsky is not a dissident, whom he pretends to be, but a criminal.

Everybody knows that he is a criminal. I bet the judges that sat on his case know that. It doesn't alter the fact that it would be illegal under current British law (any EU law that Britain ratifies automatically becomes British law) to extradite him.

That's what "the rule of law" means. It is above government. You may be used to the law being a bit more maleable to those in power, but them's the facts.

Interestingly, there is one person who does have the power to directly influence the case, or sack/ replace/ instruct a judge, or whatever. The Queen

Originally Posted by scotcher

What tricks are possible? What do you think they have over the judges? What loyalty do you think the judges owe to the serving government of the day, a government that might be gone tomorrow or next week? Why do you think a judges would give a damn about the government's opinion on anything? You don't mean patriotism surely?

Have they tried blackmail yet? It usually helps.

Interestingly, there is one person who does have the power to directly influence the case, or sack/ replace/ instruct a judge, or whatever. The Queen

We'll have Putin to send her a poscard saying something nice then

анекдот на тему:

Референдум.
Вопрос: Не против ли вы того чтобы Путин снова был президентом?
1) Да, не против.
2) Нет, не против.

Thanks Scotcher, TATY and laxxy. I've been trying to tell our honorable forum members that the judges are independent, but they refused to believe me. At least you guys know more about the process than me.

Hopefully the Russians realize that not all judicial systems have to be biased.

Ramil, do you really believe that a random judge in Britian cares whether the government wants Berezovsky extradited or not? Besides, give me a good reason why the government would want to prevent the extridation in the first place... Surely not "to piss off Putin" ?

Мне кажется решения насчет лиц такого масштаба как Березовский принимаются на уровне правительства.

Originally Posted by mishau_

Мне кажется решения насчет лиц такого масштаба как Березовский принимаются на уровне правительства.

Это здесь от "масштабная фигура", там - очередной чудак на букву М из России.

Talking of extraditions, did you know the Russian Constitution forbids the extradition of its citizens from Russia?

Russian citizens. Russia will extradict foreigners. Moreover, as far as I know, the international treaties take precedence over the constitution.

Originally Posted by mishau_

Мне кажется решения насчет лиц такого масштаба как Березовский принимаются на уровне правительства.

Тебе кажется, но это вовсе не так.

[quote=kalinka_vinnie]

Originally Posted by "mishau_":1j4fhtlb

Мне кажется решения насчет лиц такого масштаба как Березовский принимаются на уровне правительства.

Тебе кажется, но это вовсе не так. [/quote:1j4fhtlb]
Мне кажется, ты работаешь в британском правительстве, коли у тебя такая уверенность, нет?

нет. но зато у меня здравый ум

Ну, это у всех у нас ума палаты.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

нет. но зато у меня здравый ум

"У меня здравый ум" - мне почему-то не нравится это выражение. Но я не уверена, может быть, и можно так сказать.
"Ума палаты" - тоже не нравится, никогда не слышала это выражение во множественное числе.
Оля!

Я, имярек, находясь в здравом уме и трезвой памяти...

Стандартная формулировка. Часто встречается в завещаниях и других нотариальных документах.

Ума палата.
Есть такое выражение. Напр. "У него ума палата" (he's very clever) но никогда не встречал во множ. числе. Скорее всего, не употребляется.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Я, имярек, находясь в здравом уме и трезвой памяти...

Стандартная формулировка. Часто встречается в завещаниях и других нотариальных документах.

"Я, имярек, находясь в здравом уме и трезвой памяти..." - в такой форме меня ничего не смущает.