Reply to post: Re: It's not the judge's fault

Brit broke anti-terror law by refusing to cough up passwords to cops

Cynic_999 Silver badge

Re: It's not the judge's fault


So what happens if every judge stands up and says - "I refuse to try a case with such an obviously bad law"?


Then that judge would be excused and another judge who *is* prepared to apply the law is substituted. It would be a bad thing because eventually all the reasonable judges would be forced to resign, leaving only the hard-liner establishment lackeys.

The correct and legal way for a judge to show that s/he disagrees with the law would be to find the defendant guilty as required, but then impose a ridiculously lenient sentence - e.g. a conditional or absolute discharge. No doubt the prosecution would then appeal the sentence (which will take a while, by which time the defendant may well have left the country).

However a *jury* can decide that the law is wrong and refuse to convict no matter what the evidence. The only way that could be prevented is to not allow jury trials.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020