This is probably the easiest PROBLEM to address. And, although it is a huge mountain to climb it is still probably the easiest PROBLEM of the lot to address. It is very important they The Laws of Australia ( and probably every other country in the world) revised.
All Laws need to be reviewed on the basis of promoting TheCode and those that cannot be brought into line with TheCode should be modified or removed. Every Law has to be brought into existence based on a need or requirement for the betterment of country or people. If the Law contradicts TheCode then it should be revised or discarded.
I would like to suggest that these are the areas that need to be addressed:
- Every law should have a Plain English PURPOSE included as an introduction to the Law. Plain English Law: Plain English and the Law-republished_forweb.pdf was promulgated in 7th May, 1985 and Last updated: 15/Feb/2020. In this document, they stated : The purpose of a document determines not only its contents but also its format and the language in which it is written. This chapter explains how the purpose of an Act should be taken into account in drafting.AND:
The audience of the Legislation:The audience of legislation consists of four main categories of readers: Members of Parliament, the people affected by the Act, the officials administering the Act, and judges and lawyers. And then they set-about (cannot establish whether this got any further?) translating every Law into Plain English. This process does not resolve our problem in the slightest. It is still written in such a way as to cover every contingency (theoretically anyway) which is then left up to the lawyers to debate, interpret (as they see most necessary to their clients) and convince the judge (or a jury) that their’s is the only valid and truthful viewpoint and may the best man win. In these cases, the most experienced (and hence expensive) man WILL win. By introducing a PURPOSE for each Law the judges can then be left to do their jobs and earn their keep by being given the authority to return all attention back to the court, the accused and the Law instead of the lawyers. “It is my opinion at this time that the learned counsel has strayed sufficiently from the purpose of the Law, in question in this case, to justify that the matter has become technical and relies on semantics. To this end, I will revert to the PURPOSE OF THE LAW and based on my understanding of this case will declare the accused ……. and sentencing will be passed on ……”. Cannot see this one getting very far but it should happen so that Justice can be done. Not a battle of expensive legal contestants. Justice MUST be for everyone. - Stress the PURPOSE OF THE LAW should be pre-pended to every law. A single sentence in Plain English with a maximum number of words allowed (possibly 50-80 max). This would be no small task but it would be an appropriate time to involve non-Dept of Justice (ie. government) staff. There should be a Table of Laws set up with the most critical (and time-consuming ones, as far as the court is concernewd, at the top of the List). These lists are then made available to all Universities throughout the country and final year law students are given the opportunity to choose a Law off the List and prepare a Paper on the structure and content of THE PURPOSE, submitted to the Law Professor for approval and then on to Dept. of Justice for promulgation. This paper can be made compulsory as part of their qualification.
- This should also be done for every new Law that is to be promulgated. For NEW Laws there should also be a process where The Department of Justice can only promulgate a New Law if they identify, nominate and process a redundant, inappropriate or now-meaningless Law for removal from The Law. IMHO this process could eventually establish a situation where Laws will reach a state of balance and practical and “state-of-the-art” applicability. (CULLING Laws)
- While 2. above is being prepared the student should also ensure that any similar or closely related laws are reviewed with the objective that Laws of this nature should be combined where possible to provide one succinct Law to replace many. (SIMPLIFYING LAWS).
- Laws should never be based on any Sexual Orientation, Religion or Creed. This is why TheCode has to be above but acceptable to every Sexual Orientation, Religion or Creed. Put it to the test. Please let me know VERY URGENTLY if it fails on any score. Or is there is some nuance of its application which may be contradictory or misinformative or illogical.
Example of TheCode in a simple litigation case :
Consider America’s favorite pastime in the Courts. Litigation. Mrs. Bloggs goes to Court with a suitably qualified and experienced lawyer. Probably even so experienced that he/she is on a No-Win No-Pay basis.
Mrs. Bloggs: Here I am walking down the sidewalk at ….. and …. and the next minute I am hospital for 5 weeks because there was a step on the pavement. Please will you award me $100,000 damages, payable by the Council, for not keeping the pavement in a safe condition.
Lawyer: Earns their keep by bending the judge’s ear on 14 precedents which have been paid out in the past.
Judge: (Applying TheCode to the appropriate Law in question.) Did you see this step in the pavement Mrs. Bloggs?
Whichever way Mrs. Bloggs answers.
Judge: Well Mrs. Bloggs do you not agree that it is your own responsibility to properly observe where you are walking? It is your own responsibility to ensure that you properly step over an obstacle in your path. There is a possibility that the step was as a result of temperature changes overnight and was thus totally beyond the control of the council. Case dismissed. The court will collect court costs from the plaintiff for wasting the court’s time on such a trivial issue.
Council did not even have to have their lawyer present.
Lawyer figures out that Responsibility comes before RIGHTS.
KISS above all else, See ya soon,
Jude