Court operations are defined by Parliament Legislation, funded by Consolidated Revenue and supposedly independent of the other two arms of Government. (Legislative & Executive) All Judicial Courts 'Authority of Power' come from 'Legislation' and the 'Constitution(s)'. Guided by 'Legislation', 'Constitution(s)' and 'Case Law' to be in alignment with 'Common Law'.
This intertwined bureaucratic complex set of rules & guides, muddies the Court's ability to serve 'the people' with lawful equity. The complexity of all the legislation, 800 plus years of 'Case Law' and the misunderstanding of what is 'Common Law'; with how 'Justice' is to be obtained is daunting.
Court 'Common Law' codifies everything, as each case is unique, and how the law is applied in each case, based on precedent, merit and court's opinion or explanation of judgement. This creates more 'Case Law', what the Courts mistakenly call 'Common Law', because it is 'common for them' to reference. As it is written down, good for consistency and bad, as each Case can end up with exemptions, exceptions and get out of remedy clauses.
Citing 'simular circumstances' or 'findings' or 'Judge's Opinion' from past cases on which a court and the accused may claim, or reject, as set out, or sometimes, as not set out, in the documented evidence presented. Where any precedent will 'bind the Judge' to follow a previous court outcome, many years past or recent, depending upon the type of 'law' being administrated; Criminal, Civil, Military and how it is presented in open or closed court.
Precedent allows the Judge(s) to alleviate themselves of 'politically sensitive' rulings by citing past cases or deliberately erring for an 'appeal court' to sort out later. While the accused sits in Gaol or awaits a re-trial, Months to Years later. Justice is suppose to be done in a timely manner. Judicial Courts are suppose to be dealing with 'Justice' and 'Law' - Political ideology or dogma is not part of LAW, refering to the 'Separation of Powers''. Yet, you will find Judges are influence by the Political Class in determining the merits of a case they preside over, albeit subtly. Odd how Lawyers become Politicians, serving the people or are they serving their profession?.
The Court's 'Common Law' is not always based on rational, logical or verifyable facts, but by 'permissible pleas', 'allowable facts' and 'rigid legal formats', strictly adhering to the 'letter of the law'; but not always the 'spirit of the law'.
Ref. David McBride, closed court, 'Star Chambered' in to a 'guilty plea' for telling the truth, but he was denied the same truth as his defense and gaoled for 5 years.
Star Chambers were abolished in 1641, but the Military still use them more and more. Authorities use courts to cover up the 'embarrassment of being caught' out, doing wrong, like war crimes, assist allies with genocide or ethnic cleansing or allsorts of corruption. All funded and done in the 'name of the People', but the People must never find out, as war crimes are terrorism. International & National Law state funding terrorism, 'knowingly or not' is illegal and punishable by lengthy imprisonment.
Corporations or People, paying their taxes to Governments suspected of such crimes are equally guilty of the terrorism offences. (Look it up yourself, 'funding terrorism' into any search engine...)
Courts: Deliberately bureaucratic, intimidating, ceremonial, adversarial, time consuming and complex for all parties envolved. Where conflicting Oaths to perform court duties may arise, e.g. Oath to 'the law' and their Oath to the 'Bar Guild'. Expensive legal specialists may represent the warring clients and those specialists present their client's case in a legal adversarial format and delivered in a manner of legal language the general public find hard to follow or understand.
With 800 plus years and 1000's of law Courts worldwide, 'Case Law' should have covered 99% of everything by now, but sadly no; it is all buried in text books of 'Case Law', so trawling all the book volumes to match your client's case can be expensive, daunting, time consuming for doubtful outcome.
Types of 'Court Common Law' is fragmented into two; most are 'Court Common Law' or in latin 'Stare Decisis' meaning 'to stand by things', which is 'Case Law' and are binding on judges to follow past justice outcomes. The lesser type is 'Civil Law' also based on 'codes and statutes', defines the judicial process but is non-binding on judges for justice outcomes, even when facts are simular.
Justice can be further obscured when the Judge(s) make their ruling based on law and guided by any past cases or precedents. Judges express their opinion, which is not law, but explains the judges rationale or thinking to their finding(s). Helpful, but such things should be publically available and often are, but burried in legal text books, nowadays in online databases, if you know where to look.
Cut and Paste, to present your case, in a legal format the court likes, however you MUST understand those documents and know how to use, to avoid more legal expenses and counter productive outcomes. When sure your legal arguement make sense, is rational, logical and legal, you could ask for a 'Summary Judgement', based on all this written knowledge.
If the other side(s) agrees, your case can be settled out of court, instead of spending days in a court room with expensive legal specialists. It is all part of the 'war games' the legals play, spending your time, your money, on expected and unexpected outcomes. Emotions, usually drive cases to go to court, using the process as punishment or as vengeance, an unlawful abused but hard to prove or punish.
e.g. Australian Journlist Julian Assange 2014-2024+, imprisoned in the UK, without charge for many years, fighting extradition from the UK to USA by US Military for trial and execution.
Australian Parliament, impotent to persuade its 'UK & US allies' to drop this unlawful case. US Military now more like an occupier in Australia as there are cases in Australia, holding Australian citizens, without charge, for US Military prosecution.
i.e. 2022 Daniel Duggan, Australian, former US marine accused of wrongdoing, teaching Chinese citizens how to fly, over a decade ago in South Africa and he declined a CIA requested to spy on his clients. Legal process abused by the CIA as payback for non-compliance and Australia's Attorney General signs the extradition order, in fear, rewarded or coerced, to overide Australian Law.
The USA accuses Chinese Companies for spying for the CCP on request and here is a good example of the kettle calling the pot black. Note: China, Australia's largest two-way trading partner 2022-23 ~ $326.9 Billion. (218.8B out 108.1B in) USA, Australia trade 2022-23 ~ $77.1 Billion. (52B out 25B in)
If what was legal over a decade ago, can be declared illegal today, should you be paying taxes to your Government? Just about all Governments have been involved in international crimes and 'the People' keep funding them; albeit under threat of fiscal confiscation by their respective tax department. There is a differnce between 'Wilfully' and 'Garnishee Ordered' of funds, the later is by force; akin to Maffia Style Protection.
Resentment and Resistence to US hegemony is on the rise, with calls for all US bases to be closed on Australian soil... Australian Politicians whisper such but wont speak out for fear of retribution.
