Definitions regarding the Legal Process

Advocates Immunity [ai]

The 'immunity' is immunity from prosecution. Anyone who works as an advocate, meaning barristers usually, but even solicitors, who advocates for clients, is immune from prosecution for anything they do that is relatted to their action or role as an advocate. This is widely and expansively interpreted. This can include anything even slightly related to the appearance in court. Some barristers may think it is being smart to hide behind this immunity to cheat his own clients, say to support his political ideology, or to act to initiate a proceeding which has no remote possibility of success but only to delay and cost the defendant. This is even so when a court holds that such was the case and orders that the "wasted costs" be paid by the instructing solicitors, who would have no doubt been advised by the barrister/advocate of the remore chance of successful litigation, apart form the "success of delay".
[go to HAIG REPORT home frames]

Judge's immunity [ji]

The 'immunity' is immunity from prosecution. Judges cannot be prosecuted for anything they do related to their being a judge. All that can occur is that they can be removed from office, but only on address by both houses of parliament, or so the story goes, what ever that means in practice. In practice, judges are appointed by the executive of government, usually because they have shown as barristers, that they are prepared to support that party's ideology, even if that means being crooked, as long as the strong and powerful do not suffer. With a duality of polarised political parties, there is a mutual standoff. I will leave yours alone if you leave mine alone.

A Victorian [in Australia] Goverment site lists Judicial Immunity [related to magistrates] as: "Judicial immunity is a protection given to members of the judiciary whereby they cannot be sued for actions that are performed in their judicial capacity. Magistrates can therefore make the best decisions on the cases before them, without interference or fear of adverse consequences to themselves.
When judicial decisions do result in negative or unfair consequences, there are appeal and review rights to deal with the matter." [Oh yeah: and the appeal judges have JI too, apart from putting the "victim of the judiciary" to the effort and expense and risk, of appeal.] That Victorian Government site states in the prior paragraph: "There are a number of mechanisms in place that help to protect Magistrates’ independence, such as permanent tenure, salary protection and judicial immunity." {More likely to protect judges when they make decisions based on their prejudices. It is best for them if their prejudice is based on a popular political ideology; increases likelihood of promotion to a higher court.
[go to HAIG REPORT home frames]

Fiduciary duty [fd]

When one person, for example the solicitor or trustee, called the fiduciary, has a fiduciary duty to another, say the client or beneficiary respectively, the fiduciary is to work actively for the benefit and betterment of the latter. This Fiduciary Duty is far more onerous for the Fiduciary than is the Duty of Care when imposed upon a person. The Duty of Care is just to exercise reasonable care when in a position to cause harm to another; that is not to be negligent. It is even more onerous than is the duty to extend Natural Justice aka Due Process aka Procedural Fairness. The benefit and betterment of the client or beneficiary may be at the cost to or expense of another party.
[go to HAIG REPORT home frames]

Inherent jurisdiction [ij]

Inherent derives from the verb 'inhere' meaning to stick, or remain firm in something. It means existing in or inseparable from something else. Courts have ij to control their internal functions. Most relevantly this relates to disciplining lawyers who are admitted to that court.
[go to HAIG REPORT home frames]

Conflict of Duty and Duty [codad]

The duties referred to here are fiduciary duties to clients. A solicitor/lawyer would expect to have numerous clients. The solicitor cannot agree to represent another new client when that new client has interests which, if satisfied, would result in loss to one of the existing clients of the solicitor, or vice versa, a gain by one of his existing clients would mean a loss to that potentially new client. Were he to accept that new client then he would have a conflict of the fiduciary duty he owed to the new client and the fiduciary duty he owed to his existing client. The classic case of codad occurs when a client brings along his parents or his parents in law to have their will prepared by the existing client's solicitor. No loss by either client or parents/parents-in-law need be proved nor even occur. Codad is a serious breach of Professional Standards. It is either Professional Misconduct or more seriously, Unprofessional Conduct. In either case the solicitor/lawyer should be struck off the roll of practicising lawyers and should no longer be a member of that Supreme Court. In the case of the latter, that would be permanently.
[go to HAIG REPORT home frames]

Legal professional privilege [lpp] aka client privilege

Legal professional privilege [lpp] protects confidential communications between a lawyer and his or her client made for the dominant purpose of -
* seeking or giving legal advice or professional legal assistance; or
* use, or obtaining material for use, in legal proceedings that had commenced, or were reasonably anticipated, at the time of the relevant communication.
Lpp is the right of the client and it can be waived only by the client, intentionally or unintentionally.
Legal professional privilege also protects confidential communications between the client or the client’s lawyers (including communications through employees or agents) and third parties, made for the dominant purpose of use, or obtaining material for use, in legal proceedings that had commenced, or were reasonably anticipated, at the time of the relevant communication.

Statute v Regulation.

The Regulation to a Statute is for the purpose of assisting in the implementation of THAT STATUTE. MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT IS SUBISDIARY TO THAT STATUTE. Public servants cannot compose and gazette a section of a regulation, to OVER-RIDE A SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE or a COMMON LAW RIGHT, eg THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD: ie Due Process by a City Council. If they could, the Parliament would be IRRELEVANT

[go to HAIG REPORT home frames]