From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Charles Ellson  wrote:   
   >11 Dec 2015 20:10:40 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>On 11-Dec-15 09:02, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>>>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>>>On 10-Dec-15 19:01, Charles Ellson wrote:   
      
   >>>>>>As applied to General Pinochet when there was an attempt to deal   
   >>>>>>with him in the UK some years ago, that's sovereign immunity not   
   >>>>>>diplomatic immunity (which most "sovereigns" be they monarchs or   
   >>>>>>presidents don't have).   
      
   >>>>>It was a UK law, not international law, that extended state   
   >>>>>immunity in UK courts to former heads of state; the House of Lords   
   >>>>>ruled that didn't protect crimes against humanity or thus Pinochet.   
   >>>>>However, extradition to Spain was denied on medical grounds, and he   
   >>>>>was sent home to Chile.   
   >>>>> ...   
   >>>>>Diplomatic immunity never came up because he wasn't a diplomat when   
   >>>>>he was arrested. . . .   
      
   >>>>Several points:   
      
   >>>>1) It's the Law Lords, ...   
      
   >>>Correction noted, but it's immaterial.   
      
   >>It's one of those many weirdnesses about UK government in which they   
   >>don't have separation of powers.   
      
   >Not so, the UK Supreme Court was created to disconnect the judiciary   
   >from government both physically and legally.   
      
   We're going to have to wait for about nine replacement appointments.   
      
   >"Law Lords" are not members of the nobility (at least not when sitting   
   >as a judge if any do have a title) but of the judiciary; "Lord" is   
   >just a shared title. The description "UK Supreme Court" is itself a   
   >bit of a misnomer as it is functionally multiple courts with common   
   >staffing which is not supreme for all purposes within the UK and also   
   >serves as a final court of appeal for some Commonwealth countries.   
      
   Multiple courts? Do they sit as three-member panels or something like   
   US Circuit courts?   
      
   >Within the UK it has no function in the criminal court system of   
   >Scotland unless procedures have breached an accused's civil rights; it   
   >can then require a case to be re-heard but it cannot deal with an   
   >appeal on a criminal matter in a Scottish case.   
      
   Interesting.   
      
   >As in the case of   
   >"London" now describing both the capital city and the region within it   
   >lies, it is another example of Westminster not putting enough thought   
   >into naming various entities.   
      
   Heh   
      
   No one wears as many hats as the Lord Chancellor   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)