This form of contempt is, of course, controversial in itself

No shit – its sedition for judges. But in a democracy, nothing should be above question. And if the reputation of the judiciary for fair decision making can't stand on its own merits, then I fail o see how threatening?

However, the suggestion that a judge deliberately made an unjust decision, or that he was biased, or drunk, or incapable of carrying out his job, would be held to scandalise the court.

Um, who wouldn't be "scandalised" at the suggestion they're incompetent, dishonest and shit-faced on the job? Most of?

Having just been through the Jury service process last week, it was interesting to observe, it does seem to be a glacial process – for a whole?

For what it's worth; I think judges have, like any other profession, rogue judges – those that do not do a professional job. 90% of judges do a professional job?

I don't understand; what if a judge was in fact drunk or incompetent, or dishonest? What does one do then?

Not talk about it – the same as you didn't talk about a drunk, incompetent or dishonest monarch back when they used to have sedition and lese majeste.

We're just?

So long as the sanctity of justice is upheld, means should be found to ease such judges out, swiftly, before they cause much damage.

How do you get rid of people swiftly without threatening the independence of the judiciary? If it's too easy to get rid of "bad" or "incompetent"?

1. There isn't a panel yet. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner doesn't appear to have thought... that some aspects needed to go to a panel.

Yeah, I realised that while I was out and away from the computer. Correcting now.

Thou shalt not question the judges, nor call the judges character into question. It is at the sole discretion of the judges to interpet the law/mandate in any fashion as to support their?

Another principal to remember is that judicial decisions are open to appeal. it is when they go all the way to the top swinging either way at?

I do think we shouldn't discount the system's ability to address the issues — basically, nearly everything you've read in the papers has actually come out as a result of the process triggered when the Supreme Court got?

90% of judges do a professional job – and for the most part, well. I don't think that the cloak of justice should necessarily hide the remaining 10% of variable quality.

Sounds like you need some *national standards* so people can choose which court to attend

Fourth Estate, or Fifth Column?

I think you'll find the Herald has six columns where as the humble tabloid merely four...
(ducks for cover under a pendant cos it's raining)

But let's not get too carried away. Don't let it stop you criticising judges. It's hard to think of?

I think the offence of scandalising the judiciary is past its use-by date, and I think it's inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act (though the High Court has ruled otherwise).

Thanks Steven — I'm just writing questions about this for tonight.

But let's not get too carried away. Don't?