FREEDOM UNDER THE LAW
Michael Femi Ewetuga
An imaginative artist caught the scenario as it must have been when there was no law. If
you had not seen this piece of imaginative art before let me describe it to you and let your
imagination do the rest.
you have to provide your own security.
you have to provide your own security.
The art work was of a primitive man, with some sort of brownish covering on his private
part, showing that it was long before man thought of covering himself with beautiful
fabrics, long hair, probably because they have not thought of cutting the hair and looking
cute, at least for men, and long bushy beard. All in all if you were to encounter such a
man in today’s world you will be dealing 911.
This man and others like him were walking around with clubs tightly held. That was the
time of might is right and the clubs will be used to defend themselves or attack someone.
That must have been a very terrible time, a time without law and a time without justice a
time when right is derived from strength.
Man thought it will be better if justice is derived from fairness rather than strength, the fact
that you are the strongest does not make you right. Your action has to be subjected to
the sense of fairness of the majority. People in a community then gave their powers to
another set of people that we today call government to regulate the society. This is
explanation on how the law came to be for full understanding of a layman and this is the
foundation for modern day society.
The above tells you what government is and what its functions should be, it also tells you
what the law is supposed to be about. The law is supposed to protect you from wicked
people, thieves, murderers, rapists and so on and so forth. The law does not protect you
from these set of people alone, the law protects you from the government itself.
Citizens of different countries all over the world enjoys some level of rights, which are
inalienable, rights which government cannot take away without due process of law.
Sometimes laws are made that infringe on the rights of citizens usually the courts will
address these wrongs often times but sometimes the courts will interpret a law strictly and
allow the government to take away the rights of citizens.
There is of course the constitution upon which all other laws rests, it guards the different
arms of government in the execution of their functions. The National Assembly, Congress,
Parliament or by whatever name called are supposed to make laws for the good
government of the country. Where they make laws that contradicts this bench mark the
courts have the power to declare that law null and void as being inconsistent with the
provisions of the constitution and where they intrude on the territory of other arms of
government then the court will declare their act ultra vires.
Some judges, despite the conflict of an Act of parliament with the constitution, will go on
and give effect to the provisions of bad laws even where they adversely affect the rights
of citizens while other will side with the citizenry in striking down oppressive laws, the
supreme court era of Oputa, Eso and co in the face of military rascality were some of
those judges that sided with the citizenry, Lord Denning was a shining example not only in
England but throughout the commonwealth.
Lord Denning was not afraid to bend the law in the direction of justice if he finds that a
particular law will result in injustice, in his words “Parliament does it too late, it may take
years and years before a statute can be passed to amend a bad law”.
While waiting on parliament to do the right thing he bent the law in order to do substantial
justice. According to him "The judge ... should make the law correspond with the justice
that the case requires." Making the law correspond with the justice that the case requires
is something judges are not ready to because they are afraid of being accused of making
laws, a function clearly outside their jurisdiction, thereby allowing obnoxious laws to stay
and giving effect to such laws despite the injustice it occasioned. Judges prefer to act like
robots these days instead of looking at individual cases and doing justice.
It is argued that giving judges the right of departing from a bad law will result in
uncertainty in the law, but then which should be greater, uncertainty of the law or
injustice? To affirm the place of justice in a legal system, it has been the view from time
immemorial that it is better for 10 guilty men to go unpunished than for one innocent man
to be punished for a crime he did not commit. That is how highly the need to do justice is
viewed.
It is true that judges should not arrogate to itself the law making functions of parliament
known as congress in America but where a law permits glaring injustice the judge, in my
view and in the style of Lord Denning, should go ahead and do justice after all the court is
supposed to be a court of justice not a court of injustice and where a law requires a judge
to do something that is contrary to the dictates of justice that law in itself is an anomaly
because parliament/congress, the law making body by whatever name called, like I said
earlier, are supposed to make laws for the good governance of a country and where they
make laws that perpetrates injustice that law itself ought to be declared unconstitutional
and ultra vires their powers.
He recognized the right of a man over his property when he said
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be
frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain
may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the
threshold of the ruined tenement.' So be it – unless he has justification by law.: Southam v
Smout [1964] 1 QB 308 at 320
Criminals, government as well as corporations should not be allowed to cheat or steal
from the common man and that is what his judgment represent in Thornton v Shoe Lane
Parking [1971] 1 All ER 686 (CA) where the issue at stake is the small print that we are all
used to. In the case the plaintiff drove into the defendant's car park and was given a ticket
by an automatic machine, which stated that it was issued subject to conditions displayed
inside the car park. The conditions inside the car park were in small print and one of them
excluded liability for damages to vehicles or injury to customers. The plaintiff was injured
due partly to the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff was not held to be bound by the
notice displayed inside the premises. Denning said that the clause was so wide and
destructive of rights that "In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in
red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling."
We have clauses that are destructive of citizens’ rights in almost all unilateral contracts
which in most countries are given effect to by the courts to the detriment of ordinary
people. Big corporations are fond of taking money for services not rendered and the
courts that are supposed to be the last hope of the common man have turned their back
to them allowing big corporations to cheat common men out of their hard earned money.
He also held that where a man pays money in anticipation of some services he deserves
to enjoy the services and where what he was given is substantially different from what he
bargained for then he deserves to be adequately compensated. This is depicted by the
following case:
So there was Mr. Jarvis, in the second week, in this hotel with no house party at all, and
no one could speak English, except himself. He was very disappointed, too, with the
skiing. [...] There were no ordinary length skis. There were only mini-skis about 3 ft. long.
So he did not get his skiing as he wanted to. [...] He did not have the nice Swiss cakes
which he was hoping for. The only cakes for tea were potato crisps and little dry nut
cakes. The yodler evening consisted of one man from the locality who came in his working
clothes for a little while, and sang four or five songs very quickly. [...] Mr. Jarvis has only a
fortnight's holiday in the year. He books it far ahead, and looks forward to it all that time.
He ought to be compensated for the loss of it. Jarvis v. Swans Tours Ltd. [1973] Q.B. 233
(C.A.).
He had been described as “a towering figure in the law who made an enormous
contribution to the law of this century, probably the major contribution." Eulogising
Denning's death, a former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, said that
Denning would go down in history as "one of the great and controversial judges of the
20th century".
Denning was a serious and committed Christian believer. He served as president from
1950-1987 and until his death as patron of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship in the United
Kingdom. A chapter in his 1953 book, The Changing Law, continues to be distributed as
an evangelistic booklet by LCF, under the title, "The Influence of Religion." That essay
concludes with these lines: "If religion perishes in the land, truth and justice will also. We
have already strayed too far from the path of our fathers. Let us return to it, for it is the
only thing that can save us."
Just like all the heroes that appeared here before him he had his faults and was at one
time accused of making racial remarks when he said blacks and immigrants were not fit
and proper candidates for jury duties. He later apologized for this remark and claimed he
was misquoted; the book that was alleged he made that remark in was pulled off the shelf
and amended. He made this remark in his 80s or 90s and as a black man, looking at his
pedigree, and in my personal capacity, in other words, not representing all the black men,
I forgive him if indeed he made that remark. He did a lot of good on the bench and
deserves one’s forgiveness.
To view other heroes visit www.minoritiesinterests.com
An imaginative artist caught the scenario as it must have been when there was no law. If
you had not seen this piece of imaginative art before let me describe it to you and let your
imagination do the rest.
Let me say before the description that I don’t know the name of the artist because I never
knew I will be writing about that piece of work in the future, I can’t even remember when I
saw it. My impression about it, however, is a depiction of a time when might is right, when
you have to provide your own security.
The art work was of a primitive man, with some sort of brownish covering on his private
part, showing that it was long before man thought of covering himself with beautiful
fabrics, long hair, probably because they have not thought of cutting the hair and looking
cute, at least for men, and long bushy beard. All in all if you were to encounter such a
man in today’s world you will be dealing 911.
This man and others like him were walking around with clubs tightly held. That was the
time of might is right and the clubs will be used to defend themselves or attack someone.
That must have been a very terrible time, a time without law and a time without justice a
time when right is derived from strength.
Man thought it will be better if justice is derived from fairness rather than strength, the fact
that you are the strongest does not make you right. Your action has to be subjected to
the sense of fairness of the majority. People in a community then gave their powers to
another set of people that we today call government to regulate the society. This is
explanation on how the law came to be for full understanding of a layman and this is the
foundation for modern day society.
The above tells you what government is and what its functions should be, it also tells you
what the law is supposed to be about. The law is supposed to protect you from wicked
people, thieves, murderers, rapists and so on and so forth. The law does not protect you
from these set of people alone, the law protects you from the government itself.
Citizens of different countries all over the world enjoys some level of rights, which are
inalienable, rights which government cannot take away without due process of law.
Sometimes laws are made that infringe on the rights of citizens usually the courts will
address these wrongs often times but sometimes the courts will interpret a law strictly and
allow the government to take away the rights of citizens.
There is of course the constitution upon which all other laws rests, it guards the different
arms of government in the execution of their functions. The National Assembly, Congress,
Parliament or by whatever name called are supposed to make laws for the good
government of the country. Where they make laws that contradicts this bench mark the
courts have the power to declare that law null and void as being inconsistent with the
provisions of the constitution and where they intrude on the territory of other arms of
government then the court will declare their act ultra vires.
Some judges, despite the conflict of an Act of parliament with the constitution, will go on
and give effect to the provisions of bad laws even where they adversely affect the rights
of citizens while others will side with the citizenry in striking down oppressive laws, the
supreme court era of Oputa, Eso and co in the face of military rascality, were some of
those judges that sided with the citizenry, Lord Denning was a shining example not only in
England but throughout the commonwealth.
Lord Denning was not afraid to bend the law in the direction of justice if he finds that a
particular law will result in injustice, in his words “Parliament does it too late, It may take
years and years before a statute can be passed to amend a bad law”.
While waiting on parliament to do the right thing he bent the law in order to do substantial
justice. According to him "The judge ... should make the law correspond with the justice
that the case requires." Making the law correspond with the justice that the case requires
is something judges are not ready to because they are afraid of being accused of making
laws, a function clearly outside their jurisdiction, thereby allowing obnoxious laws to stay
and giving effect to such laws despite the injustice it occasioned. Judges prefer to act like
robots these days instead of looking at individual cases and doing justice.
It is argued that giving judges the right of departing from a bad law will result in
uncertainty in the law, but then which should be greater, uncertainty of the law or
injustice? To affirm the place of justice in a legal system, it has been the view from time
immemorial that it is better for 10 guilty men to go unpunished than for one innocent man
to be punished for a crime he did not commit. That is how highly the need to do justice is
viewed.
It is true that judges should not arrogate to itself the law making functions of parliament
known as congress in America but where a law permits glaring injustice the judge, in my
view and in the style of Lord Denning, should go ahead and do justice after all the court is
supposed to be a court of justice not a court of injustice and where a law requires a judge
to do something that is contrary to the dictates of justice that law in itself is an anomaly
because parliament/congress, the law making body by whatever name called, like I said
earlier, are supposed to make laws for the good governance of a country and where they
make laws that perpetrates injustice that law itself ought to be declared unconstitutional
and ultra vires their powers.
He recognized the right of a man over his property when he said
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be
frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain
may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the
threshold of the ruined tenement.' So be it – unless he has justification by law.: Southam v
Smout [1964] 1 QB 308 at 320
Criminals, government as well as corporations should not be allowed to cheat or steal
from the common man and that is what his judgment represent in Thornton v Shoe Lane
Parking [1971] 1 All ER 686 (CA) where the issue at stake is the small print that we are all
used to. In the case the plaintiff drove into the defendant's car park and was given a ticket
by an automatic machine, which stated that it was issued subject to conditions displayed
inside the car park. The conditions inside the car park were in small print and one of them
excluded liability for damages to vehicles or injury to customers. The plaintiff was injured
due partly to the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff was not held to be bound by the
notice displayed inside the premises. Denning said that the clause was so wide and
destructive of rights that "In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in
red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling."
We have clauses that are destructive of citizens’ rights in almost all unilateral contracts
which in most countries are given effect to by the courts to the detriment of ordinary
people. Big corporations are fond of taking money for services not rendered and the
courts that are supposed to be the last hope of the common man have turned their back
to them allowing big corporations to cheat common men out of their hard earned money.
He also held that where a man pays money in anticipation of some services he deserves
to enjoy the services and where what he was given is substantially different from what he
bargained for then he deserves to be adequately compensated. This is depicted by the
following case:
So there was Mr. Jarvis, in the second week, in this hotel with no house party at all, and
no one could speak English, except himself. He was very disappointed, too, with the
skiing. [...] There were no ordinary length skis. There were only mini-skis about 3 ft. long.
So he did not get his skiing as he wanted to. [...] He did not have the nice Swiss cakes
which he was hoping for. The only cakes for tea were potato crisps and little dry nut
cakes. The yodler evening consisted of one man from the locality who came in his working
clothes for a little while, and sang four or five songs very quickly. [...] Mr. Jarvis has only a
fortnight's holiday in the year. He books it far ahead, and looks forward to it all that time.
He ought to be compensated for the loss of it. Jarvis v. Swans Tours Ltd. [1973] Q.B. 233
(C.A.).
He had been described as “a towering figure in the law who made an enormous
contribution to the law of this century, probably the major contribution." Eulogising
Denning's death, a former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, said that
Denning would go down in history as "one of the great and controversial judges of the
20th century".
Denning was a serious and committed Christian believer. He served as president from
1950-1987 and until his death as patron of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship in the United
Kingdom. A chapter in his 1953 book, The Changing Law, continues to be distributed as
an evangelistic booklet by LCF, under the title, "The Influence of Religion." That essay
concludes with these lines: "If religion perishes in the land, truth and justice will also. We
have already strayed too far from the path of our fathers. Let us return to it, for it is the
only thing that can save us."
Just like all the heroes that appeared here before him he had his faults and was at one
time accused of making racial remarks when he said blacks and immigrants were not fit
and proper candidates for jury duties. He later apologized for this remark and claimed he
was misquoted; the book that was alleged he made that remark in was pulled off the shelf
and amended. He made this remark in his 80s or 90s and as a black man, looking at his
pedigree, and in my personal capacity, in other words, not representing all the black men,
I forgive him if indeed he made that remark. He did a lot of good on the bench and
deserves one’s forgiveness.
Michael Femi Ewetuga
An imaginative artist caught the scenario as it must have been when there was no law. If
you had not seen this piece of imaginative art before let me describe it to you and let your
imagination do the rest.
you have to provide your own security.
you have to provide your own security.
The art work was of a primitive man, with some sort of brownish covering on his private
part, showing that it was long before man thought of covering himself with beautiful
fabrics, long hair, probably because they have not thought of cutting the hair and looking
cute, at least for men, and long bushy beard. All in all if you were to encounter such a
man in today’s world you will be dealing 911.
This man and others like him were walking around with clubs tightly held. That was the
time of might is right and the clubs will be used to defend themselves or attack someone.
That must have been a very terrible time, a time without law and a time without justice a
time when right is derived from strength.
Man thought it will be better if justice is derived from fairness rather than strength, the fact
that you are the strongest does not make you right. Your action has to be subjected to
the sense of fairness of the majority. People in a community then gave their powers to
another set of people that we today call government to regulate the society. This is
explanation on how the law came to be for full understanding of a layman and this is the
foundation for modern day society.
The above tells you what government is and what its functions should be, it also tells you
what the law is supposed to be about. The law is supposed to protect you from wicked
people, thieves, murderers, rapists and so on and so forth. The law does not protect you
from these set of people alone, the law protects you from the government itself.
Citizens of different countries all over the world enjoys some level of rights, which are
inalienable, rights which government cannot take away without due process of law.
Sometimes laws are made that infringe on the rights of citizens usually the courts will
address these wrongs often times but sometimes the courts will interpret a law strictly and
allow the government to take away the rights of citizens.
There is of course the constitution upon which all other laws rests, it guards the different
arms of government in the execution of their functions. The National Assembly, Congress,
Parliament or by whatever name called are supposed to make laws for the good
government of the country. Where they make laws that contradicts this bench mark the
courts have the power to declare that law null and void as being inconsistent with the
provisions of the constitution and where they intrude on the territory of other arms of
government then the court will declare their act ultra vires.
Some judges, despite the conflict of an Act of parliament with the constitution, will go on
and give effect to the provisions of bad laws even where they adversely affect the rights
of citizens while other will side with the citizenry in striking down oppressive laws, the
supreme court era of Oputa, Eso and co in the face of military rascality were some of
those judges that sided with the citizenry, Lord Denning was a shining example not only in
England but throughout the commonwealth.
Lord Denning was not afraid to bend the law in the direction of justice if he finds that a
particular law will result in injustice, in his words “Parliament does it too late, it may take
years and years before a statute can be passed to amend a bad law”.
While waiting on parliament to do the right thing he bent the law in order to do substantial
justice. According to him "The judge ... should make the law correspond with the justice
that the case requires." Making the law correspond with the justice that the case requires
is something judges are not ready to because they are afraid of being accused of making
laws, a function clearly outside their jurisdiction, thereby allowing obnoxious laws to stay
and giving effect to such laws despite the injustice it occasioned. Judges prefer to act like
robots these days instead of looking at individual cases and doing justice.
It is argued that giving judges the right of departing from a bad law will result in
uncertainty in the law, but then which should be greater, uncertainty of the law or
injustice? To affirm the place of justice in a legal system, it has been the view from time
immemorial that it is better for 10 guilty men to go unpunished than for one innocent man
to be punished for a crime he did not commit. That is how highly the need to do justice is
viewed.
It is true that judges should not arrogate to itself the law making functions of parliament
known as congress in America but where a law permits glaring injustice the judge, in my
view and in the style of Lord Denning, should go ahead and do justice after all the court is
supposed to be a court of justice not a court of injustice and where a law requires a judge
to do something that is contrary to the dictates of justice that law in itself is an anomaly
because parliament/congress, the law making body by whatever name called, like I said
earlier, are supposed to make laws for the good governance of a country and where they
make laws that perpetrates injustice that law itself ought to be declared unconstitutional
and ultra vires their powers.
He recognized the right of a man over his property when he said
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be
frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain
may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the
threshold of the ruined tenement.' So be it – unless he has justification by law.: Southam v
Smout [1964] 1 QB 308 at 320
Criminals, government as well as corporations should not be allowed to cheat or steal
from the common man and that is what his judgment represent in Thornton v Shoe Lane
Parking [1971] 1 All ER 686 (CA) where the issue at stake is the small print that we are all
used to. In the case the plaintiff drove into the defendant's car park and was given a ticket
by an automatic machine, which stated that it was issued subject to conditions displayed
inside the car park. The conditions inside the car park were in small print and one of them
excluded liability for damages to vehicles or injury to customers. The plaintiff was injured
due partly to the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff was not held to be bound by the
notice displayed inside the premises. Denning said that the clause was so wide and
destructive of rights that "In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in
red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling."
We have clauses that are destructive of citizens’ rights in almost all unilateral contracts
which in most countries are given effect to by the courts to the detriment of ordinary
people. Big corporations are fond of taking money for services not rendered and the
courts that are supposed to be the last hope of the common man have turned their back
to them allowing big corporations to cheat common men out of their hard earned money.
He also held that where a man pays money in anticipation of some services he deserves
to enjoy the services and where what he was given is substantially different from what he
bargained for then he deserves to be adequately compensated. This is depicted by the
following case:
So there was Mr. Jarvis, in the second week, in this hotel with no house party at all, and
no one could speak English, except himself. He was very disappointed, too, with the
skiing. [...] There were no ordinary length skis. There were only mini-skis about 3 ft. long.
So he did not get his skiing as he wanted to. [...] He did not have the nice Swiss cakes
which he was hoping for. The only cakes for tea were potato crisps and little dry nut
cakes. The yodler evening consisted of one man from the locality who came in his working
clothes for a little while, and sang four or five songs very quickly. [...] Mr. Jarvis has only a
fortnight's holiday in the year. He books it far ahead, and looks forward to it all that time.
He ought to be compensated for the loss of it. Jarvis v. Swans Tours Ltd. [1973] Q.B. 233
(C.A.).
He had been described as “a towering figure in the law who made an enormous
contribution to the law of this century, probably the major contribution." Eulogising
Denning's death, a former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, said that
Denning would go down in history as "one of the great and controversial judges of the
20th century".
Denning was a serious and committed Christian believer. He served as president from
1950-1987 and until his death as patron of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship in the United
Kingdom. A chapter in his 1953 book, The Changing Law, continues to be distributed as
an evangelistic booklet by LCF, under the title, "The Influence of Religion." That essay
concludes with these lines: "If religion perishes in the land, truth and justice will also. We
have already strayed too far from the path of our fathers. Let us return to it, for it is the
only thing that can save us."
Just like all the heroes that appeared here before him he had his faults and was at one
time accused of making racial remarks when he said blacks and immigrants were not fit
and proper candidates for jury duties. He later apologized for this remark and claimed he
was misquoted; the book that was alleged he made that remark in was pulled off the shelf
and amended. He made this remark in his 80s or 90s and as a black man, looking at his
pedigree, and in my personal capacity, in other words, not representing all the black men,
I forgive him if indeed he made that remark. He did a lot of good on the bench and
deserves one’s forgiveness.
To view other heroes visit www.minoritiesinterests.com
An imaginative artist caught the scenario as it must have been when there was no law. If
you had not seen this piece of imaginative art before let me describe it to you and let your
imagination do the rest.
Let me say before the description that I don’t know the name of the artist because I never
knew I will be writing about that piece of work in the future, I can’t even remember when I
saw it. My impression about it, however, is a depiction of a time when might is right, when
you have to provide your own security.
The art work was of a primitive man, with some sort of brownish covering on his private
part, showing that it was long before man thought of covering himself with beautiful
fabrics, long hair, probably because they have not thought of cutting the hair and looking
cute, at least for men, and long bushy beard. All in all if you were to encounter such a
man in today’s world you will be dealing 911.
This man and others like him were walking around with clubs tightly held. That was the
time of might is right and the clubs will be used to defend themselves or attack someone.
That must have been a very terrible time, a time without law and a time without justice a
time when right is derived from strength.
Man thought it will be better if justice is derived from fairness rather than strength, the fact
that you are the strongest does not make you right. Your action has to be subjected to
the sense of fairness of the majority. People in a community then gave their powers to
another set of people that we today call government to regulate the society. This is
explanation on how the law came to be for full understanding of a layman and this is the
foundation for modern day society.
The above tells you what government is and what its functions should be, it also tells you
what the law is supposed to be about. The law is supposed to protect you from wicked
people, thieves, murderers, rapists and so on and so forth. The law does not protect you
from these set of people alone, the law protects you from the government itself.
Citizens of different countries all over the world enjoys some level of rights, which are
inalienable, rights which government cannot take away without due process of law.
Sometimes laws are made that infringe on the rights of citizens usually the courts will
address these wrongs often times but sometimes the courts will interpret a law strictly and
allow the government to take away the rights of citizens.
There is of course the constitution upon which all other laws rests, it guards the different
arms of government in the execution of their functions. The National Assembly, Congress,
Parliament or by whatever name called are supposed to make laws for the good
government of the country. Where they make laws that contradicts this bench mark the
courts have the power to declare that law null and void as being inconsistent with the
provisions of the constitution and where they intrude on the territory of other arms of
government then the court will declare their act ultra vires.
Some judges, despite the conflict of an Act of parliament with the constitution, will go on
and give effect to the provisions of bad laws even where they adversely affect the rights
of citizens while others will side with the citizenry in striking down oppressive laws, the
supreme court era of Oputa, Eso and co in the face of military rascality, were some of
those judges that sided with the citizenry, Lord Denning was a shining example not only in
England but throughout the commonwealth.
Lord Denning was not afraid to bend the law in the direction of justice if he finds that a
particular law will result in injustice, in his words “Parliament does it too late, It may take
years and years before a statute can be passed to amend a bad law”.
While waiting on parliament to do the right thing he bent the law in order to do substantial
justice. According to him "The judge ... should make the law correspond with the justice
that the case requires." Making the law correspond with the justice that the case requires
is something judges are not ready to because they are afraid of being accused of making
laws, a function clearly outside their jurisdiction, thereby allowing obnoxious laws to stay
and giving effect to such laws despite the injustice it occasioned. Judges prefer to act like
robots these days instead of looking at individual cases and doing justice.
It is argued that giving judges the right of departing from a bad law will result in
uncertainty in the law, but then which should be greater, uncertainty of the law or
injustice? To affirm the place of justice in a legal system, it has been the view from time
immemorial that it is better for 10 guilty men to go unpunished than for one innocent man
to be punished for a crime he did not commit. That is how highly the need to do justice is
viewed.
It is true that judges should not arrogate to itself the law making functions of parliament
known as congress in America but where a law permits glaring injustice the judge, in my
view and in the style of Lord Denning, should go ahead and do justice after all the court is
supposed to be a court of justice not a court of injustice and where a law requires a judge
to do something that is contrary to the dictates of justice that law in itself is an anomaly
because parliament/congress, the law making body by whatever name called, like I said
earlier, are supposed to make laws for the good governance of a country and where they
make laws that perpetrates injustice that law itself ought to be declared unconstitutional
and ultra vires their powers.
He recognized the right of a man over his property when he said
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be
frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain
may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the
threshold of the ruined tenement.' So be it – unless he has justification by law.: Southam v
Smout [1964] 1 QB 308 at 320
Criminals, government as well as corporations should not be allowed to cheat or steal
from the common man and that is what his judgment represent in Thornton v Shoe Lane
Parking [1971] 1 All ER 686 (CA) where the issue at stake is the small print that we are all
used to. In the case the plaintiff drove into the defendant's car park and was given a ticket
by an automatic machine, which stated that it was issued subject to conditions displayed
inside the car park. The conditions inside the car park were in small print and one of them
excluded liability for damages to vehicles or injury to customers. The plaintiff was injured
due partly to the defendant's negligence. The plaintiff was not held to be bound by the
notice displayed inside the premises. Denning said that the clause was so wide and
destructive of rights that "In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in
red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling."
We have clauses that are destructive of citizens’ rights in almost all unilateral contracts
which in most countries are given effect to by the courts to the detriment of ordinary
people. Big corporations are fond of taking money for services not rendered and the
courts that are supposed to be the last hope of the common man have turned their back
to them allowing big corporations to cheat common men out of their hard earned money.
He also held that where a man pays money in anticipation of some services he deserves
to enjoy the services and where what he was given is substantially different from what he
bargained for then he deserves to be adequately compensated. This is depicted by the
following case:
So there was Mr. Jarvis, in the second week, in this hotel with no house party at all, and
no one could speak English, except himself. He was very disappointed, too, with the
skiing. [...] There were no ordinary length skis. There were only mini-skis about 3 ft. long.
So he did not get his skiing as he wanted to. [...] He did not have the nice Swiss cakes
which he was hoping for. The only cakes for tea were potato crisps and little dry nut
cakes. The yodler evening consisted of one man from the locality who came in his working
clothes for a little while, and sang four or five songs very quickly. [...] Mr. Jarvis has only a
fortnight's holiday in the year. He books it far ahead, and looks forward to it all that time.
He ought to be compensated for the loss of it. Jarvis v. Swans Tours Ltd. [1973] Q.B. 233
(C.A.).
He had been described as “a towering figure in the law who made an enormous
contribution to the law of this century, probably the major contribution." Eulogising
Denning's death, a former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, said that
Denning would go down in history as "one of the great and controversial judges of the
20th century".
Denning was a serious and committed Christian believer. He served as president from
1950-1987 and until his death as patron of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship in the United
Kingdom. A chapter in his 1953 book, The Changing Law, continues to be distributed as
an evangelistic booklet by LCF, under the title, "The Influence of Religion." That essay
concludes with these lines: "If religion perishes in the land, truth and justice will also. We
have already strayed too far from the path of our fathers. Let us return to it, for it is the
only thing that can save us."
Just like all the heroes that appeared here before him he had his faults and was at one
time accused of making racial remarks when he said blacks and immigrants were not fit
and proper candidates for jury duties. He later apologized for this remark and claimed he
was misquoted; the book that was alleged he made that remark in was pulled off the shelf
and amended. He made this remark in his 80s or 90s and as a black man, looking at his
pedigree, and in my personal capacity, in other words, not representing all the black men,
I forgive him if indeed he made that remark. He did a lot of good on the bench and
deserves one’s forgiveness.
minorities interests
We build your website
for less and ensure you
don't throw money away
We save you money
We build your website
for less and ensure you
don't throw money away
We save you money
Minorities Interests
Knowledge, Culture, Social
Meet And Share
Knowledge, Culture, Social
Meet And Share
