Trouble at mill now, as Tiggy challenges or corrects some of Assassin's more fanciful assertions, in this thread for example where the suggestion that Magistrates must pay a bond arises ..
Tiggy wrote:Can someone please point out to me where in the County Courts Act (or any of the Courts Acts) that a Judge needs to have a bond etc.
Assassin wrote:Magistrates have to be bonded and they work for free and have to pay their own bond.
Judges do have a bond, but unlike magistrates they dont pay it as it comes as a part of their job and the employer pays it, this is why you cannot sue a judge, you have to sue the company.
Tiggy wrote:But where does this come from? To be able to use something successfully in Court you need to reference either a case law or an actual statute / statutory instrument and I can see nothing in any of the various Court Acts that says that a Judge has to have a bond.
Assassin wrote:They never advertise it but it is a requirement of the position and is simply insurance with premiums.
Assassin wrote:When you take up a position of magistrate, court clerk, or other position where you are in a position to make judgements you have to have some form of insurance, in the case of a magistrate or clerk they are the ones who make decisions and have to have some form of insurance.
Surety or security bonds are this insurance and if a magistrate or clerk makes an incorrect decision and causes a loss the claimant/defendant has the right to appeal, if this goes to the High Court and they overturn the magistrates decision you/they automatically claim against the magistrates bond which is either the surety or security bond. Without them they cannot take on the role or position of magistrate or clerk to the justices.
Tiggy wrote:So if they don't advertise it where did you get your understanding from? Where does it come from that there is a requirement to take out insurance? Without written evidence this is just hearsay.
This comes hard on the heels of the "Prepay Meter" thread where she helped shoot down Assassin's dogmatic assertion that a warrant could only be granted on safety grounds and not as a result of arrears.