http://www.heraldextra.com/news/world/europe/article_3e6ab7db-5eb1-57f6-b3ec-106ea6259360.html
It's about a guy who constructed a castle without going through the local planning authorities and kind of tried to hide it. The local guys claim that he should take down the castle because of the shady beginnings. The castle guy says he's lived in it for enough years to claim protection under another law. The High Court sided with the local planning people, but of course that ruling is under appeal.
In any case, this is the part that caught my eye:
Fidler's lawyer, Pritpal Singh Swarn, said the decision would be appealed at the Court of Appeal because it raised important planning issues. A further appeal to European courts is possible if British courts again reject Fidler's bid to legitimize his castle.
I don't know about you, but I'd be kind of scared by this if I were an English citizen. But what if this situation was applied to America? Those who receive a ruling they don't agree with will naturally want to keep pursuing the issue if there's any chance of a reversal. Regardless of whether a ruling is "right" or "wrong" (a lot is probably based on perceptions and the justices making the best judgment they can given the evidence available at the time) there has to be an end, a place where the buck stops once and for all.
The main question is: Do we want to make a multi-country court or an international court the last word on arguments? If we do, bye bye to our sovereignty!
No comments:
Post a Comment