The Jolly Contrarian
@ContrarianJolly
A stroll through the brambles of law, management, philosophy, language, technology, cricket, high finance and the verisimilitude of Toto’s 1981 smash Africa.
Under Leveson's reforms, Tom Hayes would have been wrongly convicted much more efficiently as the judge wouldn't have needed to misdirect the jury to convict, he could have just done it himself.
Once you start explaining why your party is not actually called Your Party, you invite derision. And I see no reason to withhold it.
It’s not called Your Party!
This general vibe in technology has never really changed has it.
This computer couldn’t do shit. Unless you were starring in an 80s movie, in which case it was capable of accomplishing goddamn near anything.
This computer couldn’t do shit. Unless you were starring in an 80s movie, in which case it was capable of accomplishing goddamn near anything.
My legal heroes and @karentodner . I fought Adrian over the arguments to run fortunately he prevailed!
The Supreme Court has overturned Tom Hayes’ 2015 conviction for conspiracy to defraud over LIBOR submissions. Adrian Darbishire KC and Tom Doble of QEB Hollis Whiteman represented Hayes in one of the most significant criminal appeals of the last decade.
However the scandal underscores the need for urgent reform in our justice system on several key issues, including the use of unvetted & unqualified expert witnesses, the role & function of the CCRC, & the Court of Appeal's ability to stop cases from progressing to @UKSupremeCourt
Strictly speaking, both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court can grant leave. The issue is that only the Court of Appeal can certify that the case involves a question of law of general public importance.
For those a little mystified about “LIBOR rigging” and what today’s groundbreaking Supreme Court decision means, here is JC’s article about the case. Audio links included (Spotify, Apple and Substack) Which now needs a lengthy follow-up, doesn’t it? jollycontrarian.com/index.php?titl…
A lower court is bound by its own prior decisions. Only a superior court can over rule them. Ironically this is what forced the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal its decision (allegedly, it is reluctant to do so, considering itself to have the best criminal expertise).…
This is absolutely dynamite.