This “justification” is not merely fake, but entirely vacuous.
I’d rather say that Mr Justice Hedley is probably trying to apply the relevant law to the facts of a particular case. The law may be stupid or wise, but a judge is supposed to apply it. His written opinion explains his reasoning in greater detail.
This doesn’t seem to be an example of a rogue judge picking on a random citizen. She seems to have been horribly sexually exploited for years, and “she saw herself as obligated to submit to that which was in fact rape.” To address this, she has been the subject of a lot of litigation, in which she was represented by counsel. In any case, she was placed under what the court itself called “highly regulated regime” that “clearly constitutes a deprivation of liberty,” which, however, the court regarded as a necessary evil.
It is, however, intended to be temporary. Her caretakers
clearly fully appreciate how restrictive of H’s personal freedom the current arrangements are and how the balance always has to be struck between the competing demands of freedom and protection. I fully agree with that approach and, given the significance of the issues raised in this case, propose that I should review the case in November 2012. It is strange, but nevertheless true, that even the freedom to make unwise decisions, clearly a real risk here in relation to sexual relations, is one that the court is required to guard and only to restrict if and when (bearing in mind Section 1(6) of the Act) the best interests of H positively so require.
As I’m reading it, the court does not assert that “best interests” and “wise” are identical for legal purposes. I’d assume that the definitions of these words under English law are as vague and inexact as they are in American law. In any case, the court must “competing demands of freedom and protection.” The court is bound to look after H for a limited amount of time, and then afford her more freedom and autonomy, if she can look after her own “best interests” to a minimum—albeit imperfect—degree.
Maybe this is what you meant. One of the things “other people don’t want” is a court system with too much power to decide on the “best interests” of citizens. So the court must balance “the competing demands of freedom and protection.”
I’d rather say that Mr Justice Hedley is probably trying to apply the relevant law to the facts of a particular case. The law may be stupid or wise, but a judge is supposed to apply it. His written opinion explains his reasoning in greater detail.
This doesn’t seem to be an example of a rogue judge picking on a random citizen. She seems to have been horribly sexually exploited for years, and “she saw herself as obligated to submit to that which was in fact rape.” To address this, she has been the subject of a lot of litigation, in which she was represented by counsel. In any case, she was placed under what the court itself called “highly regulated regime” that “clearly constitutes a deprivation of liberty,” which, however, the court regarded as a necessary evil.
It is, however, intended to be temporary. Her caretakers
As I’m reading it, the court does not assert that “best interests” and “wise” are identical for legal purposes. I’d assume that the definitions of these words under English law are as vague and inexact as they are in American law. In any case, the court must “competing demands of freedom and protection.” The court is bound to look after H for a limited amount of time, and then afford her more freedom and autonomy, if she can look after her own “best interests” to a minimum—albeit imperfect—degree.
Maybe this is what you meant. One of the things “other people don’t want” is a court system with too much power to decide on the “best interests” of citizens. So the court must balance “the competing demands of freedom and protection.”