12-09-16 Preliminary Review of the electronic records of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is a unique example, since it was established only in recent years, following a constitutional reform. It started its work in 2009, well after system security, server certification, and electronic signature standards in electronic records had already been established in the computing field. Yet, the server of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is uncertified and the records are unsigned and uncertified. A sample of one Judgment shows a discrepancy of almost a month between the date inscribed on the record itself and the date it was in fact created. The United Kingdom, is no doubt, one of the pillars of the legal/banking fraud pandemic, starting with positioning of the major banks in the City of London, a Free City since the Middle Ages, outside the sovereignty of the Queen... The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom followed the footsteps of the courts of the United States, which established fraudulent electronic record systems a decade or two earlier.

A brand new Supreme Court, with all newly sworn-in Lord Justices, established a fraudulent electronic record system from the get go.

PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/106077048/

I.

Wikipedia

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the supreme court in all matters under English law, Northern Irish law and Scottish civil law. It is the court of last resort and highest appellate court in the United Kingdom; however the High Court of Justiciary remains the supreme court for criminal cases in Scotland. The Supreme Court also has jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to devolution in the United Kingdom and concerning the legal powers of the three devolved governments or laws made by the devolved legislatures. The Supreme Court was established by Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and started work on 1 October 2009.[1][2] It assumed the judicial functions of the House of Lords, which were exercised by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (commonly called "Law Lords"), the 12 professional judges appointed as members of the House of Lords to carry out its judicial business. Its jurisdiction over devolution matters had previously been held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Because of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the court is limited in its powers of judicial review, unlike the constitutional and supreme courts of some other countries. This means that it cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.[3] However it can overturn secondary legislation if, for example, that legislation is found to be ultra vires of the powers in primary legislation allowing it to be made. Furthermore, under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court may make a declaration of incompatibility which means that it believes that the legislation subject to the declaration is incompatible with one of the rights of the European Convention on Human Rights and such a declaration can apply equally to primary and secondary legislation. The legislation is not overturned by the declaration but powers under section 10 of the act are triggered to allow ministers to amend the legislation by statutory instrument to remove the incompatibility.[4]

Jurisdiction
The main role of the UK Supreme Court is to hear appeals from courts in the United Kingdom's three legal systems: England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. (English and Welsh law differ only to the extent that the National Assembly for Wales makes laws for Wales that differ from those in England, and the two countries have a shared court system.) The Supreme Court acts as the highest court for civil appeals from the Court of Session in Scotland but the highest appeal for criminal cases is kept in Scotland.[5] It may hear appeals from the civil Court of Session, just as the House of Lords did previously. From the Court of Session, permission to appeal is not required and any case can proceed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom if two Advocates certify that an appeal is suitable. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, leave to appeal is required either from the Court of Appeal or from a Justice of the Supreme Court itself. The Court's focus is on cases that raise points of law of general public importance. Like the previous Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, appeals from many fields of law are likely to be selected for hearingincluding commercial disputes, family matters, judicial review claims against public authorities and issues under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Court also hears some criminal appeals, but not from Scotland as there is no general right of appeal from the High Court of Justiciary, Scotland's highest criminal court, other than with respect to devolution issues. The Supreme Court also determines "devolution issues" (as defined by the Scotland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006). These are legal proceedings about the powers of the three devolved administrationsthe Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales. Devolution issues were previously heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and most are about compliance with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, brought into national law by the Devolution Acts and the Human Rights Act 1998.

The twelve justices do not all hear every case; typically a case will be heard by a panel of five justices, but sometimes the panel may consist of three, seven or nine members. All twelve justices are also members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and spend some of their time in that capacity.

History
The creation of a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom was first mooted in a July 2003 Department of Constitutional Affairs Consultation Paper.[6] Although the report noted that there had been no criticism of the then-current law lords or any indication of an actual bias, it argued that the separation of the judicial functions of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords should be explicit from the legislative functions of the House of Lords. The report noted these concerns: 1. Whether there was any longer sufficient transparency of independence from the executive and the legislature to give assurance of the independence of the judiciary.[6] 2. The requirement for the appearance of impartiality and independence limited the ability of the Law Lords to contribute to the work of the House itself, thus reducing the value to both them and the House of their membership.[6] 3. It was not always understood by the public that judicial decisions of "the House of Lords" were in fact taken by the Judicial Committee and that non-judicial members were never involved in the judgements. Conversely, it was felt that the extent to which the Law Lords themselves had decided to refrain from getting involved in political issues in relation to legislation on which they might later have had to adjudicate was not always appreciated.[6] The new President of the Court, Lord Phillips, has claimed that the old system had confused people and that with the Supreme Court there would for the first time be a clear separation of powers among the judiciary, the legislature and the executive.[7] 4. Space within the House of Lords was at a constant premium and a separate supreme court would ease the pressure on the Palace of Westminster.[6] The main argument against the court was that the previous system had worked well and kept costs down.[8] Reformers expressed concerns that the historical admixture of legislative, judicial and executive power in the UK might conflict with the state's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Officials who make or execute laws have an interest in court cases that put those laws to the test. When the state invests judicial authority in those officials, it puts the independence and impartiality of the courts at risk. Consequently, it was supposedly possible that the decisions of the Law Lords might be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that they had not constituted a fair trial.[9] Lord Neuberger has expressed fear that the new court could make itself more powerful than the House of Lords committee it succeeded, saying that there is a real risk of "judges arrogating to themselves greater power than they have at the

moment". Lord Phillips said such an outcome was "a possibility", but was "unlikely".[10] The reforms were controversial and were brought forward with little consultation but were subsequently extensively debated in Parliament.[11] During 2004, a select committee of the House of Lords scrutinised the arguments for and against setting up a new court.[12] The Government estimated the set-up cost of the Supreme Court at 56.9 million.[13] The Supreme Court was established by Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and started work on 1 October 2009. It assumed the judicial functions of the House of Lords, which were exercised by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (commonly called "Law Lords"), the 12 professional judges appointed as members of the House of Lords to carry out its judicial business. Its jurisdiction over devolution matters had previously been held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. ...

Justices
Main article: Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom The court is composed of the President and Deputy President and 10 puisne Justices of the Supreme Court. They are not subject to term limits, but may be removed from office on the address of Parliament.[15] Like all British judges, Supreme Court justices are forced to retire at age 70 if first appointed to a judicial office after 31 March 1995, or at age 75 otherwise.[16][17] The President and Deputy President of the court are separately appointed to those roles. Ten Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lords) holding office on 1 October 2009 became the first justices of the 12-member Supreme Court.[18] The 11th place on the Supreme Court was filled by Lord Clarke (formerly the Master of the Rolls), who was the first Justice to be appointed directly to the Supreme Court.[19] One of the former Law Lords, Lord Neuberger, was appointed to replace Lord Clarke as Master of the Rolls,[20] and so did not move to the new court. Sir John Dyson became the 12th and final justice of the Supreme Court on 13 April 2010, becoming entitled at the same moment to the courtesy style "Lord Dyson".[21] The Senior Law Lord on 1 October 2009, Lord Phillips, became the Supreme Court's first President,[22] and the Second Senior Law Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, became the first Deputy President. On 30 September 2010, Lord Saville of Newdigate became the first Justice to retire,[23] followed by Lord Collins of Mapesbury on 7 May 2011, although the latter remained as an acting justice until the end of July 2011. In June 2011, Lord Rodger became the first Justice to die in office, after a short illness.[24] On 11 October 2011, it was announced that Lord Phillips will retire early, effective 30 September 2012.[25]

External links
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom official website Ministry of Justice, Supreme Court site "Grand designs". BBC News. 7 March 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6143744.stm. Retrieved 7 March 2007. Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Blog A blog covering UKSC cases and proceedings, run by a law firm with a significant Supreme Court practice group

II.

Server Identity and Certificates

URL: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/

Quotes: Conexion: Not cifrado [not encrypted jz] Informacion del certicado: Este tipo de documento no tiene certificado de seguridad [This type of document has no certifcate of security - jz] Conclusion: The failure to certify the identity of such critical server is a fatal integrity and security flaw.

The records of the courts of the common law tradition were under the custody of the Clerk of the Court. The custody of the records of the unidentified server cannot possibly be definitively identified.

III.

Electronic records of the Supreme Court Entry into the Supreme Court Decisions

1.

URL: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/index.html

Again - uncertified sever

2.

Downloading the latest handed-down Decision

Hand-down date 17 Aug 2012

Neutral citation

Case ID

Case name

Details

[2012] UKSC UKSC 40 2011/0247

Press SerVaas Incorporated summary (Appellant) v Rafidian Bank and (PDF) others (Respondents) Judgments (PDF)

a.

Press Summary

The complete Press Summary is attached. URL: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2011_0247_PressSummary.pdf Notes: o The Press Summary refers to the electronic Judgment record as the authoritative court record, and provides its explicit URL at a www location.

b.

Judgment

The

17 August 2012 PRESS SUMMARY SerVaas Incorporated (Appellants) v Rafidain Bank and others (Respondents) [2012] UKSC 40 On appeal from: [2011] EWCA Civ 1256 JUSTICES: Lord Phillips (President), Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption and Lord Reed. BACKGROUND TO THE APPEALS NOTE This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Courts decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document. Judgments are public documents and are available at: www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/index.html complete 16 page Judgment record is attached. URL: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2011_0247_Judgment.pdf Notes: o The authoritative document, a PDF document, is not signed by the Justices, and not certified by any Clerk. o The Judgment record itself notes in the heading that it was given on 17 August 2012. In contrast, the authoritative document shows under Document Properties that it was created on 12/9/ 2012. o Document Properties, Security shows: Sistema de seguridad: Sin seguridad [No security - jz] Firma: No se permite [Signaturas: Not permitted - jz]

Joseph Zernik, PhD Human Rights Alert (NGO)