2056: Meltdown: The Lost Rule of Law

By Philip Altman

It is 2056. World order is in tatters with bribery and corruption everywhere. Elections are fixed. World leaders feather their nests, leaving the poor destitute. Even judges grant leniency for bribes. The United Nations, bogged down by vetoes, is replaced, and Supreme Court Judge Henry persuades the US president and the UK prime minister to take worldwide action, but sinister mastermind Viktor opposes with his robots scanning the ether and selling information. Envoys, even with advanced technology, suffer perils and have extraordinary hair-raising and ingenious escapes to delight the reader, as will the romantic episodes.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris UK
• Release date: Feb 22, 2018
• ISBN: 9781543488425

Philip Altman

Philip's lengthy career in law in London spanned many decades of world challenges and, with his close connections with Members of both Houses of Parliament and even the Prime Minister of his day, he is now able to embark on this political thriller with authority, hoping to make a real difference. Born and practising in London, Philip obtained his Bachelor of Law degree at the prestigious King's College London and has already published his autobiography “ The Shine of Life” telling his remarkable life's story. Philip is married and lives in a London suburb with his wife.

Book preview

Copyright © 2018 by Philip Altman.

Library of Congress Control Number:            2018901532

ISBN:                  Hardcover                      978-1-5434-8844-9

                           Softcover                       978-1-5434-8843-2

                           eBook                              978-1-5434-8842-5

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,

without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents either are the

product of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously, and any resemblance

to any actual persons, living or dead, events, or locales is entirely coincidental.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Rev. date: 07/11/2018

Xlibris

800-056-3182

www.Xlibrispublishing.co.uk

772614

CONTENTS

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 16

Chapter 17

Chapter 18

Chapter 19

Chapter 20

Chapter 21

Chapter 22

Chapter 23

Chapter 24

Chapter 25

Chapter 26

Chapter 27

Chapter 28

Chapter 29

Chapter 30

Chapter 31

Chapter 32

Chapter 33

Chapter 34

Chapter 35

In memory of Rachel

and Louis Altman, my wonderful parents, and with sincere thanks to my dear wife Greta for sharing our lovely years together.

By the author of his acclaimed autobiography: THE SHINE OF LIFE, the true remarkable adventures of a top London lawyer.

ISBN: Audio Book - 9781543487909,

eBook - 9781524597818,

Soft cover - 9781524597825,

Hardcover - 9781524597832

CHAPTER 1

H enry Jordan was rushing along as fast as he could to a very important meeting. This was no ordinary meeting and Henry (not his real name, for security purposes) is no ordinary person because he was none other than a senior Supreme Court Judge of the United Kingdom.

He had recently called an urgent meeting of all the judges of every level throughout the country for that morning. It was the beginning of June in the year 2056. This was certainly going to be one of the most important meetings of his legal career!

After much careful consideration, he had settled upon Birmingham as the venue because of its central location in the United Kingdom, making easy access for all to attend. Judge Jordan was well liked in his profession because his colleagues appreciated that he knew his law, unlike many who never knew, or had forgotten it. He was a very happy family man, and supported local causes when he had time, and had many friends whom he supported when in need.

Unfortunately for Henry, and indeed for most people, the times had become very troubled. Being out on the streets was to be avoided at all costs unless you were accompanied by your own private security guards. And, if you didn’t have your own weapon, you were more than likely to be mugged, as the best result, or killed for your possessions, at worst!

Henry had taken a chance by going on foot, after his taxi had been caught in one of the endless traffic jams caused by the enormous growth of population. In fact, he only just managed to reach the door before a moped driver whizzed by trying to mug him! Such were the lawless times.

Many people knew that drastic measures would be needed to reverse this lawless trend, but nobody seemed able to organise the resources necessary to achieve them, and to bring back Justice once more.

As you will read later, it was Judge Jordan and his assistant, Tom, who were to take on this mantle, with the co-operation of none other than the US President and the British Prime Minister. And they had not just the aid of local police forces, but also an international army that had been established by a modernised League of Nations.

But much of that later. First things first.

The judges were unhappy with their lot and were being gathered together today to do something about it all, especially about their own much degraded positions in the community.

There was a very large turnout, as it was a bank holiday in Britain. The hall was buzzing with great anticipation as the judges had been told in their invitations that the conference was not only on a subject of national interest, but was vitally important to them individually, as the keepers of Justice, and had international repercussions as well.

Henry had already taken his place on the platform and was soon introduced by the Chairman after a few opening remarks of his own.

Carefully adjusting the microphone, for he was a tall man, he addressed the gathering:-

Friends, or should I say brethren, first of all I want to thank you all for making the difficult journey here today. I know the sacrifice you must have made, giving up your precious bank holiday downtime with your families, but I am sure that you will find what I have to tell you will be very worthwhile.

Now, friends, we have all seen what a succession of different governments have gradually done, over the last few decades, to marginalise Justice in this country. Indeed this is an international problem now as every country seems to be suffering from the same malaise. If we do not face the problem square on we will only have ourselves to blame.

It is now vital that we all stand up for what we believe in, and for which some of us have made great personal sacrifices whilst undergoing the lengthy and expensive task of qualifying as lawyers, before then joining in the struggle to make a personal mark in our chosen profession.

The fact of the matter is that governments don’t really have much interest in our profession any more. They see our function as being mainly occupied with criticising their carefully and long- debated statutes, during the process of hearing, and then passing judgement, on the cases that come before us.

Although what we see ourselves doing is interpreting those laws as we see proper, Parliament sees as us interfering with them, especially if they may well have had other intentions for their laws when promulgating them.

In many cases we are able to find so- called loopholes whilst compiling our judgements but, in fact, these are simply gaps in what the parliamentary lawyers should have spotted when drafting their bills in the first place! In other cases, legislation itself has left a particular matter rather vague and we are expected to interpret what we think Parliament meant to say!

We all remember how we learned at law school, during our studies of the English legal system that, to have true Democracy, you have to have a complete separation of the courts from the executive parliaments and from the press. This is the only way that we, the judges, can ensure our true independence.

But consider this:- since the Ministry of Justice department, which pays us, is not what is termed a protected ministry, it means that any government, of whatever shade, can reduce our available funds at the drop of a hat, and run the department dry for political or economic reasons!

As our salaries and pensions are, historically, entirely provided by government out of taxpayers’ money, we are clearly not independent at all, especially when, under the guise of excuses about inflation and economic problems, our incomes and pensions have been constantly cut to the bone.

And making matters even worse, they are constantly cutting the availability and categories of legal aid so that fewer and fewer people can afford going to law. It is now only the rich who can afford to pay to have their cases heard with proper (but expensive) representation. Is that really Justice any more? Even the advocates had to threaten strike action before more money was allocated for legal aid work they were expected to do.

So who decides on our salaries? That’s right:- the Senior Salaries Review Board! And who appoints it’s chairman and members? Why, the Prime Minister of course!

As to the recruitment of judges, this is supervised by a body whose terms of reference are set by, guess who. That’s right again, the government!

Take the situation of Members of Parliament as another example. They, themselves, have often been reluctant to cede control of their pay to a body which is created, appointed, and subject to terms of reference dictated by government. So why should we any longer?

I have looked at the international scene which is no better. Take the Australian situation. They have a federal-type legal system which was established by their constitution. They have set up a Remuneration Tribunal whose chairman is actually a state judge. But, even there, all of the tribunal’s decisions on pay have to be finally approved by their parliament!

The only saving grace is that their constitution requires that there shall be no reduction in salaries once they have been set. But in fact, I have heard that during an economic recession in that country, the Prime Minister asked the judges to take a cut in their salaries but they refused, quoting the protection of their constitution.

The United States systems are no better from the judges’ point of view. Ever since their constitution was created there have been endless debates centred around the remuneration of their judges. Their federal system provides for most salaries to be approved by Congress which, of course, is once again the legislature! So there is no actual independence there either, although their constitution does make sensible provision to prevent any reduction in salaries, but only increases.

Even so, it is the extent of those increases that causes so much discontent because they do not appear to be tied to any index, such as the cost of living index or inflation. So their salaries are left behind, not because they have been reduced, which would be contrary to the constitution, but simply because they have not been allowed to keep pace with inflation!

As for the United Kingdom, don’t forget, we have found for some time that our prisons are overflowing with inmates, a number of whom are actually innocent, but who had been unable to get financial help to pay for a proper defence, which would normally have the resources to delve into the technicalities of their cases, which the individuals were not equipped to do on their own. This has led to the consequent high cost to the State of keeping them locked up in crumbling old prisons and has reduced the amount of money available for the overall maintenance of Justice itself.

Consequently, we find that the founding principle of Justice for all has become a mockery. It was said long ago Justice delayed is Justice denied, but I would prefer to add and Justice denied is Justice lost We, the judges, simply have no alternative but to take positive action now to reverse this dreadful trend, and to do everything we can to restore the Rule of Law.

How many of us can forget the old constitutional furore over Brexit, as it was called, when Britain voted to leave the European Union? After Parliament had agreed to calling a referendum and the public voted 52 per cent to come out of the Union and 48 percent wanting to stay in, the so-called Remainers, you must admit that this was a very close decision indeed as the country was virtually split down the middle.!

Nevertheless, everyone said We must give effect to the will of the people, it is the democratic way. The Remainers were naturally, but reluctantly, dragged forward with the tide, but not without doing all they could to stem the flow on the way, by proposing endless amendments whenever a vote on the terms of leaving came up in Parliament.

Then, in that case, believe it or not, you may remember from your studies, a member of the public issued proceedings asking us, the Courts, to decide whether the Prime Minister could in practice, and in such an unprecedented situation, exercise the Royal Prerogative. This meant her either being allowed in law to use ancient powers, given to her in her capacity as Prime Minister, to make decisions on her own relating to matters of state, or whether Prime Minister Theresa May had to go back to Parliament for authorisation before triggering the starting gun, (under Article 50), and then subjecting the whole matter to being debated all over again!

Many critics maintained that we, the judges, had no jurisdiction at all over parliamentary proceedings anyway, and that it was unconstitutional for us to have even entertained the case. But we decided that it was proper for us to take it on, as it was an appeal from the lower court, and we gave our judgement saying that Parliament did indeed prevail over the Prime Minister acting alone and that it, and not she, actually had the last say.

Ever since then, we have seen at what cost we took on that widely publicised case! Every few years, when our pay has come up for review, the Ministry of Justice, whilst grudgingly giving us increases in accordance with the constitution, has ensured that they have become smaller and smaller ones. Whilst abiding by the tenets of the constitution, therefore, never awarding us enough, even to keep pace with inflation.

We have constantly been deprived of funds on the back of pleas of shortage of money due to the economy, and yet court fees have been rising incessantly over the years, but these have simply become lost in the government’s coffers. Not only have our standards of living been reduced but, because of other cuts, the population as a whole is suffering from lack of access to Justice. You must surely agree that this simply goes against the grain of all that we stand for.

Take another example. The Government, back in 2017, tried to raise its income at the expense of the taxpayer by raising court fees. This however had a particular impact on the Tribunal Service because it, in turn, imposed exceptionally high fees on those wishing to take their employment cases to a tribunal. This led to many injustices as the public were prevented from having their complaints heard at all because of the punitive fees involved.

That situation also came before us in court and we decided to reverse the Government’s wishes, declaring them to be unlawful. As a result, millions of pounds of fees had to be refunded to those who had been forced to pay them, simply out of desperation to have the injustices of their cases aired.

This was yet another example of the exercise of our judicial independence in practice even though, once more as a result, we found we suffered further cuts in our income relative to inflation.

But now consider this if you will:-

It was said in the previous case that it had cost the Exchequer over £30 million in compulsory refunds, which leads me to the following point. If that amount is the extent of the Government’s income simply from a single situation, then imagine how much they have to play with in total from all the court and tribunal fees which they receive!

Yet we, who have the burden of administering Justice as judges, are denied our fair share of it. As you will hear later, what I believe we now have to do is to take the whole legal system solely into our own hands and, once and for all, away from government control.

I also recall that, soon after that case was heard, the ruling party in Poland, which was part of the European Union, promulgated their intention to assume control over the appointment and firing of the country’s judges, an extremely undemocratic idea indeed. The Union threatened the country with expulsion and so its President vetoed the idea, but you can see how easy it is to attack the independence of the judiciary when a political party gets grandiose ideas into its head.

That’s all very well, but what are we going to do about it? asked one of the judges, jumping to his feet near the front of the audience.

I’m coming to that said Judge Jordan. We have to plan very carefully because, what we decide here today, will not only affect us and our families for future generations, but it will impact on the whole country and, don’t forget, since the world has always looked up to us for our renowned expertise and the vaunted stability of our legal system, our decisions could well have vast repercussions everywhere, so we must plan extremely carefully to get it right.

Now cast your minds back. I am sure we all remember or, in the case of our younger brethren have heard about, the good old days when we were Queen’s (or King’s) Counsel. The trouble was that we then opted to apply to become judges in what we saw as the security of a regular salary and pension in return for being elevated to the heights of being a judge.

We gave up the freedom of earning our own fees but, as a consequence, we then had no choice but to rely entirely on handouts from government through it’s Ministry of Justice!

Don’t forget, before we became judges, we had been able to take on our own cases from our own connections and recommendations and we were paid directly, and handsomely too! So now I think it’s time to revert to that pleasant system, but this time in our capacity as judges, and we can then become free of all governmental control, once and for all.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I propose that we should issue a Declaration that, as from a suitable date to be determined, but as soon as possible, we will be administering the court systems entirely by ourselves. Our intention will be that they will be staffed by members of the legal profession and personnel also taken from any existing experienced legal staff. We will actually find that most of the existing day-to-day functions can be adopted without any alteration in staffing.

All cases involving civil and criminal matters will be brought directly into our newly- controlled system, together with the applicable fees and, by cutting out all waste and, for example, making better use of crowd-funding and insurance backing, we will be able, once again, to provide a fully functioning legal system for our citizens.

Of course, our courts will continue to be available to foreigners who wish to refer their cases to this country. They have always enjoyed the ability to refer their disputes to the independence of the UK jurisdiction, because of our traditional and well- known very high standard of justice, of which we have always been proud, and which has tended to be copied the world over.

Another Judge said that he happened to have been studying some interesting quotations relating to their independence. One he quoted, but couldn’t attribute to anyone, went:-

The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and that means we have to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of the political winds that are blowing.

This got