Report comment

So who, exactly, have we to blame for the Jackson debacle? It is easy to name the eponymous author but how, again, was the English Legal System traduced by a mode of Court Practices that elevates Process to the primary intent of the Civil litigation system and relegates the simple concept of fair justice to another planet? Now somebody said to this Committee what they were going to achieve. This is the way our Civil Service works. Didn't any of our senior judges demur, even slightly, that it wasn't going to work? Unfortunately, I can look at Sir Rupert Jackson's CV on Wikipedia and draw my own, cynical conclusion that there goes a man with an unshakeable belief in his own ability. Given that the infamous o.17, rule 11 (9) is still a known feature of what not to do, why did someone think it could be replicated albeit by imposing rigid, unfair and unjust obligations upon the District Judiciary?
Who and why?