The Court of Justice values

All laws need to be interpreted, and ambiguities and uncertainties are inevitable. There are two ways of dealing with this. The first is to try to specify every detail. The second is to emphasize the purposes of legislation and the principles underlying it as a guide to interpretation by the individuals who are expected to follow it and the judges who maybe called on to adjudicate it. Modern practice is increasingly emphasizing the latter while never eschewing the former.
The proposed search for justifications of Court of Justice provides values that can inform the principles of the laws that govern those institutions. Such values provide the key to synchronizing them with ethical standard setting and institutional reform. To do this, the principles underlying new and existing legislation should be clearly stated and the text of the legislation considered to ensure that it is consistent with those principles.
The independence of a Judge has necessarily to emerge from the Constitution. And then, the old question again – Who watch the guardians - interpreters of the law?

Judges perform a critical role in integrity systems. However, the reasons for the appointment of one judge over another are rarely public and sonetimes partisan. There are four safeguards against 'stacking'. The first is the possibility of appeal and reversal against decisions made -always a potential embarrassment as well as defeating the purpose of 'stacking'. This safeguard is, of course, non-existent in ultimate appellate courts. The second safeguard is the tenure of judges. Even here there can be problems where judges can be 'promoted' to another court. The third is that judges are joining a collegial institution where the opinion of their fellow judges is important to them. This works very well where judges have been appointed by different governments with different preferences and, especially, where they have appointed individuals with strong independent views. However, where a government holds power for a long time, stacking becomes a real possibility and the abovementioned safeguards are neutered. The fourth safeguard is that their decisions and reasons given are public. While few members of the general public read them, barristers do and judges are generally very keen to be thought to have integrity and ability by those who appear before them. This may seem ironic given the formally obsequious way in which barristers address the bench in many jurisdictions. However, in spite of this, or perhaps because of it, they appear very keen on the respect of their former peers.

The use of the power to judge - a social responsability

In pursuit of its objectives, driven by power that is granted, the judge must apply the rule and take into account the evolution of society. Modernity requires an improvement of the Judge in all aspects of their training, be it legal, is the interaction with the new social parameters. The evolution of the Magistrate is, therefore, a need for the proper performance of its mission.
Given the new social reality, the judge must bear in mind that the power granted him by the state is a limited power, or power conferred on it only to promote social peace. In the exercise of jurisdiction, the judge must make use of knowledge in society, for, in applying the law to achieve the goals of the state.
The power of the judge to decide a conflict does not end in the law. It should capture the essence of social behavior, because the principles contained in the laws should find support and approval in the consciousness of the people, the sum of individual consciousness
This social behavior that the judge stress based on the interpretation of the law needs to be evaluated from the principles and guarantees laid down in the constitution, expressing the will of a dominant society.

Montesquieu writings about justice

‘There is no liberty’, ‘if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. When judges make law, they exercise legislative power.

However, the judges are not, inanimate beings who cannot or moderate its strength or its accuracy. The role of interpretation of the laws would not be exercised by a body of judges, but by a court "must", linked to the legislative body - the stamp and representative nature of potential - would represent this "supreme power" to issue the laws and therefore mitigate their equity through the rigors and interpretation. Montesquieu did not conceive, therefore, a court composed of judges chosen by the people, with the task of interpreting the law or slow the accuracy in specific cases, insofar as the function of regulation was totally separate from the administration of justice. A body with such powers would be much closer to a supreme legislative body, which represent the will of the nation. The demarcation of political space is clear, in that the legislature had, on this view, prominence over the others, and even the function of controlling them, but "forced to walk in line."

The fall

So what about justice in this country? Justice is often thought of in terms of crime and punishment. Miscarriages of justice are notoriously common around politically motivated court proceedings, but they are not in any way restricted to these types of cases. In fact the idea of singular miscarriages of justice in some ways completely misses the point.

Many of industrialised 'democracies' employs a system of justice that deliberately targets members of the working class. Basically this is a tactic of ignoring the long established link between inequality, poverty and crime and managing the results. Long term unemployment, poor housing, and alienation from any meaningful decision-making process which could improve communities combine to create an environment in decay.
It sets up the conditions for communal decay and contributes massively to what is called 'anti-social behaviour'. This is not an attempt to rationalise away or ignore the very real impact that petty crime has, both to individuals and to society as a whole, but to argue that justice can only be achieved by tackling the causes of social decline and also by treating everyone equally when judging their actions and resulting impact.