What Lord Coke Had to Say About Judicial Immunity

judicial immunity, lord coke

In my blog post entitled, Why the Supreme Court Gave Judges Absolute Judicial Immunity at the Expense of Our “Guaranteed” 14th Amendment Rights in the Constitution ,one of the reasons the court gave was because Lord Coke held that a judge handling a murder trial could not be prosecuted in another court for criminal conspiracy. This had the effect of “establish[ing] the immunity of judges of courts of record.

But, notice, Lord Coke said that judges could not be prosecuted in “another court”… This did not mean that they could not be prosecuted. Nor did it mean that there were no consequences to corrupt judges. In reality, Lord Coke felt judges should go before Parliament. That would be like a judge being heard before the actual lawmakers, not the interpreters of the law.

Lord Coke on Michael de la Pole, Empson and Giles Mompesson

In regard to precedents set, Lord Coke referred to Michael de la Pole12. He was a Lord Chancellor at the time. Lord Chancellors were the highest-ranking ministers among the Great Officers of State in England with various judicial roles. He was removed from office via impeachment on charges of embezzlement and negligence.13, 14 He fled.

Lord Coke also referred to Empson who dispensed with penal laws. He caused “men to be indicted for riots and to be imprisoned and caused divers to be outlawed.” He was hanged. Then Lord Coke went on to reference the book “Mirror of Justices”. This is important because he said Parliament would travel the land to redress such grievances.16

Lord Coke also referred to Giles Mompesson. He said that “Empson was hanged, but his offense was no so great as Sir Giles Mompesson”17. Giles Mompesson was given the power in England to imprison those found guilty of producing gold and silver thread without a license. He extorted money from goldsmiths in LondonIn 1621. So, the House of Commons began investigating him for this and his licensing of inns. Mompesson was ordered to pay a £10,000 fine, lose his knighthood, and ride down the Strand facing backwards from his horse, and then be imprisoned for life. A few days later, they added banishment for life to the penalty. It was also ordered that all of Mompesson’s gains be forfeited except one annuity that went to his wife.18 was sentenced in his absence, his title and estates were stripped from him.15 He was also fined 20,000 marks.

Civil and Criminal Liability:

Please Note: For every wrong done to a person by a Justice for having released or increased any punishment contrary to law, the person wronged could receive a commission and writ to the Sheriff, or to the Lord of the fee, or to some certain judge delegate to recover damages, “not only the issues of the possessions and fees [that were in dispute], but also costs and charges and compensation for the blemish to their good names”. All remedial writs were grantable as a right by virtue of the Chancellors oath. Not only were there civil consequences, but there were criminal consequences that involved hanging judges for their actions.19

This is very contrary to what we are seeing now in that judges can break the law and legislate from the bench as discussed in a previous article. Cleary, the Supreme Court completely missed or purposely ignored the fact that there were consequences to judges who broke the law and legislated from the bench. This is the exact opposite of what we have now: Absolute judicial immunity.

As much as the Supreme Court would like to believe that judges had almost no consequences to their corrupt actions, this is just simply not the case. I encourage you to read the links attached below especially the writings of Lord Coke himself in his 3 volumes called, “Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke”. The links are in the footnotes as relevant to this information. In later articles, there will be links to his other writings which are incredibly informative as to where he stood on various legal matters.

In my next post, we will discuss exactly that: Did Lord Coke Really Say in Floyd v Barker That Judges Could Not Be Prosecuted in Another Court?

Footnotes:

12 Lord Coke, Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, Volume III, page 15

13 Powicke, F. Maurice and E. B. Fryde Handbook of British Chronology 2nd ed. London: Royal Historical Society 1961, p. 85

14 J.S. Roskell, The Impeachment of Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk in 1386 in the Context of the Reign of Richard II (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984); ISBN 0-7190-0963-4

15 Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). “Suffolk, Earls and Dukes of” . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 26 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 25.

16 Lord Coke, Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, Volume III, pages 14-17.

17 Lord Coke, Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, Volume III, pages 16.

18 Robert, Steel (1910). Bibliotheca Lidesiana. Oxford: Clarenden Press. p. 154

19 In the Mirror of Justices, page 169-171.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *