The idea
Article 6 of the HRA 1998 should be criminalised to perversion of the course of justice as there needs to be procedural nonsense and reality is the judge is implicitly involved in an art 6 issue
It is very very difficult to do a miscarriage of justice as this requires "inadvertence" and or likely a lack of evidence in a case different from an ommittance of evidence in a case. Therefore a miscarriage of justice should be seen as different from a "deliberate" act by a judge such that there is an article 6 hearing on appeal.
A good indicator of a judge not in control of his courtroom is a request or repeated requests for contempt of court orders in by a party to a case, or a continual or overly long delay in proceedings – the courts have electronic scheduling and the case should be moving in fortnightly or monthly time frame cycles – where it is not, then an appeal is likely and is a good indicator that a "deliberate" injustice is occurring on the case where people are currently signposted to article 6 when the issue is really a perversion of the course of justice.
Why is it important?
Judicial procedural nonsense is causing unnecessary delay on a case and forcing the issue away from the substantive issues in the case onto an article 6 procedural issue. The objective of the courts should always be to attain the substantive issues and thereby JUSTICE. The parties can always use CPR Rule 1 to attempt to settle their case "at the door of the courts". The judge's responsibility should be to get the case fairly to trial and each procedural hearing should be a necessary step in the process, not as we get in the Royal Courts procedural nonsense. Article 6 is in reality procedural nonsense and therefor should be seen for what it really is a perversion of the course of justice which is a criminal act against one or more parties to a case. Art 6 creates "victims" of a system.