Skip to main content

INTRO ABOUT JUDGECRAFT WITH MALCOLM SIMMONS

Many participants are concerned about how to address the judge; others worry about where they should sit and whether they should sit or stand; these concerns add to their likely anxiety and can be dispelled by a helpful introduction and a tactful explanation.

Lay people do not understand legal jargon and technical terms (“disclosure”, “submission”, “leading question”), so keep language as simple as possible and give clear explanations where required.
Inappropriate language or behavior is likely to result in the perception of unfairness (even where there is none), loss of authority, loss of confidence in the system and the giving of offence.

A thoughtless comment, throw away remark, unwise joke or even a facial expression may confirm or create an impression of prejudice; it is how others interpret your words or actions that matters, particularly in a situation where they will be acutely sensitive to both.

Fair treatment does not mean treating everyone in the same way: it means treating people equally in comparable situations. For example, an unrepresented defendant with little understanding of law and procedure is not in a comparable situation to an experienced lawyer. It is substantive equality that counts.

When parties do not get what they would like or expect, it is particularly important that they feel they were fairly treated, fully heard and fully understood.

People who have difficulty coping with the language or procedures of the court or tribunal, and are perhaps less engaged as a result, are entitled to justice in the same way as those who know how to use the legal system to their advantage; any disadvantage that a person faces in society should not be reinforced by the legal system.

Judicial office‐holders should be able to identify a situation in which a person may be at a disadvantage owing to some personal attribute of no direct relevance to the proceedings, and take steps to remedy the disadvantage without prejudicing another party.

The sooner the disadvantage is identified, the easier it is to remedy it; where possible, ensure that information is obtained in advance of a hearing about any disability or medical or other circumstance affecting a person so that individual needs can be accommodated; for example, access to interpreters, signers, large print, audiotape, oath‐taking in accordance with different belief systems (including non‐religious systems), more frequent breaks and special measures for vulnerable witnesses can and should be considered.

Unrepresented defendants should not be seen as an unwelcome problem for the court; you may not be able to assist them with their case but you can ensure they have every reasonable opportunity to present it.

The disadvantage to defendants from poor representation is a challenging issue; consider how the representative can be managed to assist them to represent their client effectively.

People who are socially and economically disadvantaged may well assume that they will also be at a disadvantage when they appear in a court.

Those at a particular disadvantage may include people from minority ethnic communities, those from minority faith communities, those who do not speak or understand the language of the court, individuals with disabilities (physical, mental or sensory), women, children, older people, those whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual, trans‐gender people, those who have been trafficked and those who through poverty or any other reason are socially or economically marginalized.

It is for judicial office‐holders to ensure that all these individuals can participate fully in the proceedings; you can display an understanding of difference and difficulties with a well‐timed and sensitive intervention where appropriate.

Recognizing and eliminating prejudices, including your own prejudices, is essential to prevent wrong decisions and to prevent erroneous assumptions being made about the credibility or actions of those with backgrounds different from our own.

Unconscious prejudice – demonstrating prejudice without realizing it – is more difficult to tackle and may be the result of ignorance or lack of awareness.

Ignorance of the cultures, beliefs and disadvantages of others encourages prejudice; it is for judicial office‐holders to ensure that they are properly informed and aware of such matters, both in general and where the need arises in a specific case.

Stereotypes are simplistic mental short cuts that are often grossly inaccurate, generate misleading perceptions and can cause you to make a mistake.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Judge Malcolm Simmons Vindicated

On Monday Malcolm Simmons accepted undisclosed libel damages from three newspapers for online stories regarding false allegations that were the subject of investigations against him.
The newspapers accepted the stories were false and that the information on which their stories were based had not been properly checked.
The newspapers have withdrawn the allegations, removed the online stories and agreed to pay Malcolm Simmons undisclosed damages.
Neither the newspapers nor Judge Malcolm Simmons were prepared to comment on the settlement.

Audi Alteram Partem and the Duty of the Judge to Give Reasons

No defendant should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to respond to the evidence against them. Audi alteram partem is considered to be a principle of fundamental justice or equity or the principle of natural justice in most legal systems. This principle includes the rights of a party or his lawyers to confront the witnesses against him, to have a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence presented by the other party, to summon one's own witnesses and to present evidence, and to have counsel, if necessary at public expense, in order to make one's case properly. The duty of a judge to give reasons for his/her decisions is a function of due process and therefore justice.  Its rationale has two principle aspects.
The first is that fairness surely requires that the parties should be left in no doubt of the bases for the judges’ findings.  This is especially so because without a reasoned decision the losing party will not know whether the co…