Decisions of Judges

dewdrop

I am not referring to the present Court decision the subject of much publicity. However i often wondered do Judges have anyone to refer to when making decisions. I have in mind that as far as i can recall some decisions have been set aside on appeal because of an "error in law". I would have thought there should be someone available to judges to ensure this does not happen which, inter alia, has cost implications.

Marcusm

dewdrop wrote: »

I am not referring to the present Court decision the subject of much publicity. However i often wondered do Judges have anyone to refer to when making decisions. I have in mind that as far as i can recall some decisions have been set aside on appeal because of an "error in law". I would have thought there should be someone available to judges to ensure this does not happen which, inter alia, has cost implications.

The appeal, in most cases, can only be on the basis of an error in law!!

NoQuarter

I think what the OP is looking for is a consultative case stated.

Peregrinus

Judges are responsible for making decisions in their own courts; they can't defer to someone else. The litigants have a right to have the matter decided by the judge who has heard it, and to whom they have made submissions, and not by some other person whom the judge has consulted privately and confidentially, and who wasn't in court to hear the evidence and the argument.

That way, if they are dissatisfied with the decision, the litigants know exactly what it is they are appealing against.

dewdrop

What i had in mind had there been decisions made which on appeal revealed that it was not in accordance with existing law.

2rkehij30qtza5

The problem with our law is that there is too much room for interpretation and subjectiveness.
Judges decisions should be codified...like in civil law in many countries on the continent. You do a crime, you get a set sentence. There is too much leniency here, case law must be followed and quite often the sentences on foot of such case law are far too lax & the sentences just get further watered-down as cases come before the courts.

Peregrinus

dewdrop wrote: »

What i had in mind had there been decisions made which on appeal revealed that it was not in accordance with existing law.

Yes, but it's very rarely been blindingly obvious that the decision at first instance was based on a misunderstanding of the law. That has only been decided when the issue has been thrashed out in an appeal court, with arguments on both sides. There's no reason to think that someone the trial judge had a quiet word with over a ten-minute coffee would have taken the same view.

More to the point, the parties would have no way of knowing that their case had actually been decided by someone who wasn't in court, didn't hear the evidence or legal submisssions, and only knows a brief summary given to him by the trial judge, and they'd have no way of appealing his decision, since they'd have no way of knowing what it was or on what basis it was taken. In fact, they wouldn't even know he'd been involved in their case at all. And there's no reason at all to think that he'd be more likely to get the law right than the trial judge.

The Constitution requires that justice be administered in courts, by judges, in public, and that people should have a right of access to the courts to determine legal questions which affect them. Sometimes that's cumbersome and expensive, but there are sound democratic reasons for doing it that way. What you are suggesting goes fundamentally against that.

joeguevara

Marcusm wrote: »

The appeal, in most cases, can only be on the basis of an error in law!!

An individual can appeal a sentence if they feel that it is too severe. However, this sentence can be increased on appeal.

The DPP can appeal a sentence if they feel that it is too lenient!

Procrastastudy

Luis Tall Puppet wrote: »

The problem with our law is that there is too much room for interpretation and subjectiveness.
Judges decisions should be codified...like in civil law in many countries on the continent. You do a crime, you get a set sentence. There is too much leniency here, case law must be followed and quite often the sentences on foot of such case law are far too lax & the sentences just get further watered-down as cases come before the courts.

If I kill someone 20 years say? What if that person raped my daughter? What if I raped and killed a child - all 20 years?

What if through very little fault of my own, essentially, a gun is put to my head and I'm made to stash drugs? 10 years?

There can be no justice as long as laws are absolute. Sentencing has to reflect that each individual case is different. The Civil law system doesn't mean codified mandatory sentences, neither is such a feature mutually exclusive of the Common Law system; case in point we have them for drugs offences.

As NoQuarter has said - Judges can state cases, they have the legal teams in front of them telling them what their interpretation of the law is, they presumably have people to do research for them (clerks?), they can have an advisor person (I forget what they are called) in complex technical cases and there is the entire appeals process.

dewdrop

Maybe i read media reports of the recent court incorrectly but i got the impression that the Judge was not empowered to grant bail in the particular circumstances. If that were the case surely someone should have "tipped him off".

NoQuarter

dewdrop wrote: »

Maybe i read media reports of the recent court incorrectly but i got the impression that the Judge was not empowered to grant bail in the particular circumstances. If that were the case surely someone should have "tipped him off".

Sorry but if youre about to make a mistake in your job, its not like the microsoft paperclip will jump out and say "if you click that youre gonna have a bad time"!