When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Wednesday 9 December 2009
Judges must not pre-judge merits of case
Judges must not pressure parties in a case to settle their dispute quickly, nor should they make up their minds about the case before hearing all the arguments.
By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent 09 December 2009
Judges must not pressure parties in a case to settle their dispute quickly, nor should they make up their minds about the case before hearing all the arguments.
This principle was underlined in a case Judicial Commissioner Steven Chong heard within a week of being appointed to the bench in October.
He made the remarks after hearing the appeal of a mini-mart operator who claimed that an earlier trial judge had been biased against him.
Mr. Sambasivam Kunju had taken the management committee of Nim Garden to court for alleged breach of contract when it changed the terms of his mini-mart lease on the Yio Chu Kang condominium premises.
He referred to comments the district judge had made during his three-day trial in March as evidence that the judge had decided on the outcome beforehand.
Among other things, the judge had told him that he did not care who was in the right or wrong, and that even if Mr. Sambasivam won, he would be awarded just $1.
The judge repeatedly told Mr. Sambasivam that he was wasting ‘everybody’s time’ and told him ‘it’s your grave you are digging’ if he continued to pursue the case.
Mr. Sambasivam said the judge’s remarks compelled him to settle the matter on the third day even though he had not finished giving evidence, as it had seemed clear that the decision would go against him. The 45-year-old, who represented himself, later took the matter to the High Court, which ordered a retrial under a different judge.
Said the judicial commissioner in a written judgment released last month: ‘This case is a timely reminder that due process is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system. It is the duty of a trial judge to allow a litigant to present his case and not to pre-judge its merits.’
He did not name the judge, and made it clear that he was basing his verdict on affidavits filed by Mr. Sambasivam, which were supported by an ex-employee and were not contradicted by lawyers for the condo management committee. He had no verbatim transcripts or tapes to go on and it would not be ‘appropriate’ for him to verify the remarks with the trial judge, he said.
He described the remarks as going beyond ‘mere discourtesy’ and could not be justified under any circumstances. They were enough for him to conclude that there had been inappropriate judicial interference and that a retrial should be ordered ‘in the interest of justice’.
The judicial commissioner also went to some lengths to explain the limits of judicial interference. A judge may ask questions during a hearing, but he must not convey the impression that he has made up his mind about the outcome.
The test would be whether a reasonable person sitting through a trial believes that it had been conducted fairly, he said, citing a Court of Appeal decision.
He also referred to a case in Britain in which a judge told a mother mid-way through the hearing that he was in favour of letting the father have contact with their illegitimate child.
The judge also warned her against continuing the case as she might be liable to pay costs. The woman agreed to let the father contact the child but later appealed for a retrial, maintaining that the judge had already made up his mind without hearing her out.
The judicial commissioner said great care must be taken not to impose any undue pressure on a party to settle a case. In this case, it should have been clear to the judge that Mr. Sambasivam was extremely reluctant to do so.
Mr. Sambasivam told The Straits Times yesterday he was grateful to be given a second chance to have his case heard: ‘Kudos should go to the judiciary and I am very happy for the way things have turned out.’
Two days ago, a closed-door meeting on his case was heard in the Subordinate Courts before District Judge Leslie Chew. It will be brought up again next month.
1 comment:
Judges must not pre-judge merits of case
Mini-mart operator’s appeal prompts Judicial Commissioner’s remark
By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
09 December 2009
Judges must not pressure parties in a case to settle their dispute quickly, nor should they make up their minds about the case before hearing all the arguments.
This principle was underlined in a case Judicial Commissioner Steven Chong heard within a week of being appointed to the bench in October.
He made the remarks after hearing the appeal of a mini-mart operator who claimed that an earlier trial judge had been biased against him.
Mr. Sambasivam Kunju had taken the management committee of Nim Garden to court for alleged breach of contract when it changed the terms of his mini-mart lease on the Yio Chu Kang condominium premises.
He referred to comments the district judge had made during his three-day trial in March as evidence that the judge had decided on the outcome beforehand.
Among other things, the judge had told him that he did not care who was in the right or wrong, and that even if Mr. Sambasivam won, he would be awarded just $1.
The judge repeatedly told Mr. Sambasivam that he was wasting ‘everybody’s time’ and told him ‘it’s your grave you are digging’ if he continued to pursue the case.
Mr. Sambasivam said the judge’s remarks compelled him to settle the matter on the third day even though he had not finished giving evidence, as it had seemed clear that the decision would go against him. The 45-year-old, who represented himself, later took the matter to the High Court, which ordered a retrial under a different judge.
Said the judicial commissioner in a written judgment released last month: ‘This case is a timely reminder that due process is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system. It is the duty of a trial judge to allow a litigant to present his case and not to pre-judge its merits.’
He did not name the judge, and made it clear that he was basing his verdict on affidavits filed by Mr. Sambasivam, which were supported by an ex-employee and were not contradicted by lawyers for the condo management committee. He had no verbatim transcripts or tapes to go on and it would not be ‘appropriate’ for him to verify the remarks with the trial judge, he said.
He described the remarks as going beyond ‘mere discourtesy’ and could not be justified under any circumstances. They were enough for him to conclude that there had been inappropriate judicial interference and that a retrial should be ordered ‘in the interest of justice’.
The judicial commissioner also went to some lengths to explain the limits of judicial interference. A judge may ask questions during a hearing, but he must not convey the impression that he has made up his mind about the outcome.
The test would be whether a reasonable person sitting through a trial believes that it had been conducted fairly, he said, citing a Court of Appeal decision.
He also referred to a case in Britain in which a judge told a mother mid-way through the hearing that he was in favour of letting the father have contact with their illegitimate child.
The judge also warned her against continuing the case as she might be liable to pay costs. The woman agreed to let the father contact the child but later appealed for a retrial, maintaining that the judge had already made up his mind without hearing her out.
The judicial commissioner said great care must be taken not to impose any undue pressure on a party to settle a case. In this case, it should have been clear to the judge that Mr. Sambasivam was extremely reluctant to do so.
Mr. Sambasivam told The Straits Times yesterday he was grateful to be given a second chance to have his case heard: ‘Kudos should go to the judiciary and I am very happy for the way things have turned out.’
Two days ago, a closed-door meeting on his case was heard in the Subordinate Courts before District Judge Leslie Chew. It will be brought up again next month.
Post a Comment