Lawyers say it is not uncommon for some judges to comment on the issues during the course of a civil suit, or even tell off one or both parties.
Unlike a criminal trial, the judge would have read the affidavits and knows the relative merits of each side’s case.
Any comments suggesting one party reconsider its position would have been made in the interest of saving both parties costs.
‘Judges know the parameters and generally do not overstep the limits of what they can say,’ said lawyer Niru Pillai of Global Law Alliance, who stressed this case was the exception rather than the rule.
He noted there were also judges who went out of their way to explain to parties not represented by lawyers the legal process and the mechanics of the particular case.
But they are careful not to cross the line.
‘When there is a perception of alleged impropriety, even if in reality it was not so, the courts would move for the case to be heard again,’ said lawyer Mark Goh.
‘This follows from the golden rule that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done,’ he added.
Lawyer Lee Terk Yang also pointed out that it is one thing for a judge to push the parties to rethink the decision and quite another to completely belittle their case.
‘However, strong remarks put to lawyers are not uncommon especially if the matters raised are frivolous.’
But in this case, the remarks were made to a litigant who was not represented by a lawyer, which Mr. Koh Tien Hua from Harry Elias Partnership felt were a bit ‘too harsh’.
As to reasons for making such comments, the lawyers contacted did not think it had anything to do with pressure on judges to clear cases quickly.
Senior Counsel Sundaresh Menon of Rajah & Tann, who was also a former judicial commissioner, said: ‘I am not concerned by this case because I don’t think this is a common situation at all.
‘Nor do I think that the courts are under any pressure to clear cases even if it compromises due process.
‘But very occasionally when a miscarriage of justice occurs, the system must be robust enough to deal with it in order to protect public confidence in the judiciary which is a vital institution in our country.
‘This is precisely what has happened in this case.’
1 comment:
Comments in civil suit ‘not uncommon’
09 December 2009
Lawyers say it is not uncommon for some judges to comment on the issues during the course of a civil suit, or even tell off one or both parties.
Unlike a criminal trial, the judge would have read the affidavits and knows the relative merits of each side’s case.
Any comments suggesting one party reconsider its position would have been made in the interest of saving both parties costs.
‘Judges know the parameters and generally do not overstep the limits of what they can say,’ said lawyer Niru Pillai of Global Law Alliance, who stressed this case was the exception rather than the rule.
He noted there were also judges who went out of their way to explain to parties not represented by lawyers the legal process and the mechanics of the particular case.
But they are careful not to cross the line.
‘When there is a perception of alleged impropriety, even if in reality it was not so, the courts would move for the case to be heard again,’ said lawyer Mark Goh.
‘This follows from the golden rule that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done,’ he added.
Lawyer Lee Terk Yang also pointed out that it is one thing for a judge to push the parties to rethink the decision and quite another to completely belittle their case.
‘However, strong remarks put to lawyers are not uncommon especially if the matters raised are frivolous.’
But in this case, the remarks were made to a litigant who was not represented by a lawyer, which Mr. Koh Tien Hua from Harry Elias Partnership felt were a bit ‘too harsh’.
As to reasons for making such comments, the lawyers contacted did not think it had anything to do with pressure on judges to clear cases quickly.
Senior Counsel Sundaresh Menon of Rajah & Tann, who was also a former judicial commissioner, said: ‘I am not concerned by this case because I don’t think this is a common situation at all.
‘Nor do I think that the courts are under any pressure to clear cases even if it compromises due process.
‘But very occasionally when a miscarriage of justice occurs, the system must be robust enough to deal with it in order to protect public confidence in the judiciary which is a vital institution in our country.
‘This is precisely what has happened in this case.’
Post a Comment