Dealing with Judges: part 1
In recent weeks we have compared the role of the judge to the role of a referee in a football match. There are of course significant differences, and I'm not just talking about the retirement age or fitness levels. Having said that, judges do have to pass a medical before they are appointed. A barrister I respect enormously made the following crushing statement about one judicial appointment. News of the appointment was widespread as was knowledge that all that was required for the appointment to be finalised was for the particular person to pass a medical. "I'm sure he will pass the medical, since they do not have psychometric testing.", was his pithy comment.
Barristers and judges come across one another frequently in the number of contexts. This is not just in court, but also at legal dinners, drinks parties and other functions. Whilst obviously a judge would not decide the case based purely upon which barrister the judge prefers, most barristers would regard it as obvious commonsense to stay in a judge's good books if they possibly can. This is because perception is always clouded by other factors.
This can be illustrated by the football analogy. A player may acquire a reputation for diving. It may be deserved, or it may not be deserved. However it is something which is impossible to ignore. Having such a reputation may mean that a referee pauses for thought before awarding a penalty where the particular player has gone down as if shot with an elephant gun. It may be that in the particular instance a penalty ought to have been awarded, but a referee like a judge has to do what he thinks is the right thing and it is next to impossible for your view not to be affected by your assessment of the individual. The same approach can be seen when a player with a "reputation" is more likely to be sent off for a bad tackle than the player who always seems to try and follow the rules.
If the judge obtains the impression that you are bright and sensible then that is better than the judge taking the view that you are dense and irresponsible. Sometimes you may have a case with a difficult point that at first sight seems completely mad, but if it is considered properly and probed actually has some merit. That is the sort of situation where a judge's view may make a great deal of difference. If it sounds like complete nonsense, but the judge would be surprised if the particular barrister would spout nonsense, the judge might be more inclined to be patient and listen on the assumption that if the judge continued to listen he or she might grasp the point. If it sounds like nonsense coming from a source where unutterable rubbish has been spouted on a number of previous occasions (whether in or out of court) a judge might understandably be more speedy to assume that it is just more of the same rather than there actually being a good point lurking in there. That is human nature. Just as an implausible story given to a teacher by a pupil with a long track record of good behaviour and honesty may be viewed sceptically but will be carefully considered, so the same story by someone who has come up with several other ludicrous assertions in the same week is likely to be rejected out of hand.