judgewhohe.bsky.social
English lawyer and judge. Architecturally inclined.
62 posts
160 followers
91 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Absolutely. Yet pushing up issue fees year and year in this manner just pours fuel on the fire. It is a blank cheque (the fee could be doubled and the claims would still be issued) which ends up being underwritten by D litigants who would very often qualify for HWF exemption. It's ruinous.
comment in response to
post
Certainly. But with LAs issuing s.114s left right and centre, compliance with the Code would appear (anecdotally at least) to fall away very quickly.
comment in response to
post
More than ever I wonder how society would react if a similar level of fees were introduced to the NHS. The sums that must now be paid for routine minor hearings, including Small Claims and Fast Track are rapidly becoming unaffordable for many.
comment in response to
post
Give it a couple of years and he might be onto something...
comment in response to
post
Would love to hear HH weave this into a Headhunters set
comment in response to
post
The detailing of this masterpiece (outside and in) is just outstanding. Always such a pleasure to see it.
comment in response to
post
This is not to blame LiPs for doing the above, but to observe that starving the justice system of legal aid has meant that emails such as this are now de rigueur. Boxwork is often consumed with navigating the minefield of unilateral correspondence from litigants needing assistance.
comment in response to
post
I partially agree, but the issue always is what to do in the face of non-compliance. With civil cases it is simple enough to simply vacate with a reprimand and wasted costs. Less so when a family have already been waiting so long for a hearing and desperately need progress.
comment in response to
post
You're quite right as to its clarity. Adherence to the clarity is a different matter altogether(!) It might help for a higher court to shout about the same...
comment in response to
post
"These lies include...the obtaining of a probate for the estate of Aamer Gull there was no such person distinct from the claimant himself, and he (the claimant) had not died"
Remarkable.
comment in response to
post
Lovely design. Is the existing facade 1980s?
comment in response to
post
Its most notorious case was that of Alfred "Colorado Cannibal" Packer.
Judge Gerry's sentencing remarks might be termed intemperate; "Stand up yah voracious man-eatin' sonofabitch and receive yir sintince... I would sintince ya ta hell but the statutes forbid it."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_...
comment in response to
post
It is all too easy to 'ask' a generative AI engine whether there is an authority that confirms said legal proposition, and for the 'answer' to regurgitate the question with a hallucinated authority. I suspect this sort of thing will become increasingly prevalent in court now.
comment in response to
post
"The proposition stated was materially the same as here: a foreign judgment cannot be enforced here after expiry of the limitation period applicable in the originating state... The appellants said it came to them from a German lawyer (unnamed) who was advising them informally" (§104)
comment in response to
post
In time pressured environments, a 3-page skellie will always get read before a 23-page skellie. Most over long skellies/position statements read as though they are for the lawyer's own client to appreciate how much work they have done, but are of minimal value to the judge.
comment in response to
post
Template orders across the board are basically impenetrable. Even a basic Small Claims direction to trial hides the important bits in pages of generic slush. Agree a comprehensive overhaul of all court orders would be radically welcome.
comment in response to
post
Perhaps. But tbh, in family law it is a lot less about pure law or legal principles. It is more about the factual specifics of what is said to have happened, what is happening now, and what the parties want to happen. Most of this can't readily be distilled into pictorial form.
comment in response to
post
Oh yes, 100% this. PD27A may as well not exist.
But even then, unless there is a physical bundle for the LiP, most will attend court only with their phone and when asked if they have the bundle, will point to a phone and say 'I've been emailed loads of stuff.'
comment in response to
post
Realistically I think most counsel would struggle to prepare such a document(!) However, a key benefit of courtroom attendance in person is the ability to explain face to face, even with an opponent. The soft people-skills of the Bar are significantly underrated, particularly with these discussions
comment in response to
post
Being alerted to the existence of a document when the hearing has already started is far more 'intimidating'. Being given it an hour beforehand with a face to face explanation of the function (if not the content) of the document is 100% better. It is about procedure, not necessarily comprehension.
comment in response to
post
4/4 This is particularly acute for newly qualified advocates who are perhaps more accustomed to virtual hearings/ an exclusive digital interface. But a high percentage of court users are digitally disenfranchised and will benefit from a printed document in front of them to follow along.
comment in response to
post
3/4 These small actions directly feed into the effectiveness and fairness of the hearing. It is all the more important in family cases where the court space should be collaborative, accessible and explicable. Building in-person trust/rapport before the hearing helps both parties no-end.
comment in response to
post
2/4 Asking your solicitor to email it beforehand is not (imho) an acceptable substitute. Most litigants-in-person come to court wary, defensive, and intimidated by the court setting. It is a basic courtesy to ensure they have sight of a document prepared by you. You are best placed to explain it.
comment in response to
post
"Within ten (10) days of the lunch, the parties SHALL file a joint report describing the conversation that occurred at lunch
and the amount of the tip."
Will add that to my precedent bank.
comment in response to
post
There are profound and interesting conversations to be had about Free Speech more widely: I found Gavan Titley's book very challenging on this. Personally, I wouldn't object to some mild constraints as a professional requirement if clearly delineated and justified.
www.wiley.com/en-us/Is+Fre...
comment in response to
post
Given cultural trends towards indiscreet and polemical public commentary about anything and everything, this decision will likely now encourage far more forceful and widespread judicial criticism of this sort. Which although lawful, would appear unwelcome and counter-productive?
comment in response to
post
I do wonder whether a more sensible (and productive) response to the whole situation would have been to revise the Code of Conduct to draw some pretty clear lines in the sand as to regulating public commenting on cases. Appreciate that would be a difficult exercise though.
comment in response to
post
It is an underrated judicial skill to suppress the sigh when asking "how long do you have left" and seeing them riffle though a small essay stack of further pages.
comment in response to
post
This is one of the biggest issues particularly for new/junior advocates. Missing an incredible answer or inadvertent concession and failing to follow up, just ploughing on with the next scripted question.
comment in response to
post
And to have to wait more than 2 years for this also...
comment in response to
post
It's a superb building, not least for being built over the Bolivar Tunnel with impressive environmental credentials ahead of its time.
For concept, design and construction, see here: rshp.com/projects/civ...
comment in response to
post
Absolutely superb. Thanks for sharing.
comment in response to
post
Beat me to the punch. I had been sadly musing on this precise publication earlier. Thank you for sharing.
comment in response to
post
Interesting. I would have thought that the term 'gaslighting' is no longer a niche literary one, but rather accepted as a relatively common one to summarise a known type of behaviour? It's used in plenty of DA judgments...
comment in response to
post
A lovely OUP binding, Friston on Costs is £300 compared to the aesthetically underwhelming paperback Cook at £332. Sure it's a 2022 edition, but that handsome cover factors for at least one year of legal updating...
comment in response to
post
The 2024 Ferguson paper re. the downstream effects of AI-assisted report writing on the criminal justice system (cited in this paper) can be found here:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
comment in response to
post
I do miss these sorts of delightful geographic idiosyncrasies that have gradually been flattened out under the homogenising hand of HMCTS.