I was quite recently involved in a hearing/trial/I don't know the technical term, and I won't go into the details, but something happened which I thought only occurs in fiction.
My friend's lawyer/barrister kept going on about how the judge we'd be seeing was in a bad mood all week. We all laughed until we realised she was being deadly serious and was basing a large part of what evidence she'd present on his mood.
I have to tell you, I think justice is a business just like any other, but this flabbergasted me. The man's mood had major relevance not only to his decision-making process but also to what kind of evidence he would entertain, and this was accepted as a given, accepted as a slightly humourous quirk of judicial process.
Am I wrong or is that just incredibly daft? In reality, the man is there to serve me, a member of the public. What bearing should his mood have on anything?
My friend's lawyer/barrister kept going on about how the judge we'd be seeing was in a bad mood all week. We all laughed until we realised she was being deadly serious and was basing a large part of what evidence she'd present on his mood.
I have to tell you, I think justice is a business just like any other, but this flabbergasted me. The man's mood had major relevance not only to his decision-making process but also to what kind of evidence he would entertain, and this was accepted as a given, accepted as a slightly humourous quirk of judicial process.
Am I wrong or is that just incredibly daft? In reality, the man is there to serve me, a member of the public. What bearing should his mood have on anything?