Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.


Susskind said he could find 'no principles of justice, jurisprudence or legal philosophy', to justify that position [that 'many people feel strongly that justice must be face-to-face']

As to principles of legal philosophy
see Professor Hazel Glenn, Socio-Legal Studies at University College London :
“Although Lord Bingham and some other distinguished judges have cautioned against too great a dependence on demeanour in reaching assessments of credibility, most judicial decision-makers accept that it is an important element in the finding of facts and …. part of the point of having witnesses giving evidence orally”.

And as to principles of jurisprudence, this surely includes the long-established principle as to the weight that is attached by appeal courts to the fact that the trial judge saw and heard the witnesses. See Hontstroom (Owners) v Sagaporack (Owners) [1927] AC 37 per Lord Sumner “not to have seen the witnesses puts appellate judges in a permanent position of disadvantage as against the trial judge”

Is that acknowledged disadvantage now going to become an inherent part of the judicial system at all levels, including first instance.

Your details