[LINK] Legal processes are not obvious [was: "Men at work" up a gum tree]
Stephen Wilson
swilson at lockstep.com.au
Fri Feb 5 09:44:37 AEDT 2010
Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 08:50:13AM +1100, Philip Argy wrote:
>> In Australia judges base their decisions on the evidence tendered in the
>> case - not on what is in Wikipedia!
> well, yes, obviously.
Actually I don't think it is at all obvious.
I think most non-lawyer members of the public believe that judges can
and do consider any information that is at hand. This presumption
underpins the occasional dismay that members of the public have when
counterintuitive sentences are handed down. It also gives licence to
shock jocks to second guess judges. "What was the judge thinking?!!"
"Why didn't they consider such and such??!!".
There are strict judicial processes that limit what judges can consider
in making their findings. Now, we can argue about the merits of the
system (and we can argue about copyright and intellectual property law)
but it's really not fair to label anyone an "idiot" in this particular
case.
Cheers,
Stephen Wilson.
More information about the Link
mailing list